GTA Creators Push Limits With Manhunt

Thanks to IGN PS2 for a new, screenshot-toting preview of Manhunt, the forthcoming "brutal urban videogame" produced by the developers of the Grand Theft Auto series. This previously secretive, potentially controversial title starts you, completely defenseless in Carcer City, where 'the Director' has sprung you from Death Row and "...populated [the city] with psychopathic gangs hired for the sole purpose of finding and slaughtering" the player. The piece muses that this "third-person perspective stealth game" seems to be "...much darker, more disturbing... than Grand Theft Auto, which offered seasoned comic humor and parody to counter the bloodshed and chaos."

Comments

Survival Horror...Made From PEOPLE

[Babbster]

This is a great idea for a game. While it's clear that the stealth elements are lifted from the many stealth-based games that have come out since Metal Gear Solid, the game sounds like it's shooting for more of a Resident Evil meets Escape From New York aesthetic - except that you're fighting the living instead of the undead and you probably don't have to rescue the president. Given the descriptions of how enemy detection is going to work (by hearing them), I'd imagine that there are going to be a lot of enemies standing still, sitting, etc. right around a blind corner. As long as the control isn't handled like Resident Evil (mush), this sounds like a game I could get into.

I will note that I certainly hope that they have enough system overhead left to provide real-time DTS sound (something the Playstation has to do in software, as opposed to the Dolby Digital 5.1 in hardware on the Xbox). They mention in the article that they haven't decided between Dolby (Pro Logic, I presume) and DTS, but it seems like a no-brainer if you've got the resources available - if you're going to have a game where sound has a lot of influence, being stuck with one matrixed back channel would be sad, especially since Rockstar did a pretty good job with the DTS in GTA:VC.

As far as controversy goes, that's just inevitable and I'm sure it will be welcomed by Rockstar/Take Two's marketing department since they can save money on advertising. While we've been killing humans in video games for years, the ever-increasing fidelity of said killing is going to continue drawing the ire of the "parents should be able to ignore their kids' hobbies" lobby, desipte the fact that every uproar ends up selling more games.

In short, I'm looking forward to finding out if Rockstar can redeem themselves in the controversial game arena (outside of the GTA series) after the debacle that was State of Emergency.

Re:man

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your parents take away your copy of the game or something? Because this seems like a heavily biased bunch of crap.

On a technical level the GTA3/Vice City games are absolute masterpieces. They excel at simulating full, living environments in 3D, with both detailed exteriors and interiors, and a large amount of vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

In terms of gameplay, the missions are laid out logically, and the addition of effectively simple cutscenes to move the plot along in between creates an smoother, more cohesive experience. There are multiple things to do aside from main quests, both which are time consuming and fun, such as finding all the bonus jumps in a car, uncovering tons of secret items and challenges, and the aforementioned free-roaming kill-fest.

These titles bring everything from the first two games in the series into 3D. The killing sprees and mission based plot progression were both in the first two, and were very entertaining. The addition of a fantastic engine, decent graphics and too many other beneficial aspects to mention (good soundtracks, interesting and funny characters, etc. etc.) is in no way making these two games the "worst gta games yet".

Obviously they are not for everyone. Obviously they are not for you. Go whine to another forum about how your import copy of the latest japanese dating sim didn't make it through customs, and lay off the titles you're obviously to immature to comment on.

One man's trash is another's Sunday afternoon

[Chartreuse_Zergling]

I'm going to take the bait and ask what "is" wrong with that, from an ethical standpoint? I think killing is killing whether done for duty, profit, or fun. Killing is bad. Simulated killing, however, lacks the real-life consquences of suffering and death. What's the difference between playing as a gangster in a crime sim or a playing a soldier fighting a "justified" war, i.e. Desert Combat? The virtual motive?

Granted, I'm not saying that a serial killer sim would be fun, in reality serial killers tend to be pyschopaths and focus on weaker victims. And there are already games that allow behavior similar to a serial killer, like Postal2 and GTA3. However, acting uber-violent in these games doesn't add to the gameplay or help you complete the game, aside from maybe gaining extra points.

There maybe existential ramifications in guiding a make-believe character in a make-believe world, but you do the same thing as a spectator when you read a novel or watch TV.

Games don't help people become better axe-murderers. They already were.

Linearity concerns me

[robson]

What made GTA3 & GTAVC great were their open environments wedded with non-linear game-play. Everything I've read about Manhunt suggests it's far more linear, leading me to believe that Rockstar North may not have learned from its successes. :(

Rockstar v. Miyamoto

[superultra]

I hope that the games.slashdot crew is well versed enough that I don't have to go and link to a gazillione interviews with Miyamoto on why GTA3 and its kin aren't great for the industry. Manhunt only proves that violence without purpose in games is only escalatory. So Manhunt sells billions of copies. What subject content does Rockstar tackle next? There's not much left beyond the prison brutality espouged in Manhunt's (now defunct) promo website.

Meanwhile, in the other corner, we have Miyamoto who's busy making the Amelie-inspired Pikmin 2 and a revamp of Pac-Man. I think this represents the beginnings of a rift in the gaming industry. Rockstar and everyone trying to copy them on one side, and luminaries like Miyamoto, Spector, Wright, etc on the other side; essentially, people who see purpose-less violence as self-defeating.

Here's the paradox: if GTA3 and Manhunt are "art" as nearly every video game enthusiast espouses, then it does - as art is prone to doing - affect the way we think. If that's the case, then why not examine it? I am by no means suggesting that games like Manhunt should be legislated, but I think it's extremely naive of gamers to assume that GTA/Manhunt does not change our social consciousness. Shouldn't we then be concerned about its effect, be it good or bad?

Every Manhunt/GTA-esque game casts a vast shadow on the game industry that obscures gems like Pikmin or Viewtiful Joe or Animal Crossing. Those are the games that should be on the forefront of the industry, not GTA or Manhunt. "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial." Merely because we can makes games like Manhunt doesn't mean we should.

Re:Rockstar v. Miyamoto

[BenSnyder]

Essentially you're right. I read the IGN article about Manhunt and thought two things: first, you'd have to be a psychopath to feel like you could derive true pleasure from playing the game and two, I bet it's fscking brilliant. But let's be honest. This game is for people who have parties to watch "Faces of Death". I'm sure that it's of the highest quality though, I mean, once you buy into the whole death-with-glee thing.

However, I'm actually cool with a game like this out in the public arena. Violent warlike games do for game technology what porn has done for video technology. It's pushes the limits. And this is a good thing because it breeds things like the mod scenes for Half-Life and UT2003 among others. And I know there are people at universities right now who are working on mods of UT2003 to bring new gameplay types to the table for educationally minded purposes.

It's not that far removed from how WWII advanced aviation. We wouldn't air travel available to us in its form today had it not been for technological advances made during war time. Similarly, we won't have the diverse range of gaming options available to us in the future without growing technology through what is essentially simulated war.

I'm not arguing against you, I'm just pointing out the silver lining in the blood-drenched clouds.

Re:Might be a good game...

[GrimSean]

Well, speaking as a guy who sells games to said parents, I think you'd be surprised how many of them just don't seem to give a crap. I've had parents buy GTA 3 (both original and Vice City) for their under ten children. I tell them "Sir/Ma'am, this game isn't suitable for a young child - it has depictions of violence and adult situations" to which I get the reply "It's a video game - how bad can it be?". The strange thing is I've yet to get a returned game on the grounds that it is too violent, which leads me to believe these kids either aren't being supervised, or the parents just don't care.

It's kind of sad in a way, but what can I do? If I don't sell the games, the store goes out of business and I don't earn money.

I'm also going to assume that someone is going to bring up the ESRB rating system. Parents don't notice that (I'm serious). I've been asked why games aren't rated with the same system as movies (an idea which appeals to me), and "What does this 'M' mean?" - the system doesn't seem to be intuitive enough for people to understand at a glance (reinforcing my belief that most people are mostly stupid).