Post by: ShyGuy on February 06, 2007, 06:41:56 AM
I didn't like the first one, but this is interesting.
Pap don't steal my thread!
Post by: Ian Sane on February 06, 2007, 06:50:10 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 06, 2007, 06:53:49 AM
I can imagine the gory ideas they have planned for the Wii controls...
Post by: KDR_11k on February 06, 2007, 07:02:59 AM
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 07:05:15 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 06, 2007, 07:13:24 AM
Is that really a port or a multiplatform release? I didn't consider Madden for the Cube a port because it was clearly designed to be released on multiple consoles at once.
Post by: Kairon on February 06, 2007, 07:18:12 AM
Well, this'll be my first ManHunt game then...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 06, 2007, 07:32:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The first one was banned here, I wonder if they'll censor the second one?
Couldn't they just replace everyone with robots?
Post by: couchmonkey on February 06, 2007, 07:34:05 AM
Post by: Ceric on February 06, 2007, 07:35:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBearQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The first one was banned here, I wonder if they'll censor the second one?
Couldn't they just replace everyone with robots?
Like Ninja Turtles did?
Post by: KDR_11k on February 06, 2007, 07:41:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBearQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The first one was banned here, I wonder if they'll censor the second one?
Couldn't they just replace everyone with robots?
They could but I'm not sure if they're going to do that. Isn't the entire selling point of MH that you get to brutally murder people?
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 06, 2007, 07:41:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
It's a port, but at least it's (supposedly) coming out at the same time as the PS2 version. That's a entirely different from getting Scarface or Mortal Kombat Armageddon months after initial release on other consoles. I may hate Manhunt, but this is still good news for the Wii.
Did you notice that the Wii is the ONLY next gen console the game is being released for?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on February 06, 2007, 07:43:58 AM
QuoteNow I'll finally be able to see what its like to beat someone upside the head with a baseball bat or stab them in the eye with a knife w/o any worry of police or jail time. I can finally go on that murderous rampage that I've always dreamed about but feared the consequences.
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
A gory exploitative murder simulator on a Nintendo console? Truly the times are a-changin'. Now when politicians gets on Nintendo's ass for violent videogames it'll actually be justifiable.
Post by: ShyGuy on February 06, 2007, 07:56:25 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on February 06, 2007, 08:00:08 AM
QuoteI would of course do all of this very mild tempered and never actually getting wild or out-of-control. ery thought out, planned and precise. Therefore maintaining the "Mild" in BlackNMild"
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
So much for the Mild in "Black and Mild"
Post by: couchmonkey on February 06, 2007, 08:04:01 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 06, 2007, 08:05:05 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 06, 2007, 08:11:10 AM
Post by: TrueNerd on February 06, 2007, 08:16:18 AM
Post by: ryancoke on February 06, 2007, 08:27:48 AM
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 06, 2007, 08:34:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: Adrock
It's a port, but at least it's (supposedly) coming out at the same time as the PS2 version. That's a entirely different from getting Scarface or Mortal Kombat Armageddon months after initial release on other consoles. I may hate Manhunt, but this is still good news for the Wii.
Did you notice that the Wii is the ONLY next gen console the game is being released for?
Does Rockstar have anything in the pipeline for PS3 or 360 at all? I've been thinking that the PS2's immense install base is going to draw continued development for a long time. That usually happens for at least a little while, but I think that in this case, it could go on for several years on a large scale, and for precisely the same reason that Nintendo decided to eschew an expensive technical leap. It's expensive to develop games that actually make use of the latest hardware advances, and unlike the previous generational transitions, we're not taking such a giant step forward that it's impossible to go back. That may or may not be the case with Rockstar, but I think it will be common to see games announced for the PS2 and Wii.
I think a Sony exec once said that Sony expected the PS2 to last about ten years. It sounded silly then, but now it makes perfect sense. Plus, if Sony really feels that way, then the usual pressure to move on to the new hotness won't be applied as strongly this generation. It may even be that Sony recognizes that the PS2 is their best hope against the Wii.
In fact, that scares me. The GameCube suffered under the PS2's dominance in that it was capable of better graphics, but all the multi-platform games were written for the lowest common denominator. The difference is even more pronounced between the Wii and the PS2, but there's a risk we still won't see better than PS2 graphics on the Wii unless it becomes the same sort of force in the market that the PS2 is.
Graphics aren't everything, and I certainly don't begrudge a small developer with a limited budget making a graphically simple game, or a developer making a simple looking game for artistic reasons. Still, I'd like to see the Wii pushed more often than the GameCube was.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 06, 2007, 08:38:07 AM
That's all I know for now.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 06, 2007, 08:44:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
Partybear, last I heard Rockstar had GTA 4 as an 360 exclusive. The PS3 would be getting a version later on, but supposedly they are putting all their effort onto GTA 4 for the 360.
That's all I know for now.
It would be funny if they were now building GTA4 for the Wii and "upgrading" it for Xbox 360.
Post by: Terranigma Freak on February 06, 2007, 08:47:49 AM
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 09:10:50 AM
Post by: Magik on February 06, 2007, 09:10:54 AM
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 09:12:48 AM
Now, let's all point and laugh in Jack Thompson's direction.
Post by: jasonditz on February 06, 2007, 09:20:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ryancoke
I can't freakin wait for MH2!!! I loved manhunt 1. One of my fav PS2 games. It was definately shocking to see that the sequel is coming out for the wii though. Manhunt was by far, the most violent & brutal game I have ever seen. Gears of War is a disney cartoon in comparison. The only way I could get over the violence is that the characters that you are killing are trying to kill you. They are not just innocent bystanders like in GTA. I just hope they don't edit the Wii version at all. **cough** green blood in Doom GBA **cough**
I'd put the chance of edits at near zero unless the game is a huge departure from the original. This game is the definition of a "Hard M"... no amount of green blood is going to get this thing a T rating.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 06, 2007, 09:26:41 AM
Post by: jasonditz on February 06, 2007, 09:27:27 AM
While I'm a little concerned that it may be possible for a murder simulator to be "too immersive" and go from entertaining to creepy I can't wait to try it.
Post by: ryancoke on February 06, 2007, 10:14:57 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 06, 2007, 10:17:33 AM
I'll give this a rent through Gamefly, but I likely won't buy it.
Post by: Pittbboi on February 06, 2007, 10:38:17 AM
Or they could just be making it for the Wii because it's a lot easier to put a cheap port on it than the other next gen consoles. Eh, no, I think I'll remain optimistic about this.
Just two things:
1) Nothing about this game better be Nintendo Censored. If Nintendo really wants to shed that kiddie image, the game better be as it is on the PS2 in terms of gore and story.
2) I know the PS2 is still really hot right now, and as such this game is going to most likely be developed from the ground up with the PS2's hardware in mind and then "ported" in a sense to the Wii. However, with that said, I really hope the take advantage of the Wii's power and controller and make the Wii version at least look noticeably better and run smoother and more innovative. Because, as nice as it is that the Wii is getting a game so full of gore as Manhunt, it's still not going to be a good look if both games get released at the same time and the Wii version looks no better than the PS2 version with the wiimote tacked on.
Post by: Mario on February 06, 2007, 10:41:00 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 06, 2007, 10:42:04 AM
I don't want nothing but gorefests but I don't like having nothing but fluffy-fluffy-rainbow-land either.
"Nothing about this game better be Nintendo Censored. If Nintendo really wants to shed that kiddie image, the game better be as it is on the PS2 in terms of gore and story."
Nintendo doesn't censor games anymore. BMX XXX had nudity in the Cube version but NOT the PS2 one and Resident Evil 4 has a death animation where the main character gets his head chopped off by a chainsaw. Nintendo is willing to have "mature" content on their consoles, they just didn't used to have the third party support.
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 11:05:20 AM
Quote
ryancoke wrote:
Seeing as most members of this forum are hardcore Nintendo fans, i'm not surprised to see so many "man hunt sucks" responses.
Ehh, I didn't like Manhunt for the same reason I don't like GTA or Dead Rising. It just got old after a while. It's not my cup of tea. I don't mind violent games, but they have to keep me interested. I have a Wii and I bought a 360 for my brother last year. There are better games I can get on either of those consoles than Manhunt 2.
Oh, by the way, that avatar is hilarious. I love how the button doesn't allow the user to "touch." Hahahaha... genius....
Post by: jasonditz on February 06, 2007, 11:12:10 AM
Post by: MaryJane on February 06, 2007, 12:52:02 PM
It's not in the terms of epic, but it's a distraction every now and again when you don't feel like sitting down and concentrating on a game. Every time I picked up Zelda I knew I was going to play for at least an hour, same thing with Madden, so I would play WiiSports just to play for 5 - 20 minutes and move on.
That's what manhunt is, I'm not a fan of GTA but it's o.k in that respect also, but manhunt 1 was far superior, because it actually played like a game, with a point, rather than missions as an afterthought.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 06, 2007, 12:53:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Ohhhhh, this is exciting. The fact that this game is coming to the Wii only of the next gen consoles is a great indication that Wii really is going to shed the Nintendo is for kids image.
Or they could just be making it for the Wii because it's a lot easier to put a cheap port on it than the other next gen consoles. Eh, no, I think I'll remain optimistic about this.
Just two things:
1) Nothing about this game better be Nintendo Censored. If Nintendo really wants to shed that kiddie image, the game better be as it is on the PS2 in terms of gore and story.
2) I know the PS2 is still really hot right now, and as such this game is going to most likely be developed from the ground up with the PS2's hardware in mind and then "ported" in a sense to the Wii. However, with that said, I really hope the take advantage of the Wii's power and controller and make the Wii version at least look noticeably better and run smoother and more innovative. Because, as nice as it is that the Wii is getting a game so full of gore as Manhunt, it's still not going to be a good look if both games get released at the same time and the Wii version looks no better than the PS2 version with the wiimote tacked on.
Pittbboi saying something positive about Nintendo? I am shocked, not sure I can recover!
Post by: Kairon on February 06, 2007, 01:02:23 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on February 06, 2007, 01:28:13 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 06, 2007, 01:31:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis And it looks like the kiddy image on the Wii right now is small to nil where the system would be called kiddy is by the immature/misinformed or blind Sony and/or Microsoft fanboys.
I believe the expression is, "Kids games like "Manhunt 2", right?"
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 02:02:33 PM
"This game is not yet rated."
hahahahahahaha.....
By the way, they don't show gameplay (as expected) so I guess we'll have to wait a little longer to see how this looks on Wii.
Post by: Kairon on February 06, 2007, 02:17:46 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 06, 2007, 02:18:19 PM
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 02:46:53 PM
I know, IGN sucks, but if you're patient enough to sit through all the buffering, it's up there... though in 17 seconds it'll probably be on youtube and you can squint through the whole thing.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 06, 2007, 03:40:58 PM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 06, 2007, 04:01:34 PM
I know that this is a teaser, and teasers shouldn't show much. But some gameplay footage, or at least give us a glimpse of what to expect would've been appreciated.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on February 06, 2007, 05:38:48 PM
LMAO, seriously, I did outloud, great avatar 
especially the can't "touch this" part.now onto
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
EVERYONE BUY THIS GAME SO WE GET GTA4.
That is why I shall buy this game even though I don't have a real interest in playing it. I am going to support the greater cause. I want the Wii to be the next PS2 even if that means that every single PS2 game worth a mention that comes out over the next two years is co-developed for Wii at the same time then GREAT!! I'm all for it. Wii will be the safe haven for all gamers. All the PS2 fans that feel betrayed by Sony and their outrageous pricing of the PS3 can find a new home on the Wii and all those X360 fans that are too proud to ever buy a PS3 can find thier way over to the much hyped Wii60 camp and never have to look back.
And if Nintendo does plan to release a (bluetooth)headset w/ mic then I hope they bundle it in with this game and don't save it for Mario Party 8/9/10 (I have no idea what # they are up to). I hear from others that the game(MH1) was a much better experience with the headset on.
Post by: son of lucas on February 06, 2007, 05:54:22 PM
Post by: Kairon on February 06, 2007, 06:09:13 PM
/cry
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on February 06, 2007, 06:21:43 PM
QuoteBecause then more Nintendo faithful will buy it. I know it won't happen, but then I wouldn't have to try and locate the damn headset seperately. Have you tried buying extra controllers?
Originally posted by: son of lucas
Why would Nintendo bundle with a 3rd party game?
p.s. I haven't been inside of a store since near the end of Jan. so excuse me if controllers are all of a sudden available.
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 07:06:55 PM
Anyway, I bought an extra sometime in December and I pre-ordered Wii Play.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on February 06, 2007, 07:23:37 PM
I have a friend that is a bit older than me and he lets his sons play this game all the time. They were 5 & 8yrs old at the time(about a year ago I think). The 5 year old LOVES this game and would always run out to tell me about it, and I would just brush it off like it was nothing cause I didn't expect to see what I just saw in that video. I'm guessing its more disturbing put all back to back like it is the video, but this has got to be putting up some red flags over at Nintendo.
I don't even want to imagine how the press is gonna react to the Wiimote controls for this game, or how the non-gamers/casuals that Nintendo worked so hard to get the attention of, are going to react to the press.
With seeing how disturbing the first game appears to be in its compressed presentation, I can't believe that they are not only making a sequel, but are releasing it on a Nintnedo console...
PS2 & PSP versions rated M - Wii version rated AO?
1:1 wiimote controls and this will be a day 1 "murder simulating" purchase
Post by: Kairon on February 06, 2007, 07:52:51 PM
Don't blink. I'll buy it. AND I'll buy Wing Island. I'll buy both.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: King of Twitch on February 06, 2007, 07:54:45 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 07, 2007, 12:50:10 AM
Over here Manhunt is banned, that means if they find it in your possession you can go to jail. Meanwhile quite a few games on the "rated AO" list are rated 16 or lower here simply because we don't think a few exposed genitals are worse than depicting murder and encouraging the player to do that as brutally as possible.
I also don't think this will attract much attention from Jackass Thompson, that guy didn't raise a ruckus over Manhunt on the PS2. He only cares about games people actually buy.
Post by: ShyGuy on February 07, 2007, 01:05:51 AM
On the subject, I need to do a photoshop of Dewy getting stalked by the Manhunt killer.
Post by: ryancoke on February 07, 2007, 02:33:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
Did anyone watch the teaser trailer?
"This game is not yet rated."
hahahahahahaha.....
By the way, they don't show gameplay (as expected) so I guess we'll have to wait a little longer to see how this looks on Wii.
The dude in the trailer with the dark rimmed glasses totally looks like me!! I want royalties RockStar!!
Post by: Ceric on February 07, 2007, 03:06:41 AM
Post by: Artimus on February 07, 2007, 03:19:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
This thing wasn't rated AO on the PS2, it won't be rated AO on the Wii. Manhunt is the definitive proof that the US American moral system is completely screwed up. Singles getting a stricter rating than Manhunt???
Over here Manhunt is banned, that means if they find it in your possession you can go to jail. Meanwhile quite a few games on the "rated AO" list are rated 16 or lower here simply because we don't think a few exposed genitals are worse than depicting murder and encouraging the player to do that as brutally as possible.
I also don't think this will attract much attention from Jackass Thompson, that guy didn't raise a ruckus over Manhunt on the PS2. He only cares about games people actually buy.
LOL. I'm not American but I agree with ShyGuy. Thinking sex is worse than violence may be silly, but it's not as bad as censorship. Not even close.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 07, 2007, 04:09:07 AM
Games are media. Some media are illegal. Take e.g. child pornography or snuff videos. You go to jail for those. Glorifying violence makes this game about as bad as Nazi propaganda in the eyes of the law.
EDIT: Okay, to clarify you don't go to jail for having the game but giving it away is a crime (and I think you can be had for violating some law if you import it which is the only way to get it at all since stores can't sell it). It was confiscated so technically noone should have it. The ban obviously applies to warez versions, too.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 07, 2007, 05:07:21 AM
Child porn and snuff videos are actual videos of criminal acts though. Violence in movies or videogames is faked. Someone didn't actually get killed to provide your entertainment. No one actually gets hurt in Manhunt. It's all polygons that look like people.
I think the North American attitude towards nudity versus violence is that the nudity in a film is real. That's a real naked person so maybe you don't want your kid seeing a real naked person. However all movie violence is fake. You're not actually watching real violence. Plus kids are aware of violence most of their lives but normally aren't familiar with sex. With sex you can keep your child's innocence a little longer. But they're going to see blood the second they scrape their knee.
Jack Thompson didn't go nuts over Manhunt because he doesn't know sh!t about games. His "knowledge" comes from what his supporters tell him. GTA got focused on because it was incredibly popular. It's like how there were games with blood before Mortal Kombat or Doom BUT those games were so huge that the politicians that don't play games found out about them.
Post by: jasonditz on February 07, 2007, 05:24:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Games are media. Some media are illegal. Take e.g. child pornography or snuff videos. You go to jail for those."
Child porn and snuff videos are actual videos of criminal acts though. Violence in movies or videogames is faked. Someone didn't actually get killed to provide your entertainment. No one actually gets hurt in Manhunt. It's all polygons that look like people.
I think the North American attitude towards nudity versus violence is that the nudity in a film is real. That's a real naked person so maybe you don't want your kid seeing a real naked person. However all movie violence is fake. You're not actually watching real violence. Plus kids are aware of violence most of their lives but normally aren't familiar with sex. With sex you can keep your child's innocence a little longer. But they're going to see blood the second they scrape their knee.
Jack Thompson didn't go nuts over Manhunt because he doesn't know sh!t about games. His "knowledge" comes from what his supporters tell him. GTA got focused on because it was incredibly popular. It's like how there were games with blood before Mortal Kombat or Doom BUT those games were so huge that the politicians that don't play games found out about them.
You can go to jail for possession of lolicon anime porn too...
Post by: KDR_11k on February 07, 2007, 05:31:04 AM
The exact law:
Quote
Section 131 Representation of Violence
(1) Whoever, in relation to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), which describe cruel or otherwise inhuman acts of violence against human beings in a manner which expresses a glorification or rendering harmless of such acts of violence or which represents the cruel or inhuman aspects of the event in a manner which injures human dignity:
1. disseminates them;
2. publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;
3. offers, gives or makes them accessible to a person under eighteen years; or
4. produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of numbers 1 through 3 or facilitate such use by another,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine.
(2) Whoever disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in subsection (1) by radio, shall be similarly punished.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply if the act serves as reporting about current or historical events.
(4) Subsection (1), number 3 shall not be applicable if the person authorized to care for the person acts.
Note that "writing" means all media, not just text.
Plus kids are aware of violence most of their lives but normally aren't familiar with sex. With sex you can keep your child's innocence a little longer.
Perhaps you mean "dumb parents believe that..." because all that hiding sex from your children results in is teen pregnancy. I'm not saying you should show your five year olds porn but neither should you show them Terminator.
Post by: ryancoke on February 07, 2007, 05:31:05 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 07, 2007, 05:40:23 AM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on February 07, 2007, 06:45:11 AM
Post by: darknight06 on February 07, 2007, 08:18:25 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 07, 2007, 08:46:39 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Mario on February 07, 2007, 10:17:10 AM
Also I think there's a HUGE HUGE difference between violence in movies and violence in games. In movies you're just watching it, if you just happen to witness a murder or something in real life you're not going to go to jail. In games you're DOING it. It's still not real but it's getting scarily close which I think is just unecessary.
Post by: MaryJane on February 07, 2007, 11:18:33 AM
Post by: Adrock on February 07, 2007, 11:28:31 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 07, 2007, 11:30:43 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 07, 2007, 04:31:00 PM
Post by: darknight06 on February 07, 2007, 06:47:25 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 07, 2007, 08:34:11 PM
Post by: Nephilim on February 08, 2007, 01:43:13 AM
Quote99% snuff video's are fake but they are still illegal
Child porn and snuff videos are actual videos of criminal acts though. Violence in movies or videogames is faked. Someone didn't actually get killed to provide your entertainment. No one actually gets hurt in Manhunt. It's all polygons that look like people. I think the North American attitude towards nudity versus violence is that the nudity in a film is real. That's a real naked person so maybe you don't want your kid seeing a real naked person. However all movie violence is fake. You're not actually watching real violence. Plus kids are aware of violence most of their lives but normally aren't familiar with sex. With sex you can keep your child's innocence a little longer. But they're going to see blood the second they scrape their knee. Jack Thompson didn't go nuts over Manhunt because he doesn't know sh!t about games. His "knowledge" comes from what his supporters tell him. GTA got focused on because it was incredibly popular. It's like how there were games with blood before Mortal Kombat or Doom BUT those games were so huge that the politicians
whole noone gets hurt thing doesnt work here....
Post by: Ian Sane on February 08, 2007, 04:44:22 AM
whole noone gets hurt thing doesnt work here"
Well I think in theory it's supposed to work like that but in typical fashion good ideas get taken over by extremists. Thus fake snuff films and animated kiddy porn are as illegal as the real thing. But then most of the population is grossed out by stuff like that (myself included) so there isn't much fuss when that sort of thing is illegal.
Personally I'm fine with simulated violence as long as you put a warning on the box to let me know what I'm in for so if I'm a parent I can make good choices about what my kids are allowed to watch and I can also avoid content that I just personally don't feel comfortable with. So there's no censorship but there's still responsibility. It's win-win but Jack Thompson types don't see that or more likely they do but just don't care.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 08, 2007, 04:55:45 AM
Post by: jasonditz on February 08, 2007, 10:01:47 AM
In general, is a serial murder simulation suitable for your kid or isn't it? If it is, I can't imagine where you'd find Manhunt uniquely objectionable. And if there is any doubt the parents have any number of sources for additional information (including asking some guy at the store).
I've had parents ask me questions like that... and I don't even work in a store, they just come up while I'm shopping and ask "do you know anything about Prince of Persia" or whatnot.
Post by: Kairon on February 08, 2007, 10:35:18 AM
But..but... CYNTHIA RHODES WOULD BE THE GREATEST M RATED GAME EVAR!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 08, 2007, 11:00:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I don't think the content descriptors for Manhunt indicate that it's much worse than, say, Unreal Tournament. Of course the name should have been a clue but still, I don't think a parent can know just from the ESRB notice that Manhunt is much worse than the average violent videogame.
The Toys R Us near here keeps all M rated games behind glass behind the counter.
With visual clues like that, it should be pretty clear to parents that something is up with these games.
Post by: Kairon on February 08, 2007, 11:02:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I don't think the content descriptors for Manhunt indicate that it's much worse than, say, Unreal Tournament. Of course the name should have been a clue but still, I don't think a parent can know just from the ESRB notice that Manhunt is much worse than the average violent videogame.
The Toys R Us near here keeps all M rated games behind glass behind the counter.
With visual clues like that, it should be pretty clear to parents that something is up with these games.
Really? Are you sure the parents don't think it's the videogame equivalent of a McDonald's Menu?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 08, 2007, 11:05:21 AM
Post by: jasonditz on February 08, 2007, 02:16:28 PM
I was playing tons of "M for Mature" type games when I was a kid... granted this pre-dates the ESRB, but its not as though my parents were totally mystified by the content of some of these games. Many times I'd specifically show my mom some of the worst parts of those games... like "hey mom, watch, I'm going to rip this guy's spine out".
Post by: Kairon on February 08, 2007, 02:57:57 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on February 08, 2007, 07:40:07 PM
With visual clues like that, it should be pretty clear to parents that something is up with these games.
Problem is that any somewhat violent game gets the M rating and games like Quake are harmless compared to Manhunt while the parent has no way of telling that one is worse than the other.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 09, 2007, 03:04:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Problem is that any somewhat violent game gets the M rating and games like Quake are harmless compared to Manhunt while the parent has no way of telling that one is worse than the other.
That's because the M rating is inherently flawed. There's only a one year difference between the age recommendations for M and AO games. That's just stupid. We'd all be better served if the M rating was for 16 year olds and more games were rated AO. I know, there's still only a year difference between the current M rating and my idea, but I think it would result in stuff like Manhunt being rated AO because it makes it just that much harder to rate it as appropriate for minors.
The name of the rating is foolish, too. "M for Mature" is a perfect marketing slogan for selling anything to kids. It should be named something dry and boring, like T16+ in keeping with E10+, or maybe DBTFYKS for "Don't Buy This For Your Kids, Stupid!"
Post by: Ceric on February 09, 2007, 03:27:21 AM
Personally with how M is there is a lot of games I think should just go ahead and get AO because there not for kids and M is such weak sauce. They need to strenghten it. THere are a lot of games that should be T with a few warnings on them not M. That way the games that truly deserve it can have it.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 09, 2007, 05:19:32 AM
Ideally there shouldn't be a rating for every game, though I think the ESRB is a good way to try to fend off government regulation. I think a game with the sort of content that would require an R-rating for a film (graphic violence, nudity, profanity) should have a warning rating on it (like the explicit lyrics tag for music albums) and everything else should have nothing. In the past games were either appropriate for kids or they weren't. I think a method like that would make things more consistent and we won't see as many wishy-washy ratings that make no sense.
Post by: JonLeung on February 09, 2007, 05:43:00 AM
QuoteActually, I remember overhearing a mom in a game store when Donkey Kong Country was new. She was asking a clerk about it. "Is this game okay? I don't want violent games where they beat each other up, like that Street Fighter." Sure, the ESRB was new (I believe Donkey Kong Country was the first Super NES game to have a rating, and that was K-A, the equivalent of E), so maybe she wasn't aware of the rating, but I thought it was pretty ridiculous that she would think that Donkey Kong was anything like that. I don't remember how old the kid was, but I remember thinking that he was certainly capable of handling the "brutality" of Street Fighter II. I suppose it's good that she asked, though, it shows that she's concerned (even if overly so).
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I agree that rating system is a great idea executed poorly. All sorts of tame stuff gets an 'M' or 'T' and doesn't deserve it. Honestly I think anything that no one would have cared about in the pre-ESRB days should get an 'E'. They give Street Fighter II a 'T' but NO ONE complained about their kids playing that game when it came out.
From what I know of Manhunt, I think it ought to be AO. There are too many M-rated games that are tame and if I was a parent, I might let some of my teenage kids play some of them. But I'm less likely to be as willing to allow them to play Manhunt.
Shooters like Halo are rated M, aren't they? I could be wrong about Halo. But even so, there are likely games LIKE Halo that get an M. I don't think shooting mostly alien beings with fantastical sci-fi weapons should be in the same category as Manhunt. Even when you're shooting other humans, they're armored and it's not that gory.
Even M-rated games where you kill people realistically like in the Hitman games shouldn't be in the same category. If Hitman: Blood Money is an M, Manhunt is a step up. The difference is that Hitman encourages "clean" kills, and discourages unnecessary kills. In Manhunt, you're killing more people in gory fashion, using common items more often than in Hitman. Also, Manhunt deals with themes other than killing (like psychoticism).
The difference between M and AO is just one year, though, so I think the descriptors need to be better.
The ESRB should have video clips on their web site of examples of some of the "worst" stuff in each game. That would help a lot. Or at least a more detailed textual description.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 09, 2007, 06:53:30 AM
I think Halo is 'T'. FPS games tend to get at least 'T' ratings and then get bumped to 'M' if there's a fair bit of blood. Goldeneye got a 'T' and then Perfect Dark added words like "b!tch" and had the bodies leave noticable pools of blood and thus got an 'M'.
Edit: Looked it up. Halo is an 'M'. Nevermind. Guess I should have done the five seconds of research prior to clicking "submit".
Post by: Kairon on February 09, 2007, 07:24:25 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 09, 2007, 07:35:13 AM
Sneak up on a target from behind, cover their mouth, drive a knife into their torso side, twist it, wait for him to stop making noise, switch to your silenced pistol and advance further into harm's way, using motion controls.
Post by: utarefsoN on February 09, 2007, 04:10:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Soooo... when will those darn *Rockstar people port over the GTA PSP/PS2 "Stories" games? When will they port over Warriors? When When When?!?!?!?!?! So many Rockstar games I'd buy if only they came out on a console I owned!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
when Manhunt sells well on the rev. Until them i suspect they are gonna take a wait and see approach. If it does well Rockstar being the capitalist that they are will promptly port evrything they got. And all other developers will follow. It all depend on our support. So everyone buy Manhunt the day it comes out! I for one will preorder. And if its an AO rating i shall buy two. An AO rating on a Nintendo console... a collectors item to be no doudt.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 10, 2007, 04:29:02 AM
Hmm...
Post by: MaryJane on February 10, 2007, 04:31:40 AM
They said they're "expecting" the game to get an 18+ rating.
Post by: Artimus on February 10, 2007, 06:30:03 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 10, 2007, 08:55:23 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 10, 2007, 08:58:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: utarefsoNQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Soooo... when will those darn *Rockstar people port over the GTA PSP/PS2 "Stories" games? When will they port over Warriors? When When When?!?!?!?!?! So many Rockstar games I'd buy if only they came out on a console I owned!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
when Manhunt sells well on the rev. Until them i suspect they are gonna take a wait and see approach. If it does well Rockstar being the capitalist that they are will promptly port evrything they got. And all other developers will follow. It all depend on our support. So everyone buy Manhunt the day it comes out! I for one will preorder. And if its an AO rating i shall buy two. An AO rating on a Nintendo console... a collectors item to be no doudt.
Huzzah! I'm doing the exact same thing!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Mario on February 10, 2007, 12:52:49 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on April 12, 2007, 05:27:58 PM
Trailers is up. SIgn up for free at Gamespot, or wait a bit and somebody will surely post it on youtube.
Post by: ShyGuy on April 12, 2007, 06:04:29 PM
Illegal monkey experiments? Yes please.
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 12, 2007, 06:15:00 PM
Ah well.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 12, 2007, 06:24:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Damn. Shows little to no actual gameplay footage.
Ah well.
Shouldn't you be in bed?
Also, aren't you offended that they are doing experiments on YOUR people??
Post by: Nemo on April 12, 2007, 07:18:35 PM
Post by: Caliban on April 12, 2007, 07:26:55 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 13, 2007, 12:20:28 AM
Quote
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Damn. Shows little to no actual gameplay footage.
Ah well.
Shouldn't you be in bed?
Also, aren't you offended that they are doing experiments on YOUR people??
I hope you're not implying what I think you are.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 13, 2007, 05:38:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: The OmenQuote
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Damn. Shows little to no actual gameplay footage.
Ah well.
Shouldn't you be in bed?
Also, aren't you offended that they are doing experiments on YOUR people??
I hope you're not implying what I think you are.
The bed thing: Before the post I was talking to him and his mother over the phone. Before we finished the call, he told me he was very tired and awake since 6:30 AM and was driving his father all day long. So imagine my surprise when I see him posting very late in the night, especially after he told me he was tired out of his mind.
The monkey thing: Its all one huge in joke between our group of friends.
Post by: ShyGuy on April 27, 2007, 08:28:06 AM
http://computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=162841
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 27, 2007, 09:51:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
I hope you're not implying what I think you are.
He didn't mean Italians, he meant monkeys, since I resemble one in so many ways.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 19, 2007, 11:53:37 AM
I expect a press release addressing this by Monday morning
edit: I should add that the sticker is added on by HMV and not an actual part of the boxart
just adding that for those that may have thought otherwise.
Post by: ThePerm on May 20, 2007, 08:01:05 AM
Post by: Gamebasher on May 20, 2007, 11:05:37 AM
Manhunt sickens me, and I just hope for you people who have played the original, and who plan to play the sequel, that it all makes sense in some good and not bad way. I have heard that some people are helped getting rid of anger and so not goes and do it "for real" by playing such games. Why do they harbour such anger, that they have to simulate smashing people? I have had my rage, and it always only comes out in the way of giving people a good telling in their face (in my head, and sometimes for real allthough rare in order to avoid fighting), but never ever to the extent of smashing them in an orgy of sadistic rage.
The way I see it, that game will increase a persons acceptance of violence in hitherto in games unseen hideous ways. Not only because the player who buys and plays through it accepts maiming and smashing other people for a reward, but also because playing it in the game constitutes the same as to go and do it for real - on the m e n t a l level. How can I say that? Because: everything a human body can do to another human body of evil starts in the brain. If you kill somebody in the street for real, you do it through the control of the brain. If you play it in a game, it is the same. Here the conscious CHOICE to hurt somebody starts. On the MENTAL level! Being Link in the Legend of Zelda series is to me far from the same, since the killing part is done by nesscesity alone to save Hyrule and not by pleasure. Manhunt is a game about killing for fun! There is NO reason for the kills other than for fun! Understand it any which way you want. I believe I am right.
And allthough not necessarily making a next-day killer out of a person who revels in it, it will certainly leave its mark on the player in various unpredictable ways. And this has been proved. By among other: IGN. They ran an article series back in 2005 which made mention of psychological tests that proved beyond doubt that violent media makes people violent ( I have it printed out, so I can give you the link to it if it still exists), and this had been tested to death and found credible. So games that encourage a player to go and do horrific things to people in the game, are games that makes a certain man by the name of Jack very angry. And I am one of those people who do understand him so well.
I am just glad it is not me who plays such games.
The very reason why I started to play Nintendo games in the first place was because of the bright, beautifull sprites, the fun in the gameplay, the music, and the wonderfull Nintendo atmosphere somehow there in every one of their games. But the way I see it Manhunt is a step in the wrong direction, a game which is living proof that some people´s entertainment choices have changed in a very dramatic way from how it all used to be once upon a time...
Post by: The Omen on May 20, 2007, 12:00:00 PM
Quote
But the way I see it Manhunt is a step in the wrong direction, a game which is living proof that some people´s entertainment choices have changed in a very dramatic way from how it all used to be once upon a time...
Yeah, the good old days before that blasted rock and roll littered our kids brains, and then that damn women's movement really set us back. Lets nor forget about the metal music causing kids to kill themselves...oh yeah, Doom made us into killing machines too!
Give me a break. You know what has caused the corruption of society? Lack of responsibility. Plain and simple. Why is it that some countries are affected by this "violent media", but others are left wholly indifferent? Where's your study into that aspect? There isn't one because it's common sense. We live in a country where family is a thing of the past. Kids grow up too quickly now because parents are at work, or out of their lives all together, and they want to lash out.
Post by: Ceric on May 20, 2007, 01:22:18 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on May 20, 2007, 01:47:17 PM
QuoteDid you ever play it?
Being Link in the Legend of Zelda series is to me far from the same, since the killing part is done by nesscesity alone to save Hyrule and not by pleasure. Manhunt is a game about killing for fun!
Post by: cubist on May 20, 2007, 08:18:35 PM
The other issue I see being discussed is how the Wii Remote maybe a little too close to reality. The Godfather: BE is definitely a good example. While the choking controls are undeniably fun and life-like, if we think about what how the Wii Remote controls are going to be used in Scarface and Manhunt, it may catch a little controversy...and I'm sure the media's going to blow it out of proportion. Luckily for Nintendo, there are other ports of the game, so it won't catch a lot of attention.
Here's my whole point on this Wii Remote issue and I'm echoing what's already been said time and time again. Responsibility! Parents/Guardians concerned about this issue really need to focus on what their own children are playing. I was raised in a gang-infested environment and was exposed to a lot of bad sh*t growing up. I'm sure some people here can feel me on this. A lot of the guys I used to hang out with are either locked up or dead. Despite it all, my parents helped me to live through it and instilled self-discipline to help me progress in my adult life. I'm almost 30 years old...an avid video game fanatic (more Nintendo loyalist than anything else), and I watch over my young ones to limit the different stimuli that they may be exposed to by society. They're doing just fine.
Another aspect of gaming is its no different from movies and music...all have rating systems and all consider themselves forms of art (whether you agree with them or not)...but I'm sure this is a point that's been made before too. The bottom line is if you don't like what you're seeing, don't buy it! Some of us actually like the progress Nintendo has made this generation.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 20, 2007, 08:41:11 PM
Wii is in for an exciting ride of EVEN MORE 3rd party gaming variety and success.
Post by: Gamebasher on May 21, 2007, 10:32:02 PM
"Yeah, the good old days before that blasted rock and roll littered our kids brains, and then that damn women's movement really set us back. Lets nor forget about the metal music causing kids to kill themselves...oh yeah, Doom made us into killing machines too!
Give me a break. You know what has caused the corruption of society? Lack of responsibility. Plain and simple. Why is it that some countries are affected by this "violent media", but others are left wholly indifferent? Where's your study into that aspect? There isn't one because it's common sense. We live in a country where family is a thing of the past. Kids grow up too quickly now because parents are at work, or out of their lives all together, and they want to lash out."
My reply:
I don´t know what you mean, when you write that some countries are left unaffected and others not. To me, this violence in the media is a scourge which saturates society affecting every person in the world who play games, or watch really violent movies. Sometimes I feel that the reason why there has been a surge in police brutality, militarization of the Police is because they deal with ever increasing brutality from people in society, and so have to take their precautions, and be ready to strike when the unavoidable happens. When people boil over in their brains.
I love Nintendo´s own games because they are fun, exciting and beautifull to look at. However I also loved playing Halo 1 and 2 and will certainly love to get to play (droooooool...) Halo 3! I feel uplifted when I play those games - the exact opposite when I get anywhere near Manhunt, Grand Theft Auto, Godfather. Being a soldier with a justified mission to save other people from the enemy is making sense. Manhunt isn´t. While I do understand some peoples desire to experience, and live out the role of a killer without doing it for real (and perhaps in that process alltogether eliminating any pre-existing, and for whatever the past reason subdued, subconscious-) tendencies or cravings in the direction of killing, maiming, beating to a pulp other people - I still feel that the gaming industry has an equal responsibility for rearing the players, and not just throw anything at them to make a buck.
The way I experience it on a personal level, is that if I play something as violent as Manhunt, I get to feel like I step down to a lower, cruder level of existence, and I suddenly feel I am nolonger myself. I feel like I become less caring about violence, hurting somebody and I DON´T like that feeling. So I stay away from playing such games. You mentioned Doom, and that it did not make us killing machines. No, it didn´t, because according to the way I see it AGAIN there is a perceived justification for wiping out the monsters in that game - your own survival! You have to save that Martian base at Olduvai from destruction, and so it makes perfect sense to go and kill the monsters. Nomatter how much blood and gore is involved! You just have to clean up. Manhunt is a completely different quest. While I didn´t play it S-U-P-E-R, since I felt sick over it, I have heard what it is about from reviewers, and they say it is about being rewarded for killing people in the most violent ways. I have seen the screenshots from the sequel, where one sees some inmates beating another inmate to what looks like death. Fun, huh?
A guy working for EB games told me he had tried the first game for a short while, and had dropped it since he felt it wasn´t entertaining. I understand him well: The more violent, the more points! Where is the justification in that? Wanting to "lash out"? Is that the reason? Hey, I can see other more healthy ways of lashing out than killing people in the most violent ways! While I don´t want to preach, I do want to state that the integrity of a nation requires a healthy amount of cohesion, power of cohesion in that society in order for it to function properly. If it becomes a major trend to find it entertaining to kill people brutally for fun in games (and I DON`T refer to House of the Dead, Time Crisis or other Arcade shooters which are quite innocent by comparison as they still have a justification for killing), where is the next step? And where do you think that is going to take us? I think that if we just stand idle and do nothing but follow the lead, then things will one day get out of hand and destroy society alltogether.
People make up society, families make society as they are the building blocks of same. I wouldn´t want to be in a society where everything suddenly gets "out of hand". And I think that we have already started to see the consequence of lowering our tolerance of violence in the media everywhere in the form of the many highschool shootings! Have you ever thought of whether the people who make psychological surveys to establish the effects on people of various outside sources in daily life are perhaps right when they conclude that violent media (and especially violent games since the player here is the one making the conscious choice to perfrom the act of maiming, beating) makes people more violent? That it is not just about not playing a game like that, but about me being concerned for where it takes people on the mental developement level? Manhunt is a MURDER simulator - period. What is the next thing they come up with a Rockstar? A Cannibalism simulator? Yeah...let´s have some of that. I always loved that woman walking by me, and wanted to eat her...muhahaha! Let´s eat her heart out. I really looove you now, don´t I woman? Or that annoying, stressed out idiot who always annoys me as he walks by in the street now and then. Let´s help him sit down more often, by feasting on his...legs!
No, joke aside: We should all watch out for what happens to us on a deeper mental level when we engage in the virtual doings in games. Really!
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on May 22, 2007, 03:59:23 AM
QuoteYou should probably play it before making any more giant, long-winded posts about it because you're making a pretty good number of factual errors. Reminds me of how Lieberman and crew didn't play Night Trap and just assumed it was about rape and murder or whatever, lololol.
While I didn´t play it S-U-P-E-R, since I felt sick over it, I have heard what it is about from reviewers, and they say it is about being rewarded for killing people in the most violent ways.
I don't know how many people in this forum have actually played it completion. I did twice, and I'll lay out all the facts if there's enough interest.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 22, 2007, 05:07:46 AM
Post by: Requiem on May 22, 2007, 06:43:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
interest +1
Post by: Kairon on May 22, 2007, 07:02:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RequiemQuote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
interest +1
Post by: Smash_Brother on May 22, 2007, 07:02:21 AM
And to throw my 2¢ in, there are far too many stupid kids for games like this to NOT influence them. Kids are impressionable, especially those in the deep south.
However, if we censor media because of the stupid, then we're basically just conceding to an indirect form of terrorism, since censorship for fear of encouraging violence is still sparked by the fear of violence.
Also, in terms of violence, I think the 300 was probably far worse than anything we'll see in this game.
Post by: vudu on May 22, 2007, 07:31:49 AM
QuoteAs SUPER already alluded to, the killing isn't done for fun, per se. The plot of the game is pretty much a rip-off of The Running Man. You've been abducted by some sicko who throws you into this abandoned city full of video cameras and mentally deranged gang members. The only way you can win your freedom is to fight your way out.
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
Being Link in the Legend of Zelda series is to me far from the same, since the killing part is done by nesscesity alone to save Hyrule and not by pleasure. Manhunt is a game about killing for fun! There is NO reason for the kills other than for fun!
Post by: Gamebasher on May 22, 2007, 10:55:34 PM
I hope that every developer out there will keep in mind, though, to watch out for what games they develope, so that the stupid impressionable kids do not go, and become debased from playing them. Games should be about entertainment. Not about being trained for atrocious behaviour through game simulations made by uncaring game companies. But we always have Jack Thompson to help out in such cases, don´t we?
Smash_Brother - What did you mean by this:
"And to throw my 2¢ in, there are far too many stupid kids for games like this to NOT influence them." ???????
That the number of such games is so abundant, that they are so used to them, they wont influence them at all anylonger? Just wondered.
Post by: The Omen on May 23, 2007, 04:21:00 AM
I don't think anyone with a fairly normal human skill set actually becomes a killer because they watch Friday the 13th films. I agree with Smash Bro on one point-stupidity can be a problem. But it is with everything from tv commercials to the news. You can;'t "protect" society from stupidity, or even viciousness. It will always exist. I don't care if we go back to living in caves-we'll still be killing men with our pet rock.
Games, films and music reflect the world we live in, not the other way around.
Post by: The Omen on May 23, 2007, 04:28:11 AM
Quote
I don´t know what you mean, when you write that some countries are left unaffected and others not. To me, this violence in the media is a scourge which saturates society affecting every person in the world who play games, or watch really violent movies. Sometimes I feel that the reason why there has been a surge in police brutality, militarization of the Police is because they deal with ever increasing brutality from people in society, and so have to take their precautions, and be ready to strike when the unavoidable happens. When people boil over in their brains.
What I mean by that is a country like Canada, or Japan or dozens of others which are exposed to the same media we are don't have the same volume of violence in their respective societies. Well, how can that be? If a game like Manhunt, or GTA influence our children so much, why is it only in certain areas of the world that violent crime is out of control? The answer? It's because violent crime has little to do with absorbing violent media (games, books, films, music). There are a multitude of things that go into making a person violent, and violent video games isn't one of them.
Post by: IceCold on May 23, 2007, 07:03:59 AM
Post by: Requiem on May 23, 2007, 07:38:45 AM
Someone who's hungry is more willing to steal an apple than someone who's full.
Still, the argument that the media doesn't shape us isn't entirely true. I've watched Sin City countless times, but besides entertaining me for a couple hours, it really didn't affect who I was at all. However, I've watched The Lion King countless times as well and that has shaped me morally.
Post by: ShyGuy on May 23, 2007, 07:54:42 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on May 24, 2007, 05:10:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
That the number of such games is so abundant, that they are so used to them, they wont influence them at all anylonger? Just wondered.
I meant that kids will be impressionable but that censoring things out of fear is ridiculous because people can fear just about anything.
If it's not kids and violence, it'll be something else.
Post by: Gamebasher on May 24, 2007, 11:14:55 AM
The Omen, wrote:
"Games, films and music reflect the world we live in, not the other way around."
Well, that is an interesting way of putting it. Still, I think you are partly right, not completely right. I believe, and have always strongly believed, that there is an interest in the furthering of violence in the world as violence creates a breeding ground for war. You can´t have a war somewhere that is just coming out of nothing. It has to come for some reason. However, I think that if there isn´t any wars to fight, hell, somebody will go make a goddamn war! Because war is business for the weapons industry. That is physical warfare. Now back to violence in the media. Violence in the tv, magazines, on the pc screen is mind violence. And this is also business for those who started it because it creates fear in people. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering (in Jedi Master Yoda´s own words). People who are afraid are easier to control! When you have them angry, they are out of control, and so even easier to steer so to speak. When they hate - you can make them create physical wars on many levels just short of outright civil war of YOUR choosing. This is also called mass manipulation. Or mass deception.
I believe this is the very reason why there is so much violence in the media. Is fully intended. It´s not only the way people are (or we would all be in deep trouble) that brings violence in the media. It´s also those behind the media who have a reason of their own for wanting to control all of us! I think that here too, I feel this, someone has since a beginning sometime in the past decades, agreed that THIS would be the way in which they could keep power, and keep the common man from thinking. Just look at how HIGH a percentage of the games that exist are about being involved in conflicts in one form or the other. See? They keep us busy fighting, say, virtual wars, so they can keep us from thinking about "other" things. Such as what direction they are taking our society into! Who knows what would have happened to us all already if it wasn´t for an alert citizenry and Congress!
I know it can sound paranoid. But I have heard it from too many people over the years to think it to be a lie. To me it makes perfect sense. It´s the only explanation for the massive presence of violence in the media, because I refuse to believe that every individual in the world is just that violent at heart. We are not the only ones creating that virtual violence. Others simply have found it to be a smart way to keep us busy while they do "other" things which they then hope we will never find out about. Still, I do believe that there is many good people at the top of government, but the bad ones have the control. For now.
Anyways, this is my view of violence in the media!
Post by: Ceric on May 24, 2007, 11:30:27 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 24, 2007, 01:46:04 PM
Post by: Kairon on May 24, 2007, 03:41:34 PM
What's dangerous is the INTENT behind the violence (or lack of). And maturity, education, understanding, communication, moderatin, parenting, and morality are the best defence against BOTH unecessary manifestations of violence AS WELL AS the best defense against being hoodwinked by violence-as-entertainment.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 25, 2007, 10:37:35 AM
Post by: Kairon on May 25, 2007, 11:02:08 AM
... But I also have Cooking Mama, Kororinpa, and am eagerly awaiting the release of Dog Island. So I think that makes me balanced between hardcore and non-gamer, violent and non-violent.
Post by: Caliban on May 25, 2007, 11:03:08 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on May 25, 2007, 12:28:38 PM
Excellent. No PS2 port sh*t here.
I can enjoy a very dark game once in a while, like Godfather, ED or RE4. You don't play them so much as survive them, but it's enjoyable in a different way than standard gaming. It's a rewarding feeling to come through them.
Post by: Crimm on May 25, 2007, 02:50:46 PM
Post by: Kairon on May 25, 2007, 04:54:20 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on May 25, 2007, 05:12:12 PM
Quote
If you walk into a lighted zone, an on-screen meter lets you know enemy's can see you.
Quote
We sight a guard with his back to us.
lol sounds like Matt needs an editor
Quote
As he violently kills some of the club's inhabitants, he picks up their bodies and hides them in the shadows so he's not discovered - again, a mechanic clearly inspired by Splinter Cell.
Or maybe Metal Gear or Thief lol.
Post by: ShyGuy on May 25, 2007, 10:56:01 PM
Post by: Luigi Dude on May 25, 2007, 11:39:36 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on May 26, 2007, 02:43:23 AM
Post by: Ceric on May 26, 2007, 03:48:56 AM
Post by: Caliban on May 26, 2007, 09:55:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Luigi Dude
OK, now I like murdering people just as much as everyone else here (Really? I have never killed anyone, nor would I.), but from what I've read, this game is crossing the line. Seriously, there comes a time when killing people can be fun and happy (Dude, you need help.), but this game is murder in a very depressing and sad kind of way.
They're only virtual puppets by the way.
Post by: Requiem on May 26, 2007, 11:00:28 AM
You guys are taking it TOO SERIOUSLY. I don't know about you, but killing people in games has always cracked me up; whether its Halo and my rocket blows up a very distant warthog, or Prince of Persia's throw as many enemies off a cliff spree. That sh!t cracks me up.
It's Like, I don't know....a cheesy horror movie that's so gory it's funny. I remember seeing "Sabertooth Island" or whatever and laughing my ass off when this huge beast pounced on this dude and mauled him to death. Or while watching that part during Silent Hill where that dude rips this girl's skin off (I was like "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAMNNNN! hahahaHAHHA!"). Or how about 300? Nobody laughed or even smiled when that guy jumped out of that huddle of shields and jumped off his king to stab this dude in the heart? That was PRICELESS!
I don't know, that's just me I guess.
Post by: D_MaN87 on May 27, 2007, 04:43:05 PM
Post by: Gamebasher on May 28, 2007, 11:07:14 AM
Manhunt 2 is indeed violence in a very sad way. A MURDER simulator, and it doesn´t matter if it is virtual puppets that gets killed to me. If the U.S. Military can PRACTISE kills in a videogame, so can civilians! It is the same all the way. You practise killing people in horrific ways, and now it is really practising killing people because this game takes it to a far more detailed and gruesome level. You can hate me for saying it, but I stand by what I say. I just think it is taking kills on the screen to a slippery territory where good little Nintendo kids ought not to be!
What is the INTENT, Kairon, behind liking VIEWING the killing to that extent, and in that excessive way in which it takes place in Manhunt 2? Was the intent to have fun watching people getting smashed up, brutally maimed, beaten to a pulp? Or was the intent to chill out and get rid of anger? No offense intended. I am just trying to understand the mindset of players who like to play such games.
I will never play that game, but I know from others what it is all about. Running man or not. If I ran from somebody, and they were trying to kill me, I would just defend and kill if needed. Buy I would never go to extremes. THat means, if I was forced to take a crowbar to knock somebody down and incapaciate that pursuer - I would. To survive. And that is the key phrase for me: survival. Nescessity alone. Not excessiveness! THAT is not needed. If you want to kill somebody out of nescessity in a situaltion where it´s "you or him", by all means do it. But don´t make a show out of it!
That game all begins to sound more and more like a cover story created to justify the amount of violence in the game. In other words, Rockstar wanted to make ANOTHER game full of "justified" violence, and make a buck on it! So, the violence was primary, the story secondary in the efforts make said game. THAT worries me. Plain and simple as that.
It is a slippery slope... And no matter how much you say that you can educate people in the opposite direction so they don´t get hoodwinked into becoming violent, playing violence to this extent is something that will never be good for anyone in the long run. But some people take decades to tire of it. I take just a few minutes to drop it on the floor... But that is just me!
Post by: Requiem on May 28, 2007, 11:29:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
Luigi Dude, I agree with you one hundred percent!
Manhunt 2 is indeed violence in a very sad way. A MURDER simulator, and it doesn´t matter if it is virtual puppets that gets killed to me. If the U.S. Military can PRACTISE kills in a videogame, so can civilians! It is the same all the way.
Okay. That's all I needed to read.
Manhunt is as much a murder game as Thief is a stealing game. The point is: yes it's wrong to do in the real world, but this is a game. A creative medium that requires interaction from the user. Just cause the interaction is more sophisticated, doesn't mean its negative effect (if any) is greater.
And honestly, if you believe that people are so bendable, so weak that we would sacome (sp?) to killing a human being just because a media said that, in this instance, it is what you want to do, than wow.....you really don't have faith in the human race at all, and honestly, your reminding me of Kyle's big fat bitch of a mom (southpark).
"Blame the Corporations!" "Think of the CHILDREN!"
I hate hearing those things because, in most instances, its really the parents lack of parenting that f#cks everything up.
Post by: Kairon on May 28, 2007, 12:03:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
What is the INTENT, Kairon, behind liking VIEWING the killing to that extent, and in that excessive way in which it takes place in Manhunt 2? Was the intent to have fun watching people getting smashed up, brutally maimed, beaten to a pulp? Or was the intent to chill out and get rid of anger? No offense intended. I am just trying to understand the mindset of players who like to play such games.
Hmm... from rereading an earlier post of yours I picked up the following quote:
Quote
The way I experience it on a personal level, is that if I play something as violent as Manhunt, I get to feel like I step down to a lower, cruder level of existence, and I suddenly feel I am nolonger myself.
I can understand your stance on the subject, but these games will always have an appeal to people, just like horror movies and thrillers and other such media. I guess the reasons might include the need for catharsis, a curiousity and excitement for the socially taboo, an investigations of darker human experiences, and simply that not everyone experiences it personally the way someone else might.
I'm not particularly interested in the killings themselves of ManHunt 2... I'm sort of "meh" about choking people in Godfather because it simply doesn't do anything special for me compared to filling them with holes via a tommy gun. What's really interesting is all the dark subject matter that's supposed to have been the reason for violence of that sort. Plenty of films and games have people dying. What's so special about the themes explored in these games that need to make us physically pull out their vertebra?
And of course, part of the appeal of these experiences is, yes, as an outlet. Violence is natural to us (though hopefully VERY undesirable). So we play Counter Strike, we play Halo, and etc. etc.
But some people, unavoidably, have a different level of violence that they find blase. It's nothing particularly special. Some people like spicy food and some people don't. Some among us don't mind rated R movies and some find them utterly excessive and wasteful. There are some gamers who actually YAWN (ZOMG!) at Zelda because it's too easy: they need more hardcore, difficult, and almost impossible challenges in their games because anything less just doesn't excite them the same way.
There's no avoiding a diversity of tastes, and thus the diversity of entertainment to suit those different segments, from rated G (Finding Nemo is AWEWSOME) to rated NC-17 (which would have been the rating for Academy award nominee "Requiem for a Dream"... it was released 'unrated' to avoid this).
...
But this is all rambling... And Gamebasher, I guess I can COMPLETELY sympathize with your position because i HATED Ren and Stimpy, much like I DESPISE Family Guy. That stuff makes me feel less human when I watch it, like they expect me to just keel over and drool at each (albeit pop-culturally-relevant) 30 second vignette that assumes I can't follow a solid narrative thread.
There must be SOME redeeming value to Family Guy, but I'd dearly LOVE to know what goes on in the mind of a rapt, appreciative viewer... because I can't for the life of me picture what could be appealing about that show. Just like you can't imagine what goes on in the mind of someone playing Manhunt (never played the first one by the way... this'll be a new experience!)
Post by: Kairon on May 28, 2007, 12:13:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
Luigi Dude, I agree with you one hundred percent!
Manhunt 2 is indeed violence in a very sad way. A MURDER simulator, and it doesn´t matter if it is virtual puppets that gets killed to me. If the U.S. Military can PRACTISE kills in a videogame, so can civilians! It is the same all the way. You practise killing people in horrific ways, and now it is really practising killing people because this game takes it to a far more detailed and gruesome level. You can hate me for saying it, but I stand by what I say. I just think it is taking kills on the screen to a slippery territory where good little Nintendo kids ought not to be!
I actually share your concern about the social effects of interactive violence... but I don't buy this "murder simulator" talk at all. The wiimote is cool and all, but it can't detect anywhere NEAR the sort of actions that could be called realistic in any sense of the world. Have you tried to strangle people in Godfather? I hardly think it's realistic to hold B, press A, then move your hands toward the screen, away from the screen, toward the screen, away from the screen, until somehow the neck of your target cracks as if you had just cracked it instead of merely constricted it. I DO think we'll come to a point where interactions become "too close" to reality, but we're not there yet, not by a long shot.
But EVEN WHEN we get there... if you don't believe that people can be educated and made to be held responsible for their own actions, I don't know what to say. A world in which we can't try to trust people to do the right thing (properly educated and empowered, of course) is a world in which a fascist government that removes our personal freedoms and controls every aspect of our lives makes sense. YES, it is scary to see how people can lose control of their lives and thoughts due to today's high-tech distractions, but if we admit defeat, then we're saying that we're powerless to control our own actions, and barely human at all. I don't see any other alternative than believing that humans ARE, basically, good and, that they want to be good more than they want to be evil.
Post by: Gamebasher on May 28, 2007, 12:49:29 PM
You wrote in your reply part 1:
"I can understand your stance on the subject, but these games will always have an appeal to people, just like horror movies and thrillers and other such media. I guess the reasons might include the need for catharsis, a curiousity and excitement for the socially taboo, an investigations of darker human experiences, and simply that not everyone experiences it personally the way someone else might."
And I will just double quote one part of that above quote: "but these games will always have an appeal to people, just like horror movies and thrillers and other such media."
OK, I guess I now understand the mindset of players who plays games like this. But, I would like to say that, I do not think that people are incapable of controlling themselves. I don´t see people as trolls, or dero´s or other mindless killingmachines without any feelings for the "victims". I was looking for a trend, a streak of something which might explain to me what was the motivation behind the desire to play such violence in games. I admit that I was worried that people were starting to move in a direction of crudeness which would take them only down in human evolution. I now think I have seen a glimpse of the truth about that, through your input.
I agree that people are drawn to such games for the same reason as the reason why they are drawn to horror movies. And so I can more easily agree with you that of course people try to always be more good than evil. Which is in the end good for society overall.
This is the best insight that any Forum member here ever gave me. So if I were to give you kudo´s for your reply to my topic it would be the highest ones! May every member in this Nintendo Forum gain similar understanding and insight through such dialogue. Prior to this "enlightenment" of mine, I was in the dark concerning peoples motivations for playing very violent games. I was worried about them, and what it might make them become. I guess I can even say that Rockstar´s own motivation behind the making of that game in particular was to create a new threshold for interactive horror-entertainment! You are now IN the horror-movie, so to speak. Future will show if people ever get too influenced by the violence for their own good. Here´s hoping they wont!
Post by: j_moose on May 28, 2007, 01:08:45 PM
As a gamer and a very liberal person, I am somewhat biased, but my opinion of "videogames causing violence" is that people who "learn to kill" from video games are messed up to begin with. Sure it has been shown that playing violent video games increases aggression, but seriously - if you play this game and think, "that looks like fun, I'm going to go try it on my neighbor", it's not the video game's fault - there's something wrong with you from the get-go. The game isn't reality, plain and simple. That's just my two cents. I'll at least give it a rental - after all, if the game isn't fun, no amount of violence is going to make it worth the money. How do you guys think this will affect sales and the image of the Wii? There are obviously the "Nintendo is for kids" people who are going to see the game and just might change their opinion. But what about the people who bought Nintendo stuff just FOR the "kid" image? Do you think they'll be turned off/feel betrayed because the brand they always bought for their kids just put this on their system? Those who were deciding whether to buy a Wii might either be inclined to buy it because of the game, or stay away from it at the thought that their kids could play something like this on the system. I do agree that, despite the violence and controversy, this is a great step forward for Nintendo.
Post by: Gamebasher on May 29, 2007, 02:06:14 AM
Nintendo could thus risk being viewed no more as a kids friendly-gamemaker which today is their greatest asset. This is in my view the greatest danger to them right now, because they have a huge crowd of fans for the GameBoy and Nintendo DS systems, and also Wii (but not as large here yet). If they are suddenly losing their kids-appeal, they will be in the boat with Sony, and also Microsoft, and then this would surely start a chain reaction of dwindling support by families worldwide for the brand, and the sales would then go instead to the other two as there would nolonger by any perceived advantage to kids for the parents. They wouldn´t be able to tell the difference between the three competing gamecompanies as both Sony and Microsoft are trying to take Nintendo´s kids appeal already with quite strong franchises (though Microsoft still has a very long way to go there).
So they should carefully watch their steps, and those of their competitors. They are treading on dangerous ground, with money luring people everywhere to try to steal their crown.
Nintendo should keep on developing kids friendly games, and filter the opposite very carefully. I actually think that the Manhunt 2 game has been allowed onto the Wii, because Nintendo wants to boost their campaign to attract a more mature audience. It is a test to see what will happen next. But the way I see it, it is very dangerous. Because on one hand they will then turn heads on adults, who will probably love the game on Wii for it´s superior controls. However, the next thing that will likely happen is that that same audience will cry out for more of such games on the system. Never before has there been such a way to interact with the game world as right now on the Wii. This is certain to spark a craving for more violent games, where you can go smack somebody good with your arms gesticulations making it feel much more real. So the demand will be big. So who will they listen to at Nintendo? The kids, or the adults? They cannot cater to both as it is now. The families wont allow a situation where there is a flooding of violence on the system as they will incapable of ensuring the mental safety of their kids being home alone. They would be worried day and night, I know this. So in the end they will drop the system if they feel it is nolonger kids friendly. How will they satisfy the families who don´t want their kids to have access to such violence when they aren´t around to watch them play? I suggest that if they want to avoid the situation described above, they should create a parental lock on the Wii, which prohibtis games that are too explicitly violent! Then their kids cannot play those games, but only the kids friendly ones. It is up to Nintendo to figure out how they will do just that. I don´t own a Wii yet, as I am waiting for Metroid Prime 3 to come out first, so I don´t know if the Wii has such a function already.
Post by: oohhboy on May 29, 2007, 03:50:45 AM
The rating systems are already in place to help parents filter out for their own kids what is suitible or not. It is just that most parents these days don't give a flying F*** what happens to their kids and when something does go wrong, they are too busy absolving themselfs of personal responsiblity to fix the problem. No console V-chip is going to solve the underlying social problem. House said it best "Parents are stupid, incompetant and liars".
When Nintendo did censore the games that came on to the system, it caused far more problems than it solved. For 10 years, the kids only image has been made a scapegoat for countless devs not to make a game for Nintendo. Creatives don't like to be censored even if it probaly won't apply to them. The fear is enough. Then you end up with a console death spiral. The devs simply went to a console where they could do what they want.
As for the whole, "Oh no, games are getting too real and people are going to go mental because of this", better now we have this discussion than down the line where people are jacking up to play games. That has always been a question, but now that some componets to virtual reality are available at a comsumer level beyond just graphics, it has given the question material reality. To be honest, there will be no point trying to stop it. People can and will get addicted to anything regardless to the level of reality whether it be drugs or shoes. Mental people will do mental things regardless of what well meaning people will try o do. We can only mitigate the damage caused and move on. That is the price of a free and open society. If you don't like it, move to China.
Post by: Smash_Brother on May 29, 2007, 06:38:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy When Nintendo did censore the games that came on to the system, it caused far more problems than it solved. For 10 years, the kids only image has been made a scapegoat for countless devs not to make a game for Nintendo. Creatives don't like to be censored even if it probaly won't apply to them. The fear is enough. Then you end up with a console death spiral. The devs simply went to a console where they could do what they want.
This is the real reason MH2 exists for the Wii: Reggie decreed it. He was the one who went to Rockstar and bargained with them to make a Wii game.
They, more than any other company, would readily crush the "kiddié" image on the Wii if they brought a game to it, especially a game like MH2.
I personally don't like the idea of kids playing this game, but that's due to the old adage of "If you never show a kid a flamethrower, he'll never try to build one." However, I like the idea of censoring content which is intended only for adults even less because, like the Southpark episodes about Family Guy pointed out, if you can force them to censor something once, you can force them to do it every time.
Post by: j_moose on May 29, 2007, 08:31:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
...they will be in the boat with Sony, and also Microsoft, and then this would surely start a chain reaction of dwindling support by families worldwide for the brand
I guess that is the point/question I was getting at: clearly this will open the system up to a new audience and maybe even tip some people toward the Wii who were on the fence - but is this worth possibly alienating the 'family' audience? I think as long as there is a balance of games that can satisfy both audiences, the system will be fine.
Post by: Adrock on May 29, 2007, 08:46:40 AM
Post by: Kairon on May 29, 2007, 09:00:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
Just a thought: could you potentially get through the entire game without killing anyone at all or by the very least, knocking them unconscious? I know that's a little too Metal Gear. However, I think not killing as an alternative would add another dimension to the game, not to mention bragging rights (like beating Zelda without picking up any heart upgrades).
That could work for some games, but I something tells me that Manhunt 2 is built around the assumption that you have no other recourse, that you've already been driven to violence as a last, desperate, necessary, resort.
Post by: couchmonkey on May 29, 2007, 09:06:52 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 29, 2007, 10:03:43 AM
Post by: Gamebasher on May 29, 2007, 11:48:39 PM
"The rating systems are already in place to help parents filter out for their own kids what is suitible or not. It is just that most parents these days don't give a flying F*** what happens to their kids and when something does go wrong, they are too busy absolving themselfs of personal responsiblity to fix the problem. No console V-chip is going to solve the underlying social problem. House said it best "Parents are stupid, incompetant and liars"."
A tall statement, if you ask me. Since when has all parents suddenly become stupid, incompetent liars? Perhaps you would be so kind and tell me where they live? I have only seen parents who care for their kids, and who would not be found dead with their kids sitting around them playing ultra-violent games - even if you tried to force them to make them do so. And I will tell you right away, that if parents they don´t give a damn what their kids are playing, they will disturb their moral values right from the start. Kids don´t know anything when they are born, they have to learn it all from scratch. So what do you think it will teach them, if they sit and play an ultra violent game where they get POINTS for consciously performing the most violent kills? It will teach them that it is OK to DO so! There is simply no discussion about it, it has been proved that violence of that level seen in MH2 directly affects people who play it in the way of moving their acceptance to violence up (IGN article, but I have seen it elsewhere too). Kids are even more easily influenced, and so they will be double affected. What they will do, become if not properly reared and influenced only time can tell.
The way I understand it from the many replies to my original argument against MH2 is that these days money starts to matter more than moral values. I always though of Nintendo as a videogame company which was first and foremost interested in making games for fun and entertainment. Not money alone. Sure money matters, without them you can´t get far. But there is a clear difference between focusing on making games for the sake of entertainment, and making games for the sake of money! I hope that Nintendo and Reggie wont lose their heads in the quest to once again become the market leader! If they do, NIntendo will to me nolobger be the family friendly company that they have become so famous for being. Right now I still believe in them.
While I as stated in my previous reply now understand grown up people´s motivation for playing such games, I maintain that kids should NOT play that kind of games at all. And it will be the problem of society worldwide to deal with whatever comes out of not restricting their access to them. It looks an awefull lot like an emerging break down of society, if parents begin to give a hoot what their kids are exposed to and influenced by! Kids are the adults of tomorrow! We should all be carefull what we shape them to become. I can tell you that I will never drop my insistance that you gotta be so carefull about what you teach kids. They will become what you make them, with your input. Because they know nothing from the start, like an empty computer whom someone programs!
Why do you think there are so many adults who got damaged in childhood by this or that experience which was imprinted in their minds, and who now have to be brought back on the right track through theraphy? Yes I know they didn´t have games then, the way we do now. But they had other things which could affect them. I have always read about- and watched programmes on tv about such cases. No kidding, this is real. It happened to people before, and it will happen to people again. Sooner or later it will manifest itself in peoples behaviour one way or the other. Kids can certainly be adversely affected, if not seriously disturbed by ultra violent content in games. Some kids are certainly more easily affected than others. The game companies should keep that in mind when they make games for the worlds people to play. I therefore still maintain that a parental lock out system is the only solution to keeping kids from playing adult gaming content on consoles! And the age restriction system is no barrier at all. Kids are incredibly capable of circumventing rules if they want to (say, to get liquor they aren´t allowed to buy), and here they don´t even have to. The games are freely available to take down from the shelves over at EB Games, and they can get somebody older to buy them íf not allowed themselves by the store clerk or -manager.
Post by: denjet78 on May 30, 2007, 12:28:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
Kids are incredibly capable of circumventing rules if they want to (say, to get liquor they aren´t allowed to buy), and here they don´t even have to. The games are freely available to take down from the shelves over at EB Games, and they can get somebody older to buy them íf not allowed themselves by the store clerk or -manager.
You seem to be missing and incredibly important point here even though you basically state it yourself. Kids have, and always will, find ways to get access to things that society has deemed inappropriate for them. What does that mean then in regard to video games? Do we ban certain games just so kids won't get access to them? If so, then why haven't we banned cigarettes? Alcohol? Guns? Cars? Anything that you wouldn't allow a new born infant to be around? Once something becomes age restrictive it falls into the same category as MH2. You can't just pick and choose what you want to ban to protect kids from.
As it is, I think MH is disgusting. I think GTA is nothing but a violence simulator and I would like nothing more than to see such terrible games wiped from the face of the earth. However, I do not and will never believe in censoring anything simply because someone feels it is inappropriate for kids. If they think it's not for kids then make it age restricted and then enforce those restrictions, and that includes parents keeping tabs on what they're kids are doing. They're the first line of defense after all.
No one's talking about banning "R" rated movies. Hell, no one's even talking about banning porn! The most they've done is design a system to attempt to keep them out of kids hands until they reach a certain age. Why should video games receive any kind of different treatment?
And as for these games being "freely available to take down from the shelves over at EB Games", you could say the same thing about "R" rated movies at your local Wal-Mart. In fact, I don't think anyone's making any kind of ruckus over the fact that a kid can walk into almost any store and pick up almost any movie no matter what the rating. If you're going to attack video games I think it's only fair that you include movies in there as well. And books. And CDs. And web sites.
Once you begin censoring though... where does it end?
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 30, 2007, 02:58:17 AM
Manhunt 2 just seems to want to create computer animated gore and filth...and I don't care if there is a story to support the filth, this game is completely not needed.
This is one time I believe, Nintendo should have said NO. Do I think it should be the government controlling and censoring. No. That leads to some scary stuff. But Nintendo should have said no...or really Rock Star should of had the self control to say no.
Post by: oohhboy on May 30, 2007, 03:31:26 AM
Man Hunt isn't made by Nintendo and such a game will never be made by Nintendo. Sure, Nintendo is indrectly responsible simply for allowing the game to exist on it's platform but what good would Nintendo do by disallowing it? Nintendo's experiment in censoreship at the end of the 16bit wars shows that people don't care what is in the game, but what is not in it. You are asking Nintendo to sacarfice itself in an futile attemp at large scale social change using the worse, bluntest tool in an incomplete tool set. The non-games or I like to call social games the Nintendo publish and develop are the opposing force to Man Hunt. Nintendo has not forfited the so called moral high ground if there ever was such a thing and continues to acknowledge it's responibility to the world by bettering the world in it's own unquie way.
I play violent games all the time. I understand it is violent. I understand it is not real and if I do things like that it would result in alot of pain. Why should I be deprived of such a game just because of the 1% out there that didn't. Running anything thing in fear of 1% probability of failure is not a way to do anything or live. We have parents out there that try to change the world so their kids can fit in, not the other way around. They are stupid, incompetent and liars. They are stupid for trying to change the world, incompetent for not raising a kid that can survie on it's own and liars for everything they said to their child about the world. We have the other end where the parents don't do anything. They are stupid for thinking that their child will know what to do when they grow up. Incompetent for their apathy towards their children. Liars for not communicating anything at any level.
I refuse to let that 1% ruin my life whether it is terrorism, Jack Tompson, fundamentalist or that punk kid who gave me that one finger salute.
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 30, 2007, 04:13:00 AM
Now, do I wish Nintendo would have dropped its censorship standards to be competitive yes...but I also want Nintendo to review games on a case to case bases to decide if its something they want. For Nintendo to say they don't want Grand Theft Auto or God of War or Half Life or Resident Evil series because its too violent is stupid and suicide as a console hardware maker.
However, if Nintendo took a stand against Manhunt 2, and said you know what Rock Star, we love your games, and would like your support...but Manhunt is not a series we want to support. The concept of the game is not something we ever want to appear that we support...but if you would like to bring over Ping Pong and Grand Theft Auto we would like to help you.
Nintendo wouldn't be saying no for nothing...it would be standing up for its personal business intriguity and ideals on what is legitiment content for gaming and what isn't.
I see a huge difference in a game like Manhunt 2 and Resident Evil 4...and I wish others would have the courage to standup to say so as well.
Post by: Kairon on May 31, 2007, 07:20:40 AM
I'm pretty excited for this and hope it fulfills all its promise instead of being just another decent videogame... I just put down a pre-order for it too.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 31, 2007, 08:49:02 AM
=D
Post by: couchmonkey on June 01, 2007, 04:12:57 AM
Ali G: Has you ever had an abortion?
Protestor: No I've never had an abortion.
Ali G: Surely you should try something before you say is bad.
Post by: Gamebasher on June 01, 2007, 09:06:55 AM
"After reading the previews for this game I can completely say I am disgusted and disappointed this game is coming out. I some what defend the games like Godfather, Grand Theft Auto, and Scarface...although it is violent the games do not have some sort of love affair with the gore.
Manhunt 2 just seems to want to create computer animated gore and filth...and I don't care if there is a story to support the filth, this game is completely not needed."
Like I have already pointed out, I feel that this game is going too far. It is too much. So I hope people will realize this, since it is abominable. I agree that Godfather-type of games are somewhat more acceptable, as it makes more sense to perform the kills there since you play the role a mob hitman (havent played it, but I believe that is what it is about, correct me if I am wrong). You "know" why you must kill, to serve your master the Godfather. Just like a foot soldier would a General. There is no point in the kills in MH2, except survival at the very crudest level of existence. As a Hitman, you are at least civilzed when you don´t kill. Here it seems (remember that the game so disgusts me, I don´t keep myself updated about it and so I don´t know and don´t wanna know anymore about it) you are just a primate killing to the left and right without dawn of reason. There has to be reason behind something, or you border insanity. Or pure evilness. That is the same as to say that in MH2 you practise being totally insane, or totally evil. Fun, huh! Don´t see the entertainment value in that.
As for censoring everything, I agree it isn´t good to censor everything. But I think it is needed to censor some things. You don´t get affected by a cigarettes the way you get affected by a videogame which glorifies violence. I maintain my point of view that such levels of violence in a game, and in particular the intent behind that violence (in MH2: to get points the more violent or gruesome the kills) is more hazardous to anyones health than any cigarettes will ever be. One way or the other.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 01, 2007, 09:16:06 AM
[Svevan-speak] "Gore is part of the game's aesthetic."
Don't upset Svevan.
Post by: AwesomeMan on June 01, 2007, 12:40:39 PM
Quote
There is no point in the kills in MH2, except survival at the very crudest level of existence.
well survival is a much better reason for killing than 'bossman sez to"
Post by: Kairon on June 01, 2007, 01:30:58 PM
Oh GOD you guys have GOT to watch Dogville. By the end of the movie, you totally agree with how the heroine realizes that people need to be killed.
Post by: Gamebasher on June 03, 2007, 11:50:36 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 03, 2007, 12:03:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
Not when it´s done in such horrific ways. So that is a hint why the game is called "Manhunt"! See?
You mean the title ISN'T a reference to the unparalelled Cynthia Rhodes?!?!?!?!
Post by: AwesomeMan on June 03, 2007, 12:47:01 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on June 03, 2007, 04:58:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
Manhunt 2 is indeed violence in a very sad way. A MURDER simulator, and it doesn´t matter if it is virtual puppets that gets killed to me. If the U.S. Military can PRACTISE kills in a videogame, so can civilians!
I might be late to the show here, but the military has never used a video game to practice killin' dudes. I don't know why people still believe this.
Post by: ShyGuy on June 03, 2007, 05:36:38 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on June 03, 2007, 06:09:36 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on June 03, 2007, 07:04:59 PM
I saw a thing about it on TV once years ago. The trainees shot guns in it too.
Post by: Kairon on June 03, 2007, 07:19:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-RQuote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
Manhunt 2 is indeed violence in a very sad way. A MURDER simulator, and it doesn´t matter if it is virtual puppets that gets killed to me. If the U.S. Military can PRACTISE kills in a videogame, so can civilians!
I might be late to the show here, but the military has never used a video game to practice killin' dudes. I don't know why people still believe this.
Hmmm...
The Convoy Skills Engagement Trainer
Quote
So, the Army has developed the Convoy Skills Engagement Trainer. The trainer strives to make the experience of convoy duty as realistic as possible. A real rifle sits mounted on a real gun turret, in front of three, wrap-around white screens.
...
says Greg Owns " ... And I can make it look like a PC game, that the average 19, 20-year-old rifleman or combatant right now grew up playing."
Quote
Full Spectrum Warrior was developed separately by the US Army funded Institute for Creative Technologies at the University of Southern California.
The game was created specifically for Army training purposes, but is now available commercially.
Full Spectrum Warrior, too, is being used in projects designed to help soldiers in certain mission-critical areas, particularly in interpersonal skills.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 03, 2007, 07:57:49 PM
What you guys should be pointing out is the video game that the military designed that allows a soldier to practice shooting another human in the head so that he can see what it feels like(goto therapy and get over it), or stab a man in his chest repeatedly to get the hesitation factor out of the way, or physically suffocate someone until they stop struggling just so all of their soldiers know how to detach themselves emotionally incase the situation comes up in real life.
When you come up with that, then you will have a murder simulator, and software that is designed to not only teach someone how to kill but give them somewhere to practice it.
Post by: Kairon on June 03, 2007, 08:03:18 PM
We're getting there but the Wiimote is nowhere near the level of reality that level of play-acting would require.
Post by: Artimus on June 04, 2007, 12:27:49 AM
Post by: Shift Key on June 04, 2007, 01:06:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
It's cute that you guys find things like "communication" and "teamwork" to be so innocent. But, uh, the major difference between the military games and Manhunt is that those military skils are actually intended to make them more effect at their job...killing people! Now if it was like "SUPER Navy: Build Sandbag Dams in Rain Affected Areas" you might have a point.
It's cute how you're a terrible poster
Love,
Everyone
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 04, 2007, 06:28:52 AM
The killing practice takes place out in the field, with real weapons and real people, not in the games.
p.s. The "job" of the Military is not to kill people, but to protect the interest of their respective government. Sometimes it involves killing, sometimes destroying a target, or just patrolling and securing an area.
Post by: Kairon on June 04, 2007, 06:32:12 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 04, 2007, 07:03:17 AM
They would mount real weapons on real vehicles infront of a gaming screen to practice the communication from driver to shooter so that they are working together. They are not really practicing shooting anyone. They would be shooting at locations on the screen, but the exercise is so that coded military jargon speak can be barked out and the driver and shooter know what each other are talking about and can respond quickly.
If you were to take some online expert counterstike team players that use headsets to communicate and then throw them out in a real-live situation with guns and live ammo and enemies. I could guarantee you they wouldn't know what the hell they were doing and would probably get killed really quickly, but they would know how to communicate, because thats what they were practicing in the games, not killing people.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 04, 2007, 07:12:33 AM
If they REALLY wanted to learn, they'd play GHOST SQUAD. OH YEAH
Post by: Kairon on June 04, 2007, 07:19:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
They could kill people, but now this is derailing into something else.
They would mount real weapons on real vehicles infront of a gaming screen to practice the communication from driver to shooter so that they are working together. They are not really practicing shooting anyone. They would be shooting at locations on the screen, but the exercise is so that coded military jargon speak can be barked out and the driver and shooter know what each other are talking about and can respond quickly.
If you were to take some online expert counterstike team players that use headsets to communicate and then throw them out in a real-live situation with guns and live ammo and enemies. I could guarantee you they wouldn't know what the hell they were doing and would probably get killed really quickly, but they would know how to communicate, because thats what they were practicing in the games, not killing people.
I agree with you, I just wanted you to explain the difference better.
Post by: ShyGuy on June 04, 2007, 07:50:17 AM
Post by: Gamebasher on June 06, 2007, 02:01:29 AM
If I was going to escape from some prison facility, I could be OK with just taking out, or if real need be, killing somebody being a potential witness to my escape, the means of my escape. I wouldn´t need to smash the person up so badly even a coroner couldn´t ID the person.
So I maintain my stance that that game has been made with a story which justifies the conscious act of killing in the most violent ways the opponents in the game. Never because it would be needed. I have seen games where you are supposed to escape from somewhere, and where you just take out the captors one by one through the use of stealth, not savage violence. And by the way, the screams alone from such a killing method would surely attract more problems right away in the way on guards rushing to the scene from all directions. It is just Rockstar´s apparent liking for violence of that level which makes them create a story which justifies the horrendous violence. Something they got infamous for with the GTA games.
Post by: oohhboy on June 06, 2007, 03:00:24 AM
People do savage things to one another. When I was a kid I killed my fair share of insects and what not in the most amusing ways I could find. I am not saying kids should play this instead of burning ants under a magnifiying glass, but I rather let people get their rocks off on this game than to have people go out and pay to watch Hobos fight.
But seriously, why would anyone try to derail a game over it's story. For most games, the story is equivalent to the minute of "conversation" at the beginning of a porno. It is there only to set up the action later on.
Post by: ShyGuy on June 06, 2007, 04:35:10 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on June 06, 2007, 05:20:11 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 06, 2007, 06:26:36 AM
It can't be one or the other, it has to be BOTH, OR NONE AT ALL.
If you're not with JOHN RAMBO, get out of this thread.
Post by: WuTangTurtle on June 06, 2007, 02:11:45 PM
Did we see a increase in turtle deaths in the 90's? Or one too many kids getting stuck in pipes, thinking they would warp somewhere?
Post by: nitsu niflheim on June 19, 2007, 12:42:05 PM
hmm... wonder if this will actually make the game more appealing instead if it were "stuck" with regular old Mature?
Post by: Plugabugz on June 19, 2007, 12:47:42 PM
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06/19/manhunt_2_banned/
Post by: LuigiHann on June 19, 2007, 01:05:04 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on June 19, 2007, 01:09:05 PM
Some AO games are still considered serious games, and this is one of them. Is A Clockwork Orange not a serious movie? To show that T2 considers the game serious, they need to forget about any retailers that refuse to sell their product. They should refuse selling copies of any of their titles to major retailers until a few months after GTA IV has been out, and offer that through online retailers, too. If the marketplace wants to refuse selling one serious game from a specific publisher, I think it's well within the publisher's right to refuse all their games to that merchant. If this were some sex game, I'd understand, but it isn't. And after all, these places sold God of War, GTA III, and BMX XXX, so obviously, they've had games with graphic content and gratuitous sex before.
I don't mind the game receiving an AO rating, I think it probably deserves it. However, I still believe that most video games are a work of art, and therefore protected by freedom of speech in at least the U.S. Take2 needs to address this issue now, and hit it hard. They aren't trying to get their game in the hands of children, nor even 17-year olds. They are trying to allow their game to reach the hands of those who appreciate several forms of art, so to do so, they would appreciate retail channel help.
Post by: Ceric on June 19, 2007, 02:57:12 PM
I see very well why a big retailer would not stock AO/X content. Its because it is hard to monitor the ins and out of a place that big. Though I don't know why the Gamestop Empire couldn't have it behind the counter. They are small enough, physical store wise, and have the setup already where they could ask for identification and have you sign a content waiver that you will not give this game to a minor. As Nintendo as long as it meets there standard of quality I think they should license it for the system. It wouldn't be the first X/AO rated game to ever be on a Nintendo system.
Post by: Kairon on June 19, 2007, 03:09:17 PM
Post by: Ceric on June 19, 2007, 03:25:43 PM
Post by: Deguello on June 19, 2007, 04:30:59 PM
Quote
I don't mind the game receiving an AO rating, I think it probably deserves it. However, I still believe that most video games are a work of art, and therefore protected by freedom of speech in at least the U.S.
The problem is the U.S. government isn't censoring this or even stopping the development of the game. The ESRB, which is run totally by the games industry, has rated it AO, while that effectively blocks a majority of sales and somewhat dampens the game's presence, the government had nothing to do with it.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 19, 2007, 04:34:31 PM
M games are for the immature ones.
Post by: Kairon on June 19, 2007, 04:52:06 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on June 19, 2007, 07:25:25 PM
Post by: Shift Key on June 19, 2007, 07:41:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
The ESRB, which is run totally by the games industry, has rated it AO, while that effectively blocks a majority of sales and somewhat dampens the game's presence, the government had nothing to do with it.
Its still censorship by any other name.
What I have issue with is the UK decision to ban it directly - this probably will result in the game being banned here no matter what changes are made to the game.
Quote
The Board's carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2... would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.
I do not like a "board" making decisions as to what I can and cannot see or play. Thanks for looking out for me, but I'm far more capable of knowing what I will like and what I won't like.
If you have problems with a subset of the public (ie kids) viewing some items, there are other ways around the problem rather than a ban. For example, more stringent checks at retailers or informing parents about these games. I don't want to backhand today's generation of parents, but the responsibility for monitoring mature games seems to be on the developers rather than anyone else.
I'm going to have a nice rant about censorship when I get some time - I saw this coming a while ago and the fact that Manhunt 2 probably won't make it to Australia (the original Manhunt was banned here not long after the UK decision) really shits me off. Not just because of the game, but because the problem of mature games isn't being handled properly. The console makers may claim that non-gamers and new markets are opening up this generation but until I see the ratings system for games include an 18+ category and games are not banned simply because they could fall into the hands of minors - the whole console market is still centered around people who are under 18.
Post by: Mario on June 19, 2007, 07:48:26 PM
Post by: Shift Key on June 19, 2007, 07:52:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
I don't think anyone, kids or adults, should be playing a game where you realistically brutally murder people. Great news.
Its not realistic when you're using two pieces of plastic in your parent's basement.
Post by: Requiem on June 19, 2007, 08:01:02 PM
Art is art, no matter what the form. It is only because it's a game that you have a problem with it. Hostel and other such gory films are left on questioned, but a gory game is perceived as something bannable?
In the bible, Jesus Christ is brutally murdered, but I don't hear you complaining about people reading it.
Art is just art people. If you don't like it, don't pay attention to it. And thank God the first amendment exists. There is no constitutional way to ban such a game in the States.
Post by: Mario on June 19, 2007, 08:47:08 PM
Post by: Shift Key on June 19, 2007, 08:58:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
I guess kiddie porn could be considered art too.
I'm pretty sure that child molestation is illegal in the civilized world.
Post by: Mario on June 19, 2007, 09:00:49 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on June 19, 2007, 09:05:37 PM
But seriously, more cultures exist that are against sexual taboos than violent taboos. I don't know why that is true, though I would guess it's because of the volume of war that nearly every generation sees, whereas sex is on a personal level, and is harder to have out in the open. But I have to agree with several points, that there are many more brutal and distasteful seeming things that are legal and not censored out there. To pick and choose an industry that is younger as the one that is censored is wrong.
Post by: Shift Key on June 19, 2007, 09:08:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Just like murder.
Don't get the digital world and real world mixed up. Might as well bring out the old "murder simulation" argument - and even then, most people will still be able to differentiate between the two.
Post by: Kairon on June 19, 2007, 10:03:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shift KeyQuote
Originally posted by: Mario
I guess kiddie porn could be considered art too.
I'm pretty sure that child molestation is illegal in the civilized world.
Child ummmmmm stuff, is highly controversial, but it CAN be art. i.e. Lolita, and that recent tiif in Canada over an author's novel which had a lot of child uh... Oh here read about it yourself.
Post by: blackfootsteps on June 19, 2007, 10:19:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
I don't think anyone, kids or adults, should be playing a game where you realistically brutally murder people. Great news.
Would you include war shooters (eg Call of Duty) in this statement? Where's the line?
Post by: Kairon on June 19, 2007, 10:42:31 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on June 19, 2007, 10:50:18 PM
Post by: Kairon on June 19, 2007, 11:03:13 PM
Post by: Shift Key on June 19, 2007, 11:08:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Child ummmmmm stuff, is highly controversial, but it CAN be art. i.e. Lolita, and that recent tiif in Canada over an author's novel which had a lot of child uh... Oh here read about it yourself.
Erm, different media completely. I'm not sure what moderation or censorship novels come under but I'm sure its quite different to video games.
And I was referring to the online child pornography rings that are occasionally busted by authorities.
This horse has been flogged to death, I'm not annoyed at the decision, but more at the system itself. Banning of anything is pretty drastic and they haven't satisfied me with their justification for this game given the availability of violent games currently on the market.
Post by: Kairon on June 19, 2007, 11:15:50 PM
Post by: Shift Key on June 19, 2007, 11:18:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Well, they made a MOVIE of Lolita...
Different media, different rules.
Post by: Ceric on June 20, 2007, 02:36:59 AM
Let say that Manhunt 2 came with a peripheral that cuts you and some other random person every time your hurt or hurt someone in the game. At that point the Murder could really occur and the game be bannable under health risk. Here is the definition of Murder.
The only time you could say it is in the public best interest to ban something of this nature is if you can scientifically prove that in a high amount of cases playing this games induces behavior dangerous to society as a whole. At the current point that games are in you can not reasonably prove such a thing. Their is still to much disjoint. Now as we proceed forward that line will blur more then it already has though you can't conceivably consider it until games come to a point where Rational People have a hard time regularly distinguishing between a game and reality, think Holodeck or Matrix.
Those are just my thoughts on the two matters.
Post by: Terranigma Freak on June 20, 2007, 02:41:33 AM
Post by: Ceric on June 20, 2007, 04:14:52 AM
lol. It be funny if they made 2 versions of the game. 1 with just enough content to send to the rating boards initially that is AO and another to send afterwards that is M by comparison.
Post by: Rhoq on June 20, 2007, 04:37:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
t be funny if they made 2 versions of the game. 1 with just enough content to send to the rating boards initially that is AO and another to send afterwards that is M by comparison.
How, exactly, would that be funny? I think it would be sickening to see a company give in to politics and "religious right" wack jobs just because they disapprove of the game's content. Rockstar/Take Two had better not back down and neuter this or any of their other games just because people want to bitch. I make my own decisions on what games I want to play. I don't need nor want anyone to hold my hand.
Post by: Requiem on June 20, 2007, 05:53:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Reading about it and practicing it aren't even comparable, and no i'm not American so i'm not familiar with the bible. I guess kiddie porn could be considered art too.
Who says your practicing it? It's waggle technology! Your overreacting
The point is, if you start banning things, it's a slippery slope. Soon you'll start banning more things because people will have more courage to bitch seeing as how it worked before and that in itself, is BULLSH#T.
And when it comes to something I have to buy, I don't want to be told what I can buy and what I can't, even if I don't want to buy it in the first place.
P.S. I'm not American and I haven't read the bible.
Post by: Ceric on June 20, 2007, 06:21:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RhoqQuote
Originally posted by: Ceric
t be funny if they made 2 versions of the game. 1 with just enough content to send to the rating boards initially that is AO and another to send afterwards that is M by comparison.
How, exactly, would that be funny? I think it would be sickening to see a company give in to politics and "religious right" wack jobs just because they disapprove of the game's content. Rockstar/Take Two had better not back down and neuter this or any of their other games just because people want to bitch. I make my own decisions on what games I want to play. I don't need nor want anyone to hold my hand.
More that the whole concept would be Bizarre. Sort of "Here lets send the ESRB exactly what they don't want to see so it gets an AO and then we'll send them the actual game which won't seem as bad and get the M."
Unfortunately though those "...politics and "religious right" wack jobs..." have worked hard at getting connections that allow them to pull strings like that. I don't know how many times the -------- ------- have ruined things for me. I'm not even their denomination.
In the end what will really matter is that Take Two has a demographic they are trying to hit and if that demographic is not Adults Only then they are going to change it.
Post by: Nick DiMola on June 20, 2007, 06:39:51 AM
Post by: Ceric on June 20, 2007, 06:55:31 AM
Post by: EasyCure on June 20, 2007, 07:02:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I hate censorship so much. The UK is censoring this game entirely which is flat out wrong, and the ESRB is essentially doing the same thing by giving the game an AO rating. I hope Take Two stands up to these tyrants and just releases the game as is. If Take Two has the balls to do that I urge all of you to buy the game to protect our rights as American citizens. We should not stand for censorship in any degree. This country was founded on freedom; freedom of expression is one of our many freedoms that our forefathers DIED FOR. Censorship is evil and is a slippery slope no matter what anyone says in trying to convince you otherwise. We need to fight this injustice and keep our video games from falling victim to censorship.
quoated for EMPHASIS and TRUTH
Post by: Svevan on June 20, 2007, 07:06:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RhoqQuote
Originally posted by: Ceric
t be funny if they made 2 versions of the game. 1 with just enough content to send to the rating boards initially that is AO and another to send afterwards that is M by comparison.
How, exactly, would that be funny? I think it would be sickening to see a company give in to politics and "religious right" wack jobs just because they disapprove of the game's content. Rockstar/Take Two had better not back down and neuter this or any of their other games just because people want to bitch. I make my own decisions on what games I want to play. I don't need nor want anyone to hold my hand.
First let me speak as a mod: please refrain from using the phrase "religious-right whackjobs." It is a slur.
Now let me respond to the conversation: Religion has little connection to the situation at hand - the censorship of video games (and art) in America is promoted equally across the political aisles, but seems to be a major selling point for liberals such as Lieberman, Tipper Gore, and Hillary Clinton (as well as quite a few conservatives, not all of whom are religious). Censorship in Britain, which is far worse than ours, is not religiously motivated. I also question your implicit premise that religion is an improper base for forming biases, but philosophical and political bedrocks are valid. That's an unfair stance.
I say the above not to further the religious discussion but to quelch it. The political discussion, at least in this thread, must continue.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 20, 2007, 07:36:47 AM
Post by: Requiem on June 20, 2007, 07:48:09 AM
Any online store (except maybe wal-mart) will sell the game since it'll require a credit card to do so (proof of age).
Post by: Rhoq on June 20, 2007, 08:37:15 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 20, 2007, 08:47:30 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 20, 2007, 09:07:13 AM
Post by: Deguello on June 20, 2007, 10:25:49 AM
Quote
Art is art, no matter what the form.
Art.
"While the exhibit's representatives claim that all of the bodies were obtained through the Dalian Medical University Plastination Laboratories in China, human rights campaigners point out that Dalian University "[has] had been previously implicated in the use of executed prisoners for commercial purposes".[2] If the bodies are those Chinese prisoners whose bodies were used without their consent, it may be a violation of human rights and of Chinese law."
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 20, 2007, 10:52:48 AM
$8 OFF ADMISSION WITH A STUDENT ID, FTW
Way to hit close to home, Deg.
I'm pre-ordering the game for its immersive and interactive qualities -- things that were apparent before all this great ratings-news popped up.
Post by: The Omen on June 20, 2007, 11:04:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
I certainly hope none of you are pre-ordering it simply for its rating.Quote
Art is art, no matter what the form.
Art.
"While the exhibit's representatives claim that all of the bodies were obtained through the Dalian Medical University Plastination Laboratories in China, human rights campaigners point out that Dalian University "[has] had been previously implicated in the use of executed prisoners for commercial purposes".[2] If the bodies are those Chinese prisoners whose bodies were used without their consent, it may be a violation of human rights and of Chinese law."
Despite your showing this paragraph to point out what may be some heinous crimes, the fact remains it still resonates as art. Art doesn't fall under control of any man made laws, the artist does.
As for Manhunt 2, I suspect Rockstar new this was coming and purposely sought this type of reaction. They will resubmit it and it will receive a M rating. All the attention can only help.
Post by: optimisticlimbo on June 20, 2007, 11:09:31 AM
Sony and Nintendo say No
this makes sense:
Amazon: Manhunt 2
Since no one will let the game exists, it looks like they might be going the best route possible, move the release date and edit the game so you can still make money off of it.
Post by: Nick DiMola on June 20, 2007, 12:14:44 PM
I'd really like to thank Hillary Clinton and Jack Thompson for perpatuating the lies of video game induced violence. Their propaganda will really make America a better place one day.
Post by: Ceric on June 20, 2007, 12:35:33 PM
Edit: Actually they do have one recourse. Retool the game to work on a computer and use the drivers and like that allow for Wiimote on PC to enable those functions for those who can.
Post by: optimisticlimbo on June 20, 2007, 12:47:45 PM
This brings up an interesting question, what does this mean for No More Heroes? Suda51 said he wanted to TOP Manhunt 2. Does this mean it will be banned before even being rated? j/k
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 20, 2007, 12:55:29 PM
I don't see why retailers treat M differently from AO when the M audience is technically adults with the addition of the oldest of kids -- CONTENT FOR PEOPLE ONLY 17+ IS OK TO KEEP AT WAL-MART?
Post by: Blue Plant on June 20, 2007, 01:02:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: optimisticlimbo
I really don't see the point of an AO rating if no one can really use it.
Very good point.
Post by: Shift Key on June 20, 2007, 01:11:30 PM
Quote
Games made for Nintendo systems enjoy a broad variety of styles, genres, and ratings. These are some of the reasons our Wii and Nintendo DS systems appeal to such a broad range of people. But as with books, television, and movies, different content is meant for different audiences. That's why the ESRB provides ratings to help consumers understand the content of a game before they purchase it. As stated on Nintendo.com, Nintendo does not allow any AO-rated content on its systems.
Translation: "We appreciate the right to make games. We appreciate the right for people to play different games. We choose what you will play on our system."
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 20, 2007, 01:14:46 PM
Post by: optimisticlimbo on June 20, 2007, 01:21:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shift KeyQuote
Games made for Nintendo systems enjoy a broad variety of styles, genres, and ratings. These are some of the reasons our Wii and Nintendo DS systems appeal to such a broad range of people. But as with books, television, and movies, different content is meant for different audiences. That's why the ESRB provides ratings to help consumers understand the content of a game before they purchase it. As stated on Nintendo.com, Nintendo does not allow any AO-rated content on its systems.
Translation: "We appreciate the right to make games. We appreciate the right for people to play different games. We choose what you will play on our system."
You can play what you want, as long as it doesn't exceed M. It's interesting that this issue with AO really hasn't been dealt with.
Post by: Ceric on June 20, 2007, 01:39:37 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 20, 2007, 01:50:28 PM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on June 20, 2007, 01:56:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
I certainly hope none of you are pre-ordering it simply for its rating.
why would anybody do something stupid like that?
Post by: Kairon on June 20, 2007, 02:43:38 PM
Post by: Rhoq on June 20, 2007, 03:47:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
I certainly hope none of you are pre-ordering it simply for its rating.
No. I was planning to buy it regardless. Today's pre-order was simply due to the "AO" situation possibly hindering it's availability, though now that's a moot point since Nintendo doesn't appear to have any balls.
Post by: Kenology on June 20, 2007, 03:50:48 PM
What's the point of an AO rating anyways if no one'll carry it and console manufacturers won't even allow these games on their systems? Then, how about that official Nintendo response? Initially, I thought they were behind Rockstar, but suddenly, that last sentence ("As stated on Nintendo.com, Nintendo does not allow any AO-rated content on its systems") was the punchline (literally) that just blackened my eye and gave me whiplash at that same time.
I'm very disappointed.
Post by: that Baby guy on June 20, 2007, 03:56:17 PM
Post by: Rhoq on June 20, 2007, 04:28:20 PM
Post by: NeoThunder on June 20, 2007, 05:48:58 PM
Post by: Kairon on June 20, 2007, 06:04:53 PM
Post by: Deguello on June 20, 2007, 08:40:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: The OmenQuote
Originally posted by: Deguello
I certainly hope none of you are pre-ordering it simply for its rating.Quote
Art is art, no matter what the form.
Art.
"While the exhibit's representatives claim that all of the bodies were obtained through the Dalian Medical University Plastination Laboratories in China, human rights campaigners point out that Dalian University "[has] had been previously implicated in the use of executed prisoners for commercial purposes".[2] If the bodies are those Chinese prisoners whose bodies were used without their consent, it may be a violation of human rights and of Chinese law."
Despite your showing this paragraph to point out what may be some heinous crimes, the fact remains it still resonates as art. Art doesn't fall under control of any man made laws, the artist does.
Art in fact, DOES fall under man-made laws. Would you argue that child pornography is art? You could. But its wrong and illegal. Displaying a dead body is in poor taste and has been illegal for a long time. The Bodies exhibit is different in that it is quasi-scientific in nature and they mostly got consent, but the ones that they may have not raise serious ethical issues. Hypothetically, suppose I wanted to use your blood as my paint. Since art is apparently free from man-made laws, I can bludgeon you and paint daisies on your wall in your blood. Now I'd imagine you'd how a problem with that and would not consent. But you would have just about as much consent as those contested dead bodies, or a very young child being abused by their guardians.
And isn't it strange to attach the label of "art" to a consumer good like this? I'm just not seeing the violation of liberties here or any sort of censorship. They've made a game under the auspices of a rating system that they agreed to beforehand. The ratings board labels it AO. All three console manufacturers say they'll deny all AO games (I bet Nintendo's the only one getting called out for it) and basically every retail outlet will refuse to carry it. HOWEVER the game still exists and they can publish it on PC or directly on their online store. They may not make a large profit, but that's the price they'll pay for their "artistic choice." Just because you make "art," doesn't mean you deserve profit.
The real story hee is that the ESRB may be tightening down on games not that they are starting to look more realistic and in the Wii's case, control more viscerally. I think same games that used to get M's might find themselves under the AO banner soon.
Post by: Shift Key on June 20, 2007, 08:47:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
The real story hee is that the ESRB may be tightening down on games not that they are starting to look more realistic and in the Wii's case, control more viscerally. I think same games that used to get M's might find themselves under the AO banner soon.
Deg, what do you think of the UK decision to ban it? Do you support the view that censorship is allowed to ban certain items from the public rather than letting the public make their own decision?
Post by: that Baby guy on June 20, 2007, 09:02:42 PM
Now then, there is a difference between the two: One looks as real as possible and isn't banned to minors. I wonder which one should be considered worse, considering tests have concluded that violent video games have little to no long term effects on aggressive behavior.
Post by: Deguello on June 20, 2007, 09:15:43 PM
Post by: Mario on June 20, 2007, 09:26:23 PM
Quote
Deg, what do you think of the UK decision to ban it? Do you support the view that censorship is allowed to ban certain items from the public rather than letting the public make their own decision?
This logic is flawed to hell and back. There will be mentally unstable people who will CHOOSE to buy Manhunt 2, and they will hopefully be stopped by this fantastic censorship law in the UK. People do NOT have a "choice", when it comes to breaking the law.
Post by: oohhboy on June 20, 2007, 11:51:39 PM
ManHunt does not infringe on anyones rights in its production or use. You have a choice not to use or see it. Banning it is an overreaction and unnecessary.
Blasting Rockstar for making this game is pointless and counter-productive. There are developers that push the graphics envelop. Others push gameplay or story. Rockstar pushes violence. I say good for them. We need companies and people to push those boundaries. Without them we would still be naked in that cave in the mountain side.
Post by: Mario on June 21, 2007, 12:01:39 AM
Post by: ubern00b on June 21, 2007, 03:17:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
There will be mentally unstable people who will CHOOSE to buy Manhunt 2...
Exactly.
Just like there will be mentally unstable people who will choose to buy guns. Or knives. Or gasoline, fertilizer and a bus ticket. Or a thousand other tools or implements which can DIRECTLY harm other people. But we want to ban violent games that might influence an unstable person who is probably just as likely to be influenced by a violent movie, book, song, website, painting, statue, poem, anime or person "looking at them wrong". We try to rationalize and find a scapegoat for the horrible things people sometimes do, rather than addressing the root problems of psychopathy and sociopathy in society.
Which IMO is a bigger problem than violent media will ever be.
Regardless, this whole situation to me just shows that Video games aren't taken seriously as a form expression and story telling. Yes, this game is extremely disturbing and violent. So were "A Clockwork Orange", "Macbeth" and "A History of Violence". All of which I found compelling and unforgettable insights into the nature and horrors of humanity, that left me asking myself a lot of questions about us as species. Who's to say I, or any number of other gamers, won't take the same things Manhunt 2 ? Don't I have the right to play this game and decide for myself if it has artistic merit or is merely exploitative schlock ?
I, and I'm sure many other gamers, want video games to be able evolve into a rich media of story telling and social commentary that will rival the best pieces of literature and film. For that to happen, there is a need for games to be able cover more serious, and sometimes darker subject matter - which is never going to happen if every game that people feel "pushes the boundaries" is banned.
I don't object to restricting the sale of this game to adults AT ALL. I do, however, completely and utterly object to the outright denial of adults to experience it.
(Incidentally no amount of gore or violence in any form of media has ever come close to unnerving me as much as Lady Macbeth loosing her mind and obsessively washing imaginary blood off her hands)
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on June 21, 2007, 05:49:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
Art in fact, DOES fall under man-made laws. Would you argue that child pornography is art? You could. But its wrong and illegal. Displaying a dead body is in poor taste and has been illegal for a long time. The Bodies exhibit is different in that it is quasi-scientific in nature and they mostly got consent, but the ones that they may have not raise serious ethical issues. Hypothetically, suppose I wanted to use your blood as my paint. Since art is apparently free from man-made laws, I can bludgeon you and paint daisies on your wall in your blood. Now I'd imagine you'd how a problem with that and would not consent. But you would have just about as much consent as those contested dead bodies, or a very young child being abused by their guardians.
In what way is displaying a dead body illegal? Are open casket funerals against the law? Those plastinated body exhibits are hard for me to judge. I think there's nothing wrong with them as long as everyone on display gave fully informed consent when they were alive. If they didn't give consent, then their bodies should be taken out of the exhibits and given proper burials. Does that change whether it's art, though? Assume for a moment that it is art, and compare it to an established, accepted art form. If someone stole paint in order to create a painting, would the painting, the actual creative act, not be art? If a block of marble was stolen and made into a statue, would the statue not be art just because the sculptor had no right to make it? In either case, if the crime had not been committed, the materials had been obtained legally, and the resulting piece was exactly the same, would the work be art then?
It seems to me that the creative act, the thing we judge to be art or not, is separate from the acquisition of material. The crime committed does not necessarily influence the art itself. In your own example, the crimes committed are assault, battery and vandalism. Using blood for paint is not specifically a crime that I know of, although it would certainly be informative during the trial. That's not to say that art isn't subject to law. Child pornography is illegal not just because it is itself harmful (and it is, since it encourages further harm to children), but also because the act of creating the stuff is illegal. You abuse a child in the process. Taking a provocative picture of a child is illegal regardless of whether you're making "art." On the other hand, painting isn't illegal regardless of whether the paint is stolen. Stealing paint is illegal regardless of whether it's used to create art. They are separate acts and require separate judgments.
Quote
The real story hee is that the ESRB may be tightening down on games not that they are starting to look more realistic and in the Wii's case, control more viscerally. I think same games that used to get M's might find themselves under the AO banner soon.
I have a lot to complain about when it comes to the M and AO ratings. The AO rating says, "This is totally inappropriate for minors." The M rating says, "This is totally inappropriate for 95% of minors." There is no point in making that distinction. The age guidelines for the ratings are 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 18. There's a three to four year difference between each pair except for the last. I understand why AO means 18 and older, because that's when you're legally no longer a minor and are responsible for your own screwups. I just think that in light of that, the M rating doesn't really serve its purpose well. They should either move it back to 16 or eliminate it and move T up to 14. Obviously, they should tweak the criteria for the ratings if they do that, too.
The other big problem is that "Rated M for Mature" is quite possibly the best ad line to use on kids ever invented. They should have come up with a drier name, or at least something that wouldn't attract kids. Alternatively, they could have used something other than age-based ratings, avoiding the problem of kids wanting to be grown up entirely.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 21, 2007, 07:13:43 AM
Post by: Adrock on June 21, 2007, 07:50:55 AM
It's at least a rental for me, possibly a collector's item. Yup, Manhunt 2 right next to my Final Fantasy 3 cartridge on SNES.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on June 21, 2007, 08:45:19 AM
Post by: Requiem on June 21, 2007, 09:27:07 AM
Those were two very compelling arguments.
Post by: ThePerm on June 21, 2007, 09:29:27 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 21, 2007, 09:49:36 AM
Post by: cubist on June 21, 2007, 09:50:23 AM
I'm sorry but Nintendo really needs to get a stick out of its ass. I've been a long time Nintendo loyalist and now that they're becoming the market leader again...they're going to start imposing their will...on canning games...and refusing to release them...as if not releasing Manhunt 2 will help their third party relationships.
Why do we need an AO rating anyway?!?...what's the difference between AO and Mature...someone 'splain to me...
Post by: EasyCure on June 21, 2007, 10:12:28 AM
it even stated that microsoft released statements saying that, if the game were on their system, they wouldnt let it happen either. so its not just nintendo.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 21, 2007, 10:29:23 AM
LOL difference between AO and M was something along the lines of "prolonged scenes of intense violence/fahking" versus "contains some scenes of violence/fahking". Makes you wonder where RE4 falls given all the head-busting fun I had last night.
If Wii has software containing "prolonged scenes of intense anime girl moaning", I'd want the choice of NOT buying it be up to me, not Nintendo.
Post by: Nemo on June 21, 2007, 10:38:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePermThe only thing not art is made by nature.
Nature is art, too. God made it.
Post by: Requiem on June 21, 2007, 11:14:11 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on June 21, 2007, 11:16:11 AM
Post by: Requiem on June 21, 2007, 11:24:42 AM
What's your point?
Post by: ShyGuy on June 21, 2007, 12:30:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
That's if you believe in Aliens.
What's your point?
To mess with you mostly.
So, I see where Take2 has suspended Manhunt2 period. I wonder what the next move will be?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172931.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on June 21, 2007, 12:37:35 PM
Post by: Requiem on June 21, 2007, 12:47:47 PM
Post by: Deguello on June 21, 2007, 12:48:37 PM
Again art does fall under man-made laws. Because art is also man-made. Show a bear the Mona Lisa and he might wipe his ass with it. We set definitions for art that separate it from, say... this pencil. Since we have things that are definitely and universally agreed upon as not being art, the only difference here is where the line's drawn. The majority of people, and the industry itself, appear to be drawing the line at Manhunt 2.
Another thing strange is that the all of this "art" clamor presupposes that the game actually presents its violence in an artistic way. What if it doesn't? What if the raters are actually correct? What if it is nothing more than just some violence with a loosely tied together plot whose only goal is to deliver depictions of violence, like pulling off testicles with a pair of pliers? This certainly requires a little pause when you think about children playing this (just imagine what screwed up Ms. 12-year-old) or even worse, imagine a 27-year-old retarded man with the impressionable mind of a child and the power to exercise such acts. Should he be restricted from getting it? Is that fair? You have to be this smart to enjoy your rights?
The AO hammer has to come down sometime, simply because the industry and its retailers have since been ineffective at keeping the sale of M rated games to adults. For example, just today I purchased the Wii edition of RE4 at Gamestop. Guy did not card me, and received no prompt to do so, despite his repeated attempts to get me a subscription to a magazine. Walmart gets the prompt. "Is the customer 17?" That's effective, but all the kid has to do is drag the parent who obviously brought him there to OK it. I think it's time for there to be a fine for selling M-rated games to minors, just like there is a fine for allowing minors into R-rated movies.
The AO rating hovered above M, like the green and blue levels of the terror alert, never to be used. It is unnecessary and must be stripped, which of course would mean M becomes the top rating and would possibly make IT the poster child for stores to beat on, but that's what you get when you make 2 ratings mean the same thing.
Post by: Requiem on June 21, 2007, 01:09:27 PM
Plus, it is for science and the greater good of knowledge (don't reply to this statement as I know what you are going to say; I just wanted to write it anyways) and not just art. My father, a DVM professor is completely facinated by it. He said he was also facinated by the animal version.
Which brings about my next question: If we are animals apart of the same animal kingdom that rules this earth, then why are we not able to study ourselves to every degree we study other animals? Sure, if someone did not give consent over their body then I can see the moral delima, but what about those that did (even if in the form of organ donating)?
Quote
The AO hammer has to come down sometime, simply because the industry and its retailers have since been ineffective at keeping the sale of M rated games to adults. For example, just today I purchased the Wii edition of RE4 at Gamestop. Guy did not card me, and received no prompt to do so, despite his repeated attempts to get me a subscription to a magazine. Walmart gets the prompt. "Is the customer 17?" That's effective, but all the kid has to do is drag the parent who obviously brought him there to OK it. I think it's time for there to be a fine for selling M-rated games to minors, just like there is a fine for allowing minors into R-rated movies.
This whole paragraph doesn't make any sense. So your saying just because RETAILERS are ineffective at abiding by the ESRB guidelines that it is the fault of the developer? So your saying DEVELOPERS should make less violent/sexual games just because it'll get to the kid anyways? Your saying that PARENTS have no authority over what their children read, watch, or play and that the children FORCE parents to give the purchase an ok? And because of all of this the "AO hammer has to come down sometime" simply to revoke it's right to be sold?
What the hell are you talking about?!
Post by: ryancoke on June 21, 2007, 02:23:54 PM
Post by: Arbok on June 21, 2007, 02:50:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ryancoke
so AO is for 18+ people and M is for 17+. Basically that's like saying a certain movie should be banned because it's rated R. Have you ever seen a movie banned because it was rated R? Never. Nintendo, Sony and MS are retarded.
...why are you comparing AO to an R rating? R is 17, so is "Mature" in the ESRB. The best parellel is with X, which became NC-17 in 1990.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on June 21, 2007, 03:33:16 PM
Post by: Arbok on June 21, 2007, 03:41:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
But I've never seen an NC-17 movie be banned. Kids was NC-17, so was Show Girls. Kids was an underground hit...and Showgirls...ruined Jesse Spano forever.
But have you ever seen a NC-17 movie get a wide theatrical release? Show Girls is the only exception, which was seen as testing the waters... and failed at doing so, which reduced the rating to art house showings. If three companies owned all theaters in the US, to do a good connection with consoles, I think NC-17 in general wouldn't be screened at all. So I really don't see the current situation to be all that surprising.
Post by: UncleBob on June 21, 2007, 04:41:13 PM
Okay, here's the deal. A whole lot of you are hypocrites. I'm all for freedom of speech, etc., etc but here's the thing - Take Two is free to make their game however they see fit. They can put whatever they want in it. They can choose to submit it to the ESRB for a rating or to leave it unrated. It's all up to them. It's their "art".
However, y'all need to remember, if Take Two wants to officially release this game on a Nintendo or Sony console, Nintendo and/or Sony is going to have to print the title (My understanding of how it still works, right?). Nintendo and Sony are going to have to put their names on the title. In some of your worlds, EBGameStop, Wal*Mart, etc would be "forced" to carry the title. So, basically, you're saying that these companies (and those who work for them) should not have any say in what they partake in... They should not get to enjoy the same freedoms that Take Two does.
If T2/R* want to create the game and release it for PC or create their own console and release it for that and sell it through their own distribution channels, they are perfectly free to do so (in the US, at least). However, those of you who want to force other companies to participate in the release and distribution of this game... well, you're just as morally wrong as those who want to force Take Two and Rockstar to not be allowed to release/distribute the game.
Did any of that make the slightest bit of sense?
Post by: that Baby guy on June 21, 2007, 05:11:32 PM
Then there's the whole, "We've spent over a year working on this game, and now you tell us we can't sell for the devices we made it for" ordeal. That's a pretty big economical hit.
For the record, Nintendo/Sony don't have to print the title, and I can remember exactly how several prior lawsuits have gone, but basically, the best path for the game is for Nintendo/Sony to approve it for printing on their title. Unlicensed games have been published before, TENGEN is one company that did so, and there was one publisher that got in some big trouble for it with the Genesis, though their problem was that when they made a game, it started the system with the 'Produced under license by Sega' or whatever that message was. Sega won that one, but mostly because it was possible to create a title that didn't feign Sega acclaim, and Sega provided proof of that on a furnished Genesis there.
What is difficult to tell about unlicensed games is that they don't typically happen until some time after the console is profitable. Though, the earliest case I can think of is actually Ms. Pac-Man, where Namco and the creators of Ms. Pac-Man settled out of court because Ms. Pac-Man was a great game, and once Namco figured that out, they didn't want to jeopardize losing it. However, this case might not have set much precedent in the console realm, as arcade units weren't designed to have interchangeable content created by people other than the unit's maker, whereas consoles are.
Anyways, I'll delve a little deeper and look up some research after I go get some food...
Post by: Shecky on June 21, 2007, 05:32:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Here's the catch, UncleBob. Nintendo and Sony are Japanese companies. What logic does it make for them to listen to an United States ratings board? To what extent does this carry over to? Will they allow the content in Japan or other Asian countries? How limiting will this decision be?
Umm, they're international companies... they do business in more regions than just Japan obviously.
UncleBob is right... If there's a gray area here it's in the definition of AO.
Best example I can come up with is that a couple of years ago, I was at Disney and they turned away a tourist wearing a shirt with offensive language. They actually gave her several options (buy a shirt from them, turn the shirt inside out, go back to your place of stay and change). Disney isn't violating rights in doing that, as they have the right to set some ground rules that they'd like to observe for the betterment of the park and their business.
To me the Disney analogy has closer ties to this situation than does the analogy of VCR's and X rated films, the later being a more generic format player.
Edit: The gray area is that Disney sets what is considered offensive. Nintendo entrusts that decision to the ESRB, and has set a policy around that. Since there are very few open/generic mediums for games (just computer gaming really...), and that there are not a lot of AO games (and thus no avenue to obtain them easily). AO becomes this kiss of death, and so the question of if the game actually warranted an AO takes center light...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 21, 2007, 05:49:28 PM
Post by: Requiem on June 21, 2007, 06:07:30 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on June 21, 2007, 11:35:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
I hope they tone it down, but "forget" to take out the extra violence code, then "anonymously leak a way to unlock it about 6 months after release. Sort of like Hot Coffee, only intentional.
That would be awesome, but god only knows what would happen when it leaked. I'm sure Jacky-boy would be all over that and it would quickly turn into a nightmare for Take Two.
It really annoys me that no one will sell AO games, publish AO games or even think about AO games. The rating may as well be called BANNED, because you can't do anything with the game you made anyway.
Post by: UncleBob on June 22, 2007, 12:22:44 AM
Post by: Pittbboi on June 22, 2007, 03:55:24 AM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on June 22, 2007, 05:09:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
If TakeTwo/RockStar want to release the game unlicensed, then they can give it a shot. (Datel released some unlicensed GCN games, afterall. That's the fun part about the whole "freedom of speech" bit. No one is stopping them from releasing their game. And no one is forcing Nintendo, Sony, WalMart, EBGameStop, etc to have anything to do with it. Just as it should be.
I highly doubt take two would like to be associated with Tengen, and I'm sure Nintendo and Sony will do a lawsuit ASAP if they released an unlicensed video game on their platforms.
Post by: UncleBob on June 22, 2007, 05:19:04 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 22, 2007, 06:03:14 AM
Well, Rockstar decided to test Nintendo with this Manhunt 2...and created one of the gorest games that was designed from the beginning to be contraversal. Now, it appears that the ratings boards believe they crossed that fine line between Mature and Adult.
The being able to rip someone's testicles out and kill them is probably notion enough that fine line was leaped across. And they have to live with an AO rating. And Nintendo must decide if they want the heat for having an AO rated game on their system...and I can tell you right now that answer is an understandable NO!!!
So what happens now? Rockstar can release it without license...there is nothing truly stopping them from doing that. (I don't think, anyway.) Selling the game over the internet only and not having a presence would be tough, but not impossible.
They could edit the game, but we are talking about massive edits probably, because the game is getting an AO rating for the extreme violence...which isn't just blood, but literally cutting people in half, wearing people's heads as a belt, and much more we probably don't even know yet. Editting the game means potentially crippling the entire game.
Finally, they could just go with the AO rating and see what happens. There will be places to buy the game...not many but a few, and finding and owning the game may be a viral campaign in and of itself...creating a huge underground type demand for it.
Post by: Pittbboi on June 22, 2007, 06:27:45 AM
Wait, I'm confused...doesn't software have to be licensed by Nintendo to even play on a Wii? That was the impression I was under. By not licensing the game Nintendo is keeping it from playing on their hardware. Not that I'm sticking up for Rockstar, though. Frankly, serves them right. They knew what kind of game they were creating from day 1, and they knew what Nintendo's (and Sony's, for that matter) policy on AO games was. I find it laughable that Rockstar thought they were going to bend Nintendo to their will with what is, essentially, the unwarranted sequel to what was a pretty mediocre game. And, honestly, if even half of what I read is in Manhunt 2 is true, I honestly would have to question the mental stability of a person who would take joy in playing a game like that (let alone creating it), and to claim that it doesn't deserve its AO rating is absurd.
Post by: Deguello on June 22, 2007, 06:39:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
It's not in public, it's a museum. You pay to get in, which is one of the best ways to give your consent that you want to see such things. People at rallies showing fetuses is completely different. People who walk by don't want to see that shite, so they end up b@tching which in turn gives warrant to the fine.
Plus, it is for science and the greater good of knowledge (don't reply to this statement as I know what you are going to say; I just wanted to write it anyways) and not just art. My father, a DVM professor is completely facinated by it. He said he was also facinated by the animal version.
Which brings about my next question: If we are animals apart of the same animal kingdom that rules this earth, then why are we not able to study ourselves to every degree we study other animals? Sure, if someone did not give consent over their body then I can see the moral delima, but what about those that did (even if in the form of organ donating)?Quote
The AO hammer has to come down sometime, simply because the industry and its retailers have since been ineffective at keeping the sale of M rated games to adults. For example, just today I purchased the Wii edition of RE4 at Gamestop. Guy did not card me, and received no prompt to do so, despite his repeated attempts to get me a subscription to a magazine. Walmart gets the prompt. "Is the customer 17?" That's effective, but all the kid has to do is drag the parent who obviously brought him there to OK it. I think it's time for there to be a fine for selling M-rated games to minors, just like there is a fine for allowing minors into R-rated movies.
This whole paragraph doesn't make any sense. So your saying just because RETAILERS are ineffective at abiding by the ESRB guidelines that it is the fault of the developer? So your saying DEVELOPERS should make less violent/sexual games just because it'll get to the kid anyways? Your saying that PARENTS have no authority over what their children read, watch, or play and that the children FORCE parents to give the purchase an ok? And because of all of this the "AO hammer has to come down sometime" simply to revoke it's right to be sold?
What the hell are you talking about?!
I didn't mean a fine for the developer, I meant a fine for the store, keyword "sell," just like there are fines for selling children tobacco and alcohol (jail time for that one IIRC)
Edit: Man it is a cold day in hell when Pittbboi and I agree in a parallel fashion.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 22, 2007, 07:37:29 AM
I actually think the premise and story of Manhunt 2 could be really great. The problem is always whether the execution (pun intended).
Post by: Pittbboi on June 22, 2007, 08:35:17 AM
Quote
Edit: Man it is a cold day in hell when Pittbboi and I agree in a parallel fashion.
Yeah...it is a bit creepy...
Quote
I actually think the premise and story of Manhunt 2 could be really great. The problem is always whether the execution (pun intended).
Exactly. Manhunt 2 could actually be a very compelling game with its story (though I doubt it). But the level of sadism in this game is hardly justifiable. Pulling off someone's testicles with pliars? Raping a decapitated woman? Necrophilia? And all in realistic detail? ANYONE would have their work cut out for them justifying all of that. Rockstar simply can't claim ignorance in this. I'm glad they're getting their egos knocked down a couple pegs. Time to take responsibility with game design. Gore for the sake of gore is no longer going to cut it. In a way they've done the gaming community a great service. They're making that line in the sand between acceptable violence and excessive, gratuitous violence that should in some way be regulated all the more clearer.
What's really sad is that arguing this topic has made me come off as more prudish than I ever thought I was capable of being...
Post by: EasyCure on June 22, 2007, 08:43:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
I dunno if software has to be licensed or not. I guess I just assumed it has to be licensed to go through all the quality testing and such of a retail launch...but if it was only sold on the website maybe not? I am not sure of those laws and practices...I guess the PC world/realm is different.
I actually think the premise and story of Manhunt 2 could be really great. The problem is always whether the execution (pun intended).
this lil peice is importnat to think about for those who want to call the people who play it, as well as the people who made it, sick and disturbed.
the game does start up and say "go on a killing spree, have fun
" from what i understand of the story, it sets up how your character is in some sort of experimental facility and suffering from phychotic episodes. he's trying to escape his captors and survive amongst other demented and tortured pyschos. your character is unstable and becoming more and more so as the story progresses (i assume). if the game plays up the story and shows you becoming more unstable because of having to kill and because of it doing more and more extreme things, then i say its an artistic choice to do so and frankly im all for it if it can deliver a good enthralling story. its not just man vs man its man vs himself and deteriorating mental health.
then again the came could very well give you 2 minutes of story and have you mindlessly go around murdering your murderers. if that were the case i wouldnt spend $50 bucks on it personally, but im trying ot give TT/R the benifit of the doubt in hopes of a unique gameplay experience.
Post by: ShyGuy on June 22, 2007, 09:33:15 AM
Post by: vudu on June 22, 2007, 10:09:29 AM
QuoteThe best picture of 1969 says "hi".
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
But I've never seen an NC-17 movie be banned. Kids was NC-17, so was Show Girls. Kids was an underground hit...and Showgirls...ruined Jesse Spano forever.
But have you ever seen a NC-17 movie get a wide theatrical release?
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on June 22, 2007, 10:47:24 AM
Showgirls is the only NC-17 rated movie to have a wide release according to Wikipedia (for what it's worth).
Post by: IceCold on June 22, 2007, 06:24:44 PM
So can someone explain to me something? How come Manhunt 2 is AO while the first one was only M? Did they decide that the Wii controls were the tilt factor, and that since the Wii version was rated that way, they needed to do the same for the PS2?
Post by: Kairon on June 22, 2007, 06:26:31 PM
Post by: Pittbboi on June 22, 2007, 06:31:57 PM
Post by: Blue Plant on June 22, 2007, 06:43:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Did they decide that the Wii controls were the tilt factor, and that since the Wii version was rated that way, they needed to do the same for the PS2?
Apparently not. Wii Not Behind BBFC's Manhunt 2 Decision
Post by: Requiem on June 23, 2007, 01:51:27 AM
Post by: Ceric on June 23, 2007, 02:18:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
So how is anyone going to make Wii-foreplay with all this commotion?!
Call it educational software.
Post by: Requiem on June 23, 2007, 03:26:07 AM
How diabolically clever!
Post by: ThePerm on June 23, 2007, 04:43:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Is taking pictures of your cat and putting horrible captions on them, art?
mostly photography isn't art, its mostly just observational reproduction. Putting a caption on the picture makes it art however.
Post by: Requiem on June 23, 2007, 05:24:30 AM
Read, then bitch.
Post by: ThePerm on June 23, 2007, 07:54:26 AM
Post by: ThePerm on June 23, 2007, 08:12:21 AM
Braindead(dead-alive) which can be bought with liberty at video stores.
Also, lemme say, movies are tame by 70s standards. Everyone thinks Hostel and Saw are so violent and gory, have any of you ever seen Texas Chainsaw Massacre(original), Last house on the left, House at the Edge of the park(holy shit), a Clockwork Orange, or Cannibal Holocaust? Those movie are violent, those movies are extreme, it just seems that with the rise of the Tipper Gores and the Jack Thompson we've just turned into big pussies. I best most of the people in these forums eat meat, however, very few if any have actually done the killing. to me thats the most screwed up thing. We in the western cultures live such a sheltered and sugar coated life, and surprisingly thats the cause of real serial killers. People don't get out enough of their violent or sexual urges, and when that happens it builds up and people go crazy. Thats why video games and other media are good, it allows people to get out those urges and not do it for real. IMO its stupid to say these games cause real world violence, if the violence wasn't already inherent to human nature than there wouldn't be these games to begin with. They aren't going to make a game that nobody will have fun playing(unless they suck and have bad programmers).
crap the post acted liek it didnt go through for like 3 minutes so i rewrote it
Post by: EasyCure on June 23, 2007, 08:59:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: CericQuote
Originally posted by: Requiem
So how is anyone going to make Wii-foreplay with all this commotion?!
Call it educational software.
but religeous groups will pressure the developers/publishers to change the content because it'd be promoting sexual activity and will be reworked to Wii-abstinence.
it'll play like the games in Wario Ware, in which you have to leave the wiimote on a table in front of you..except you're not allowed to touch it... cuz you'll go blind and get hairy palms
Post by: cubist on June 23, 2007, 03:49:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
...it just seems that with the rise of the Tipper Gores and the Jack Thompson we've just turned into big pussies.
Yes...my favorite quote of this debate so far. I am still pretty pissed off about those groups calling the delay of Manhunt 2 a victory. I'm the son of preacher and I'm pretty religious myself...but a lot of these parent and religious groups really look ignorant when they start to comment on gaming. They're like mainstream Gamestop employees who tell you to buy a PSP because it costs more. Seriously though...a lot of religious and so-called parenting groups need to spend all that money and effort on educating parents on how to do their jobs.
The ESRB should not concern themselves about stopping a game in its tracks, but start to enforce and penalize retailers who allow under-aged children to purchase these games.
Nintendo needs to keep their mouths shut about the whole situation and let it play out. They F**KED up on the original Mortal Kombat when the SNES and Genesis got them...and now they're starting to express their opinions when they've already allowed games like Resident Evil 4, Scarface, and Godfather to be released on their system. As a matter of fact...you're not going to help third party relations by releasing a statement that you won't allow AO rated games on your system. They need to re-direct complaints of violence to the game-makers when they're faced with lawsuits.
For those of you who point out that it isn't just Nintendo...I don't really care about what Sony does...so don't use that as an argument to defend Nintendo expressing their AO opinions...
Oh yeah...
...In your ear and F**K what you heard!
Post by: NeoThunder on June 23, 2007, 03:59:25 PM
Post by: UncleBob on June 23, 2007, 04:15:41 PM
If Nintendo and Sony want to come out and say "We don't allow AO rated games on our systems", they have just as much right as anyone else. To attempt to deny them that right would put you in the same boat as Jack Thompson.
Post by: Kairon on June 23, 2007, 04:25:07 PM
Post by: IceCold on June 23, 2007, 08:02:24 PM
QuoteHow can you use the Mortal Kombat example then? You say it was bad for Nintendo since they didn't allow it while SEGA did. In this case, Sony isn't allowing it either, so there's a big difference.
For those of you who point out that it isn't just Nintendo...I don't really about what Sony does...so don't use that as an argument to defend Nintendo expressing their AO opinions...
Post by: Requiem on June 23, 2007, 10:35:06 PM
I think the wrong way to go about it is through other medias. Citing film examples won't get you as far since games are an interactive medium.
Post by: King of Twitch on June 23, 2007, 10:45:01 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070623/ap_on_hi_te/games_manhunt2
On another note, something is fishy about the investment firms cited in this article.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 23, 2007, 11:30:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
Freedom of Speech and Expression menas that *everyone* is free to say what they want and express themselves how they want (obviously within legal limits).
If Nintendo and Sony want to come out and say "We don't allow AO rated games on our systems", they have just as much right as anyone else. To attempt to deny them that right would put you in the same boat as Jack Thompson.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of action.
Post by: UncleBob on June 24, 2007, 02:26:36 AM
Post by: cubist on June 24, 2007, 07:03:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteHow can you use the Mortal Kombat example then? You say it was bad for Nintendo since they didn't allow it while SEGA did. In this case, Sony isn't allowing it either, so there's a big difference.
For those of you who point out that it isn't just Nintendo...I don't really about what Sony does...so don't use that as an argument to defend Nintendo expressing their AO opinions...
How can I cite the Mortal Kombat example? I was trying to make a point about their third party dealings.
In this case, Sega didn't try to censor a third party game like the original Mortal Kombat...Nintendo's reputation for catering to the younger demographic while coming down on third parties started to change their games started right then and there. Years later, they still can't keep their mouths shut and seem to be moving backwards with third parties.
The last 2 generations (N64 & GCN), Nintendo loses third party support and has been working hard to try and mend those relationships. Opening their mouths and releasing a statement on Manhunt 2 means that they've thrown Rockstar under the bus. They shouldn't say anything at all. Stop trying to make press releases that will make your company look good and alienate the third party.
Again, I don't really care about what Sony's doing OR what Sega has done in the past, I'm speaking more on how you need to maintain third party relations.
Somewhere there's a smart PR person with enough reason who needs a freakin' job!!!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 24, 2007, 08:18:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kQuote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
Freedom of Speech and Expression menas that *everyone* is free to say what they want and express themselves how they want (obviously within legal limits).
If Nintendo and Sony want to come out and say "We don't allow AO rated games on our systems", they have just as much right as anyone else. To attempt to deny them that right would put you in the same boat as Jack Thompson.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of action.
Well I personally dont' believe in Freedom of Exrpession as being a right, just Freedom of Speech (as in talking), but that is a whole different topic!
Post by: Kairon on June 24, 2007, 08:30:05 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 24, 2007, 08:30:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Anyone read Starship Troopers?
I seen the movie, does that count?
Post by: Kairon on June 24, 2007, 08:41:59 AM
Post by: Uncle Bob on June 24, 2007, 09:27:59 AM
Nintendo has simply responded to inquires about their policy on games rated "AO"... Which is exactly the same as it was before the Manhunt 2 mess.
Additionally, again, Nintendo isn't censoring *anything* that we know of for Manhunt 2. They are just standing by the policy they've had since the ESRB rating system was created.
Ten cents says TakeTwo/Rockstar knew the entire time they were developing Manhunt 2 that Nintendo (and others) doesn't allow AO rated games.
Post by: Arbok on June 24, 2007, 10:39:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
That movie was not rated NC-17. The NC-17 rating did not exist at the time. (Technically correct: the best kind of correct.)
Showgirls is the only NC-17 rated movie to have a wide release according to Wikipedia (for what it's worth).
Was about to point that out, but seems I was beaten to the punch by PartyBear.
Post by: oohhboy on June 24, 2007, 04:33:13 PM
The statement that Nintendo doesn't release AO game is based off a standing statement found on the website. Hardly the end all communication.
Post by: Kairon on June 24, 2007, 04:35:50 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 24, 2007, 07:45:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
If Nintendo was to allow them to release it unlicensed with a nod and a wink, everybody wins. Nintendo "keeps" their stance without saying anything. Rockstar gets to sell their game.
The statement that Nintendo doesn't release AO game is based off a standing statement found on the website. Hardly the end all communication.
Um isn't that still going against their moral principle's? If Nintendo as company doesn't feel comfortable ethically about releasing it, then people should respect that.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 24, 2007, 08:55:02 PM
Quotefixed. now everyone wins.
Originally posted by: oohhboy
If Nintendo was to allow them to release it unrated with a nod and a wink, everybody wins. Nintendo "keeps" their stance without saying anything. Rockstar gets to sell their game.
The statement that Nintendo doesn't release AO game is based off a standing statement found on the website. Hardly the end all communication.
Post by: Smoke39 on June 24, 2007, 10:02:07 PM
Post by: Kairon on June 24, 2007, 10:42:30 PM
... AO release on PC, M release on PS2, PSP and Wii. Would that be good?
Post by: Smoke39 on June 24, 2007, 11:01:43 PM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 25, 2007, 06:27:16 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 25, 2007, 07:41:28 AM
Quote
But given the structure of Manhunt 2 it should be fairly simple for Take-Two and the boards to reach an accommodation and release a redacted version rated M for Mature in time for the December holiday season. Whenever it does ship, Manhunt 2 is likely to enjoy a level of public awareness (and potentially sales) that it could never have attained without the ban. That of course may well have been what its makers intended all along.
...
The problem is that in addition to just hitting a bad guy a couple of times with a bat, there are other options, like slitting his throat, sticking a scythe in his nose and yanking his head back.
...
But these execution scenes are optional and don’t seem to last more than 10 seconds. If a highlight reel was largely made up of such clips, it could give a skewed impression of the overall game. Instead players spend most of their time thinking about how to move and avoid being swarmed by guards.
...
After visits to two Manhattan DVD stores I found an R-rated version of “Saw II.” (For “Hostel and “Saw III” I could find only the more extreme unrated cuts.) With some trepidation I put it on and the first scene was of a young man in a bleak cell being taunted to find a key by digging into his own oozing eye socket. If he does not yank out the key in 60 seconds, his head will be crushed in a spiked metal “death mask” around his neck.
Later, after someone else is burned to death in an industrial oven, a character cuts a hole into the back of his own neck. As the camera cut in for a loving view of the gaping wound, it was clear why the genre is sometimes called “torture porn.” Unlike the digital models in Manhunt 2, these were real people.
Post by: ThePerm on June 25, 2007, 07:59:16 AM
"Later, after someone else is burned to death in an industrial oven, a character cuts a hole into the back of his own neck. As the camera cut in for a loving view of the gaping wound, it was clear why the genre is sometimes called “torture porn.” Unlike the digital models in Manhunt 2, these were real people."
their not real people, their props made to look like real people.
Post by: Kairon on June 25, 2007, 08:03:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
their not real people, their props made to look like real people.
The graphics in Saw II were THAT GOOD.
Post by: Pittbboi on June 25, 2007, 08:11:22 AM
The difference between movies like Hostel and games like Manhunt 2 is that one is watched and played, while the other is simply watched...
Post by: Kairon on June 25, 2007, 08:29:17 AM
It's a long read, but chock full of intelligent discourse, a very measured approach (especially since they admit they've played only five missions into the AO rated version), imo. In fact, this first talk sets the basis for later ones, because they actually talk a lot about the first Manhunt, banned and challenging films in general, and all that jazz.
Also, it features some mindblowing insights, like the following about the first Manhunt:
Quote
The second reason I was so taken with Manhunt is because of what you mentioned in your opener: the man who has rescued you from execution and brought you to the abandoned town of Carcer City, where you must kill or be killed, all for his amusement. And as you point out, he gives you orders through your earpiece. He tells you where to go. He tells you what to do. He tells you what minimum level of violence he'll accept in the surveillance camera-meets-snuff film killings that you must commit for his pleasure before he will open the doors or gates that will let you proceed to the next area. He sounds awfully familiar, doesn't he? His name? The Designer--I mean, the Director. Yes, at the heart of Manhunt is a brilliantly twisted joke. Rockstar grabs the translucent veil of mildly disreputable innocuousness in which most action titles cloak themselves, tears it open and exposes the sinister truth that lies just beneath the surface: in an awful lot of videogames, the developer and the publisher are asking you to virtually kill an awful lot of virtual enemies, over and over and over again. Manhunt is just more honest about this than most, and cleverly, brutally so to boot.
Post by: Kairon on June 25, 2007, 08:31:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
The difference between movies like Hostel and games like Manhunt 2 is that one is watched and played, while the other is simply watched...
I think everyone knows that difference. The point where people converge is in guessing at the effect of that difference.
Post by: ThePerm on June 25, 2007, 08:55:44 AM
Post by: ThePerm on June 25, 2007, 09:39:26 AM
You know alot of Hitcocks greatest works precede the mpaa, Psycho was before the mpaa and was one of the first horror movies to not be a goofie monster kids film. "The birds" is based on Daphne du Maurier's short story. The movie is still terrifying, the only thing that sets it back nowadays is its oldschool dialog
one of those things iv always noticed is that it takes along time for every new art form to get accepted. I'm an art major, and it took centuries for painting to get where they are. In fact nowadays the point of art is to OFFEND. every medium goes through this. Painting, writing, movies, music, and now video games....food
yes food, nowadays everyone eats sushi like its the coolest thing to do, but previously it was thought of as gross.
Post by: Kairon on June 25, 2007, 09:52:16 AM
... AND I've developed the ability to be vicarious, which almost borders on a sort of "in-their-shoes" sort of empathy. I can even play games vicariously, if I want to. My little brother hates me for forcing him to play FFVII, for example.
Post by: couchmonkey on June 26, 2007, 06:25:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
yes food, nowadays everyone eats sushi like its the coolest thing to do, but previously it was thought of as gross.
I'm opening a new dog-crap restaurant to test this theory.
Ah, but I guess the idea is that Manhunt 2 could be sushi instead of dog crap. Fair enough!
Post by: ThePerm on June 26, 2007, 12:52:19 PM
Post by: Kairon on June 26, 2007, 03:51:31 PM
Quote
...
But in so deftly arguing why games and gamers should be treated with the same respect for intelligence and range of taste as films and filmmakers, you managed to write 3700-plus words that never describe any of the features of Manhunt 2 that would obviously set it apart in many people's minds from any movie they've ever seen or ever heard of.
...
Any meaning ascribed to an activity comes from two places: the doing and the context. For games--unlike other narrative media--the story is merely the context, the backdrop and the stage upon which the poor players strut and fret, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Would "Macbeth" have been as deep had it been a Manhunt-like action-adventure? (Sneak into the chambers of rivals like King Duncan and Macduff and murder them, while being urged on by the whispers of Lady Macbeth over your headset!) A Grand Theft Auto-ish open world game? (Rise from lowly squire to King of Scotland!) Or an Oblivion-esque role-playing game? (Carry out quests for the three witches! Solve their riddles! Battle the enchanted trees of Birnam Wood!) I'll let you imagine what Super Paper Macbeth and The Legend of Lady Macbeth: Twilight Queen might have been.
...
And we were playing it on the Wii, which, as you know, is not my console of choice, and as a veteran of the DualShock 2 controller, I didn't find the Wii controller a more immersive substitute, simply because it's not yet second nature to me. Particularly during the stealth kills, the Simon Says-like gesture matching meant that I was always conscious that I was playing a game, whereas the thoroughly familiar Dual Shock 2 would often feel like an extension of my thoughts. (So much for the BBFC's claims that there's exceptionally little distancing.)
...
Post by: denjet78 on June 26, 2007, 04:42:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
More Stephen Totilo and N'Gai Croal debate on Manhunt 2.Quote
...
But in so deftly arguing why games and gamers should be treated with the same respect for intelligence and range of taste as films and filmmakers, you managed to write 3700-plus words that never describe any of the features of Manhunt 2 that would obviously set it apart in many people's minds from any movie they've ever seen or ever heard of.
...
Any meaning ascribed to an activity comes from two places: the doing and the context. For games--unlike other narrative media--the story is merely the context, the backdrop and the stage upon which the poor players strut and fret, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Would "Macbeth" have been as deep had it been a Manhunt-like action-adventure? (Sneak into the chambers of rivals like King Duncan and Macduff and murder them, while being urged on by the whispers of Lady Macbeth over your headset!) A Grand Theft Auto-ish open world game? (Rise from lowly squire to King of Scotland!) Or an Oblivion-esque role-playing game? (Carry out quests for the three witches! Solve their riddles! Battle the enchanted trees of Birnam Wood!) I'll let you imagine what Super Paper Macbeth and The Legend of Lady Macbeth: Twilight Queen might have been.
...
And we were playing it on the Wii, which, as you know, is not my console of choice, and as a veteran of the DualShock 2 controller, I didn't find the Wii controller a more immersive substitute, simply because it's not yet second nature to me. Particularly during the stealth kills, the Simon Says-like gesture matching meant that I was always conscious that I was playing a game, whereas the thoroughly familiar Dual Shock 2 would often feel like an extension of my thoughts. (So much for the BBFC's claims that there's exceptionally little distancing.)
...
I think the biggest problem with this kind of comparison is age. Books have been around since the dawn of time. Film has been around for far more than a century. Games have only been around for a couple of decades. It's still a very young medium. No one's willing to take it serious yet so you're not seeing anything really serious being done with it. We don't know what books look like when they first begun to be written because those early books don't exist any longer. However, we can look back at film when it first appeared. If I'm not mistaken it too was tossed aside as a useless and pointless media for a very long time. Today it's considered vast and artful. Everyone watches them. They've pervaded almost every aspect of our life. There are entire school dedicated to them.
I wouldn't be adversed to playing games based off of great works of literature. In fact, I think it's a great idea, if done right. I don't see most developers doing it right though. The closest any developer seems to have gotten to making a game based on a book is making a games based on a movie based on a book. There's so much more they could do if they actually tried to make the game a new and different expression of the book. Look at the Harry Potter games. There's already so much in the books that don't appear in the movies. Why doesn't the developer take the chance to make the game a new experience rather than just follow the big events in the film? It seems all rather pointless to me. So many possibilities squandered in an attempt to do little more than cash in.
Until the people actually making the games start to take them seriously I highly doubt that anyone else is going to either.
Post by: IceCold on June 26, 2007, 07:36:55 PM
QuoteWell, aren't we going to get that Agatha Christie book-turned-game as an adventure game on Wii?
The closest any developer seems to have gotten to making a game based on a book is making a games based on a movie based on a book
Post by: Kairon on June 26, 2007, 07:41:31 PM
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on June 27, 2007, 05:50:20 AM
Post by: ThePerm on June 27, 2007, 06:04:06 AM
Post by: Deguello on June 27, 2007, 07:49:35 AM
Games must mature as their own medium, not ride on the coattails of other mediums. And furthermore, both of these guys still link violence and sexual content to "adulthood." Its like, even though those two fellas are over 18, they still act like they need to prove it. The fact that this insecurity infects those who supposedly represent us in the mainstream is a severe disservice.
Games don't need to follow the path of movies and books. But the fear by those that profess these games as "art" is, if games were to trudge down their own path, we'd get neutral games like Mario and Zelda, Pikmin and Cake Mania, finding new ways of interactivity while treating plot secondary, which is what games started as.
Games can only evolve as themselves, not as interactive versions of other things.
Post by: Kairon on June 27, 2007, 08:00:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
The problem with talking to these game journalists is that none of them are authorities on human psychology, so them pontificating about it is somewhat irrelevant.
Games must mature as their own medium, not ride on the coattails of other mediums. And furthermore, both of these guys still link violence and sexual content to "adulthood." Its like, even though those two fellas are over 18, they still act like they need to prove it. The fact that this insecurity infects those who supposedly represent us in the mainstream is a severe disservice.
Games don't need to follow the path of movies and books. But the fear by those that profess these games as "art" is, if games were to trudge down their own path, we'd get neutral games like Mario and Zelda, Pikmin and Cake Mania, finding new ways of interactivity while treating plot secondary, which is what games started as.
Games can only evolve as themselves, not as interactive versions of other things.
So basically we have no idea how to even approach the topic then, huh?
Post by: Deguello on June 27, 2007, 10:57:34 AM
And we should definitely have our games press people stop reporting it as a "controversy" or a debate." That's the sort of thing that started that anti-evolution crap in Kansas.
Post by: couchmonkey on June 28, 2007, 07:59:59 AM
Ha, interesting points, Deg, but mostly...it's just plain FUN to debate this type of stuff. I've been following Croal and Totolito's debate, it's interesting. I particularly find it interesting that it may be the game's sexual content getting it banned. The porno flick scene sounds like the type of material that could easily scare the ESRB away...and since they only view video of the "worst" bits of the game, it's likely that this exact content was sent their way.
Post by: that Baby guy on July 19, 2007, 07:21:56 PM
Now, I do think Nintendo will change the policy sooner or later, and this rumor points to sooner. Anyways, it's all really up to what NCL will allow.
Post by: Nick DiMola on July 19, 2007, 11:56:49 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on July 20, 2007, 06:07:31 AM
Post by: The Omen on July 20, 2007, 08:23:24 AM
Quote
The difference between movies like Hostel and games like Manhunt 2 is that one is watched and played, while the other is simply watched...
And both are simulated. I see little difference in the end result for the player/viewer. If you want to get technical, people used to flock in droves to watch men battle to the death in Rome. Is Manhunt worse than that?
The constant use of questionable analysis makes me so aggravated that I almost can't speak. For instance, when has it been shown that watching simulated violence causes real world violent tendencies? And if there is a report which states this (no matter how ridiculous it is, I assure you) where is the proof that it wasn't a the other way around? A young person who already had violent or disturbing tendencies and actually sought out this type of media to indulge their fantasies?
Post by: Kairon on August 10, 2007, 08:27:02 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 10, 2007, 09:23:19 PM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on August 11, 2007, 02:19:28 AM
Ans I will buy it a second time if they end up releasing an unedited/developer's cut somewhere down the line.
Post by: Mashiro on September 01, 2007, 05:32:57 AM
Quote
The Adults Only version of Manhunt 2 that created such a stir in North America and the United Kingdom over the last few weeks will now see the light of day -- but only in the European nation of Holland.
Current law in Netherlands prohibits the Dutch Ministry to interfere with the release of the game as originally cut by developer Rockstar Games, the same version of Manhunt 2 which would eventually be banned in both the US and UK. The title will now see release in America, but only after content was re-done in order for the game to be re-rated Mature.
"The current law is based on the principle that every adult is considered capable of deciding for himself which games he wants to play, unless it contains illegal material," said Dutch Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin in a letter to Parliament. "Deciding on whether children should be allowed to play a game is currently ‘the joint responsibility of parents, the audiovisual industry and the government."
Holland wins at life. (If that's possible for a mass of land to do).
Post by: UERD on September 01, 2007, 05:49:32 AM
Post by: Mashiro on September 01, 2007, 06:37:56 AM
No one person or entity is to blame nor am I trying to pass off the blame but I was more or less pointing out that the line of thought that something rated for adults shouldn't just be blocked because it is for adults. Also that it is the joint responsibility of parents, the industry and the government to make sure kids don't get into games that they shouldn't be getting into. It just seems (at least in America) that all the "parenting" lays with a rating system and that's that. Some parent's never seem to take responsibility for monitoring what their children watch or play if it's bad and end up passing the blame on the industry thus making things the way they are.
Post by: UERD on September 01, 2007, 07:00:44 AM
So it's no wonder everyone wants to push parenting responsibilities elsewhere.Still, I think you are right. NoA (and SCEA, for that matter) were probably overreacting. Americans are a lot more tolerant of extreme violence than extreme sex, and I seriously doubt releasing the game would have had any serious repercussions. It's not like all those grannies who picked up the Wii for the pack-in Wii Sports bowling game are going to see Manhunt on store shelves and take it home.
Ultimately, though, I think they don't want to set a precedent, where people will make AO games until someone hits the 'hot-button' jackpot and releases that one game that causes all sorts of real controversy and negative publicity. So there is probably a significant reputation/business component to their decision as well.
Post by: Mashiro on September 01, 2007, 07:11:08 AM
Post by: Stogi on September 01, 2007, 12:31:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
Manhunt 2 is my only Day 1, stand in line if necessary, purchase this year, as far as 3rd party games go.
Ans I will buy it a second time if they end up releasing an unedited/developer's cut somewhere down the line.
Agreed.
I wish there was coop though. Imagine one of you distracting a guard while the other sneaks up and mmmuuuuuuuurdddddderrs them. Awesome.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 01, 2007, 12:32:40 PM
Post by: Stogi on September 01, 2007, 12:43:33 PM
Plus, everything should at least be given a chance to be good especially if the prequel was without Wiimote interaction.
Post by: Mashiro on September 01, 2007, 01:30:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I still find it kind of funny that a sequel to a game that got less than positive reactions is being so anticipated. Hopefully it turns out good.
Hey it worked for KillZone right?
Post by: EasyCure on September 07, 2007, 08:36:22 AM
Over on gonintendo they posted a link to youtube with a video on an news story about Manhunt 2. The story was on nbc and was one of the worst stories i'd ever seen. The opening line of the segment sums it up:
“Critics are calling it the most violent video game EVER for kids”
It was such bad reporting that i felt compelled to write nbc a letter, which i never do because its a waste of time. I did though, it was very long and well written, then i deleted it by mistake after typing away for so long. I'm a tard
anyway i don't have a link to the video but here is the rundown:
a 17yo is introduced as an avid video game player who tells the reporter how easy it was to buy an M rated game. Reminder: he's 17. The story mentions how some legislators are mad about its change from an AO to an M rating. Then comes senator Leland Yee who says they've asked the ESRB why it was changed and received “No satisfactory answers, they've pretty much said 'Trust us'”
Also, after the “warning, what you're about to see is graphic” for parents, they show a few clips from the game that are incredibly blurry and as far as i can tell only show punches and the like, not the brutal stuff the reporter mentioned.
Post by: EasyCure on September 13, 2007, 07:49:17 AM
supposedly their the UNCENSORED version of various weapon killings, and i must say...
their not as gruesome as i thought. after seeing those videos i honestly dont see how this violence is any different then stuff we've already seen. especially when you take the graphics into consideration... things look even less realistic. if this was an HD game but had the same art style i could see being a little more grossed out by some of these death animations but as it is.. its kinda laughable.
in most cases its just a head exploding, like in re4 except re4 looks muuuuch better, and much more gruesome because of it. in Manhunt2 theirs just a ridiculous amount of blood that is reminiscent of the splatters you'd see in an Oldschool mortal kombat game. it doesnt look realistic in anyway, and the camera pans around so much that you dont see much of whats going on. I'm not implying the camera controls suck, everyone by now should know that when you go into one of these death animations the camera changes angles to stylize the violence, but the way it does it actually tones down the violence because you can never truly see whats going on.
the most gruesome thing i saw was a Death by Sythe animation... your character jumps on the back of another character (in one of the many possible animations you'll see) and begins to tear the "enemy's" face off.... or maybe he's pulling his brain out thru his nose..... honestly you CANT TELL. all you see is a hand w/ sythe in front of the characters face, lots of fake looking blood (loooks too thick and cartoonish) and then his head explodes as he falls off screen.
so yeah, you cant tell whats going on but i still found it to be the most gruesome death, why? i think it has to do with the fact that in other forms of media, like film, we're so used to seeing more, much more and in more detail, that our brain "fills in the blanks" so to speak. all i was a hand with a weapon in front of someones face and my brain told me to think "he's pulling out his brain thru his nose." does that make me a sick person, or does that simply show that i enjoyed reading about Egyptian culture and knew that the brains of the deceased were pulled out via the nasal cavity before mumification and had an idea of what it would look like because i've seen it done in R rated movies..?
after seeing that i feel really cheated that what ships on halloween next month will be a toned down version of a game that wasnt even that violent....
ps.
the scene where you wrip someones testes out with a pair of pliers (sp?) was lame. the guy is just standing there when you sneak up behind him and your hand goes between his legs, lots more of that fake looking blood then you have an unidentifiable object you throw away. same thing goes for the version of it where you rip out their throat. you cant tell what you ripped out, you just see something red in the pliers but the guys neck is intact..
Post by: Caliban on September 13, 2007, 09:53:26 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 17, 2007, 11:22:43 AM
Post by: Rhoq on September 18, 2007, 05:16:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
If it allows me to be the stealthy bald caucasian super-ninja i've wanted to be, i'm all for it.
There is always the Hitman series. I could have sworn I read a while back that Eidos had a Wii version in development. Probably Hitman: The Movie: The Game LOL
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 18, 2007, 06:44:48 AM
=D
Post by: EasyCure on September 26, 2007, 06:14:09 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 29, 2007, 09:20:24 PM
Jeff Haynes (who?) at IGN think's it's good - Matt comments at the end.
Post by: ReverendNoahWhateley on October 30, 2007, 12:49:07 AM
Post by: Caliban on October 30, 2007, 06:03:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Jeff Haynes (who?) at IGN
He's from the PSP/PS2/PS3 faction on IGN. You see, IGN now assigns one person to review a same game that is on several platforms, instead of having one reviewer per platform.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 30, 2007, 03:26:21 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 30, 2007, 03:30:53 PM
Post by: Shift Key on October 30, 2007, 03:39:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Does this game suck or what?
lawl, probably gonna get banned in NAL territory so it doesn't matter
Post by: Rhoq on October 30, 2007, 03:58:59 PM
My only complaint is that there doesn't appear to be any way to control the camera (it moves as you move). Ideally, a game like this should allow you to control the camera in a similar way as EA did for The Godfather: Blackhand Edition. It hasn't been a problem yet - but I just know that sooner or later the lack of camera control will become an issue.
Post by: Kenology on October 30, 2007, 04:17:52 PM
So far, I don't see why the game is getting such piss-poor reviews. It's probably due to it being neutered. I'll play some more soon. But with Z-Dub, BWii, and replaying Fire Emblem: PoR, I probably won't get to it until Winter Break.
Post by: NeoThunder on October 30, 2007, 04:48:35 PM
did anyone see the report that the CBS Evening News did on it? Talk about some bad reporting......where did they find thier "professional gamer"
Post by: Rhoq on October 31, 2007, 02:09:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kenology
the sound design is really nice.
I think Manhunt 2 sets a new standard for the Wii and Dolby ProLogic II. It proves that PLII is more than capable of delivering a quality surround experience without the need for true 5.1 output.
Post by: jakeOSX on November 01, 2007, 12:48:38 AM
OBVIOUSLY after just a few short hours of playing this game i am fully trained at the ways and means of being a psycho killer.... /sarcasm
oh and the game says "EDTV/HDTV Compatibile" on the back... anyone know what that means? (i mean, other than the obvious...)
Post by: Rhoq on November 01, 2007, 02:25:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: jakeOSX
oh and the game says "EDTV/HDTV Compatibile" on the back... anyone know what that means? (i mean, other than the obvious...)
It means that it supports 480p
Post by: ShyGuy on November 01, 2007, 05:53:05 AM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 01, 2007, 05:59:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: NeoThunder
OHHH My, What The holy hell!!!!!!!
did anyone see the report that the CBS Evening News did on it? Talk about some bad reporting......where did they find thier "professional gamer"
Click here for the video report that CBS did. I agree that the news segment is retarded and the over kill of waggling is hilarious, but at least CBS did something right and acknowledge that the Wii has parental controls that can lock out specific rated games and keep it secure via a PIN.
Post by: jakeOSX on November 01, 2007, 09:01:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
jakeOSX, how are the stealth elements? Can you fight your way out if you get detected?
it depends, on one of the levels i could, because i only got two at the most at one time.
the level i am on now, no. i get seen i get four of them beating me to a pulp. perhaps if i had more time practicing to fight, but i suspect that this is on purpose...
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 01, 2007, 10:56:27 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on November 01, 2007, 11:25:35 AM
Post by: NeoThunder on November 01, 2007, 01:15:06 PM
I rented the game, and it would be enjoyable, but the executions are all blured and crap. This would be so much better if i could actually see something. The fact that this could have looked better but was forced to be stripped makes me pissed
and shame on that dumbtard in the video for not using his Wiimote Wrist strap!!!!! Clearly with such a violent game you shouldn't take any precautions
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 01, 2007, 02:17:28 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 01, 2007, 05:14:03 PM
People have already hacked the PSP version and got the uncensored version
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on November 01, 2007, 05:22:02 PM
This news alone will probably boost sales of the PSP version, specially if you own a PSP Slim and put the game up on the Big Screen.
Besides, I believe I called that this was gonna happen somewhere on this site. The Manhunt debacle was begging for some Hot Coffee.
Post by: Stogi on November 01, 2007, 05:28:59 PM
To bad there's no way to play the uncensored version on the Wii.
Post by: Kairon on November 01, 2007, 05:32:04 PM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on November 01, 2007, 06:27:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KashogiStogi
Ya, you definitely called it out.
To bad there's no way to play the uncensored version on the Wii yet.
fixed. I have hope that someone will find a way.
edit:
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1 Thu June 21, 2007 9:49 PM
I hope they tone it down, but "forget" to take out the extra violence code, then "anonymously leak a way to unlock it about 6 months after release. Sort of like Hot Coffee, only intentional.
I found my quote.
Post by: Adrock on November 03, 2007, 09:04:45 PM
Ahem.....
What I do have a problem with is when publishers release half-assed games. That insults me as a potential consumer. I don't want to spend my money on a sh*tty game. Granted, I rented Manhunt 2 for free, but that's besides the point. It's not a very good game.
The controls are just terrible and at points, maybe to show how insane Danny Lamb was, he'd just stand there and I wouldn't be able to move him for a few seconds while the screen slightly shook. Think along the lines of the insanity effects in Eternal Darkness, except annoying and not creative. I was thinking maybe my Wii was just messing up, but then I tested Wii Sports and Metroid prime 3 and they ran fine. Maybe that's because Nintendo's studios are good at developing games.......
Can't skip cutscenes?! Nooooooooooo.............
And the camera sucks hard too? What? Nooooooooooo........
I should have rented The Simpsons Game.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 03, 2007, 09:22:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I should have rented The Simpsons Game.
Now that would have been a good move!
Post by: NeoThunder on November 04, 2007, 01:54:39 AM
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 05, 2007, 02:12:51 PM
Post by: jakeOSX on November 06, 2007, 12:21:56 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 26, 2007, 05:18:03 PM
The censorship ruined a lot of things about the game, but the worst is the camera and the clunky combat system. It's like the game was designed with the violence being the centerpiece, then the centerpiece was ripped out of it so the game just feels neutered as a result.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on December 26, 2007, 05:38:42 PM
