New Zealand Censor Bans Manhunt Outright

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Zealand Censor Bans Manhunt Outright

Posted by simoniker on Friday December 12, 2003 @12:14AM from the eye-of-sauron-upon-us dept.

rh2600 writes "The New Zealand censors have banned Rockstar Games' controversial stealth action PlayStation 2 game Manhunt, making it the 'first [ever] video game banned by the Office of Film and Literature Classification.' The New Zealand Herald has a story about it, including some pretty interesting comments from a usually liberal Censor's Office: 'Unlike the Grand Theft Auto series, which... had an element of humor in its depiction of police chases, Manhunt has none of that whatsoever.'" The censor concludes by saying: "You have to at least acquiesce in these [in-game] murders and possibly tolerate, or even move towards enjoying them, which is injurious to the public good."

108 of 132 comments (clear)

Riiight... by KBV · 2003-12-12 00:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

And this from the people who gave us Brain Dead. Great.

--
Simply retarded
1. Re:Riiight... by krist0 · 2003-12-12 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  this is all bad taste anyways.
  
  --
  all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
2. Re:Riiight... by SmallFurryCreature · 2003-12-12 00:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you read the article then you can read the quote about Grandtheft Auto having the element of humor. Bad Taste and Braindead had this too. In buckets. It makes the buckets of guts acceptable. It ain't real.
  Censorship like this takes great store in the context in wich something happens. Personally I think from the reviews that Manhunter is indeed crossing the line. In most other kill games you kill to achieve a goal, not kill for the killing itself.
  Braindead has lots of killing of zombies but for the greater goal of protecting himself and his girlfriend. Manhunter has you killing to make a nice movie. A bit different don't you think?
  
  --
  
  MMO Quests are like orgasms:
  You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
3. Re:Riiight... by jcenters · 2003-12-12 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  For those not in the know, Brain Dead (aka "Dead Alive") is one of LoTR director Peter Jackson's early works. It is quite possibly the most wonderfully disgusting movies ever made, involving zombies being hacked up by a push-mower, nasty blemishes being squirted into soup, etc.
  I highly recommend it to any horror fans out there. I equally recommend "Bad Taste," which is every bit as disgusting (Peter Jackson's head is split open for half the movie, characters drinking vomit, etc.) IIRC, this is Jackson's first film.
  Obligatory IMDB links here and here.
  
  --
  vi ~/.emacs
4. Re:Riiight... by KBV · 2003-12-12 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you read about the game, he kills to protect himself. And I don't see it really, it's a game. It might venture on the border between "Ok" and "Waaaaay off". But it still is only a game.
  
  --
  Simply retarded
5. Re:Riiight... by illuminata · 2003-12-12 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  And having a Strapping Young Lad lyric in your post isn't?
  
  Just kidding, just kidding. I actually like them too.
  
  Anyways, if a retail chain doesn't feel like carrying the title, that's one thing. When the government bans it, that's another. The choice shouldn't be up to them. It's not right for the government to parent the young and old alike.
  
  --
  
  Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
6. Re:Riiight... by cgenman · 2003-12-12 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Censorship like this takes great store in the context in wich something happens. Personally I think from the reviews that Manhunter is indeed crossing the line. In most other kill games you kill to achieve a goal, not kill for the killing itself.
  
  Perhaps more people would be inclined to cry Censorship if Rockstar hadn't been flouting the violence aspect of the game to such an extent that it makes it makes all of our lives more difficult. Personally, I feel that any work that doesn't involve injury to the actors / developers should be allowed to sell in at least a limited context. But Rockstar has flaunted its violence at a time when the industry as a whole is under deep criticism for that very reason, and for their games. I don't like censorship, but I really wish someone would smack those guys with a cluestick.
  
  Dear Rockstar:
  
  Sit down. Shut up. Let Will Wright make another positive cultural phenomenon before you speak again.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
7. Re:Riiight... by showler · 2003-12-12 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, he's a murderer who was "stolen" from his own execution and forced to take part in some nutcase millionaire's personal version of "The Running Man". The whole game is designed to make you feel uncomfortable about what your character is forced to do, and how the millionaire guy enjoys it.
8. Re:Riiight... by Babbster · 2003-12-12 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps more people would be inclined to cry Censorship if Rockstar hadn't been flouting the violence aspect of the game to such an extent that it makes it makes all of our lives more difficult.
  How does Rockstar's "flouting" of violence ("flout" by the way means to show contempt for, or scorn but I'll pretend you used a word that means "showing off" or some such, like your use of the word "flaunt" later) make your life more difficult? Even a New Zealander's life isn't made difficult by this ruling - they simply don't get one game to play.
  As for Rockstar being wrong for doing what they will because the whole industry is being criticized, that's just tough luck for the industry. What better way to affirm the freedom of expression than by going to extremes? What worth is that freedom if you can only express what's already considered safe?
9. Re:Riiight... by cgenman · 2003-12-12 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  I believe I hod o perfectly occeptoble use of thot word.
  
  It gets harder and harder as a game developer to admit to your profession in the company of non-gamers if they feel (incorrectly, but nonetheless) that you're selling violence porn to children. Perhaps this doesn't matter to the average person on the street, but if you make your living with videogames this is a big deal. If you have to live with the industry's reputation day in and day out, this is a big deal.
  
  Rockstar is not wrong for doing what they are doing, and they shouldn't be censored. However, freedom of expression does not mean that we must like what someone is saying. Personally I wish Rockstar would exercise a little more self-restraint in their theming, if not for artistic reasons than for political ones. In GTA the moral vaccuum was integral to the gameplay, and was optional... You never had to run over the guy whose car you just stole, with the car you just stole. Manhunt could have been developed a million different ways while keeping the same gameplay formula, they just chose sadistic violence and controversy because they know it sells. It is within their rights, but it makes it no less of a sell out. And to do such after the firestorm over their previous game... It's like Mitnick finally being released from jail and being immediately arrested for hacking into Air Force One and killing the President.
  
  Freedom of speech generally implies a level of maturity whereby people don't shove pictures of genetalia into the face of passing parents.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
10. Re:Riiight... by crawling_chaos · 2003-12-12 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of speech generally implies a level of maturity whereby people don't shove pictures of genetalia into the face of passing parents.
  Actually, it doesn't. Freedom of speech sort of implies that there is a freedom to offend, as well. Just remember that you also have a freedom to not listen.
  
  --
  You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
  -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
11. Re:Riiight... by Babbster · 2003-12-12 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  It gets harder and harder as a game developer to admit to your profession in the company of non-gamers if they feel (incorrectly, but nonetheless) that you're selling violence porn to children.
  That's like saying that a Time reporter would be ashamed to say s/he works for a magazine because Larry Flynt publishes Hustler. It's a pretty simple sentence that distances a non-Rockstar game developer from Manhunt: "I didn't develop Manhunt."
  Further, if Rockstar is the primary perpetrator when it comes to "sadistic violence and contraversy," then how can they be selling out? Wouldn't it be more of a sell-out to release a cookie-cutter platformer with a cute mascot? I would have an easier time arguing that Nintendo is a sell-out for releasing Mario Sunshine, a rehash of Mario 64 and "just another 3D platformer."
  As for freedom of speech implying a "level of maturity," that's in the eye of the beholder. I may consider it a sign of naivete, if not stupidity, when I see someone with a sign saying "Bush Just Wants Oil" at an anti-war rally. I could even call that view "immature." It doesn't change the fact that they're free to say what they want, whatever I perceive to be their level of maturity.
  Finally, I would point out that the video game industry could defuse a great deal of this by getting fully behind campaigns to separate M/AO content from other video games on the shelves, and criminalizing the sale of said games to children (just as already happens with hardcore pornography). The ESRB was a great step, but isn't enough because a) stores generally demonstrate little restraint about selling M-rated games to minors and b) the ESRB refuse to be as strict with ratings for violence as they are for "sexual" content (i.e., DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball which received an M rating, essentially for attractive characters in bikinis).
  If the industry wants to have an overall positive image, all it has to is try harder.
12. Re:Riiight... by MeThOdXxX · 2003-12-12 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Although what you say is mostly true, there is a plot behind all of the madness. The main killer isn't killing to make a good movie, he is killing in order to survive, while the whole time the mastermind behind the plot is making the movie. Just thought I'd add my two cents.
  
  --
  HaHaHaHaHa
So if we laugh... by _Pinky_ · 2003-12-12 00:21 · Score: 1

'Unlike the Grand Theft Auto series, which... had an element of humor in its depiction of police chases, Manhunt has none of that whatsoever.'

So as long as the hero pokes fun, or laughs when someone dies, it's bad???

If only they added "Bad piggy, DIE!" then all would be well...
1. Re:So if we laugh... by iainl · 2003-12-12 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Its not a question of if the hero pokes fun, but that the tone of the piece is completely different.
  
  GTA has always been at pains to be sufficiently silly that the violence takes place in a cartoon world; even the most nasty thing you could do is not on the scale of the kind of things that Itchy and Scratchy get up to, and is taken about as seriously. Manhunt, however, revels in sadism for its own sake. The whole aim of the game is to be as vindictively cruel in your violence as possible.
  
  --
  "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Australia by shione · 2003-12-12 00:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wonder how the OLFC in Australia will decide.

They made Rockstar censor GTA3 and VC and both games came out in NZ uncut.
1. Re:Australia by aweraw · 2003-12-12 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  No... you could still sleep (or get head) with them, but instead of being able to kill them and get your money back once the deed was done and they were out of the car, they simply vanished before any killing was possible
  
  --
  5468652047616D65
2. Re:Australia by Cosmik · 2003-12-14 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Manhunt is currently on shelves in Australia; and that's with Christmas 10 days away.
3. Re:Australia by Merusdraconis · 2003-12-14 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be surprised since GTA was banned for its sexual content.
  
  Manhunt is, however, out on shelves. And Rockstar are indeed tools of the highest caliber.
Order it online by a.koepke · 2003-12-12 00:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah they may have banned it for sale there but how is it going to stop people ordering it online?

I used to have a game that was banned over here in Australia, was easy to buy over the internet and have them send it over. Also makes me wonder if it will be banned here in Australia at all?

But on a different note, doesn't sound like the sorta game I would like to play. I play GTA Vice City a bit and thats good fun but this... I think not. Yeah in GTA you kill people (which is still fun) but its not the aim of the game. Also seeing someone fall over and there being a bit of blood is a lot different to seeing the victim's mouth gasping for air inside the bag you suffocate them with. The latter is, IMO, bordering on perverse.

--

(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
1. Re:Order it online by DjReagan · 2003-12-12 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  It wont. But if customs spot it in the random packages they check, they'll confiscate it.
  
  --
  "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
2. Re:Order it online by Txiasaeia · 2003-12-12 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  (Disclaimer: haven't played it)
  Ya, it *does* seem a bit over the line. GTA was fun because you could do whatever you wanted to in any given city; being forced to execute people in photo-realisic glory is somewhat scary. No way in hell kids under 18 should play this game; hell, I doubt *anybody* should. Perhaps games like this just shouldn't have been made?
  
  --
  Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
3. Re:Order it online by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-12-12 02:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Given that you haven't even played the game and you've decided that no one should play it - what is your basis? The fact that there is photo-realistic violence? Do you support the idea that no one should see movies like Halloween or the Silence of the Lambs? Both clearly have photo realistic violence and are not intended to be taken in any sort of humorous way. You could argue that in movies, it is a passive medium and in a video game, you have control over what the character does.
  But since you haven't played the game, that argument doesn't hold any water. You don't know how one interacts and at what level the interaction is. Before you go deciding that no one should be playing violent games, maybe you should do a little research and find out if there's ever been a link established between violent games and deviant behavior.
  Sure, if Manhunt isn't your cup of tea, don't buy it. But rather than trying to judge whether anyone should be playing it or whether it should have been made, why not just let the free market determine the best route? [Since you're not going to prove a link between violent games and violent behavior in people who weren't already prone to such behavior.] If no one buys games that, in your opinion, shouldn't have been made, games like this won't be made.
  I live in the United States where freedom of speech is a right - this includes violent video games.
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
4. Re:Order it online by mellon · 2003-12-12 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  In Silence of the Lambs, you're supposed to identify with Jodie Foster's character. In this game, it sounds like you're supposed to identify with the guy wearing the human skin suit. Big difference. Really big difference. It's true that somebody who's got some issues might identify with one of the psychopaths in Silence, but that's different than being in a situation where your only choice is to identify with Mr. Skinsuit.
5. Re:Order it online by Txiasaeia · 2003-12-12 03:04 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  We meet again, Acidic Diarrhea. (devilish laugh) You also live in a country where peodiphiles can write about thirteen year old girls in sexual situations and have it protected by free speech. You live in a country where people can write about snuff fantasies and it's protected by free speech. Maybe US-style free speech is just a little fucked up?
  I liked Silence of the Lambs; it wasn't about gratuitous murder. You say that movies are a "passive" medium, and that's exactly why the movies that you described are acceptable, whereas games like Manhunt should not exist. I can sit in my seat and absolutely hate everything that Lecter does, but when I'm playing a game where I'm forced to decapitate, strangle, and brutalise other individuals, then I have no choice but to become involved in that world.
  Sure, you can play violent vid games, but do you support the right of a ten year old playing this game?
  I play GTA and Vice city, CS, Call to Duty, all the way back to Wolfie 3d. Fine for adults, sure, but kids shouldn't be playing this, period.
  
  --
  Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
6. Re:Order it online by mokiejovis · 2003-12-12 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  but do you support the right of a ten year old playing this game?
  
  What difference does it make to me? It's his or her parents responsibility to decide that. Not yours, not mine, and certainly not your or my government's.
7. Re:Order it online by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-12-12 03:31 · Score: 2, Flamebait
  
  You say Manhunt shouldn't exist but then ask me whether a 10 year old should be playing Manhunt. There's a big difference between limiting who can buy a game and removing a game completely from store shelves. I think most adults are mature enough people to enjoy a violent video game and not lose their marbles over it. Likewise, I'm not endorsing letting children play these games. I haven't played Manhunt so I don't know if the ESRB should have rated it Adults Only. I'm sure it deserved the Mature label at least, which it got. So which are you supporting? Removing the game from store shelves completely or preventing children from gaining access to it?
  And as for your free speech argument - as soon as you start deciding what types of speech can and cannot be free, you're no longer allowing free speech. Let people write all the snuff fantasies they want. Let the Ku Klux Klan organize and gather all they want. Let them all have their voice. As soon as you start saying, you aren't allowed to say such things - people begin getting interested in it. For instance, the Ku Klux Klan is shown on shows like Jerry Springer and is seen as a laughingstock. If the government supressed them then people would wonder about what their message was and an underground movement would begin. I think part of the reason that Germany still has to deal with people spouting Nazi views is that they are trying so hard to prevent anyone from saying anything along those lines. No, US-style free speech is not "a little fucked up", it is the only way free speech is of any value whatsoever. You don't get to pick and choose what people are allowed to say if speech is free.
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
8. Re:Order it online by darkmayo · 2003-12-12 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  ". I can sit in my seat and absolutely hate everything that Lecter does, but when I'm playing a game where I'm forced to decapitate, strangle, and brutalise other individuals, then I have no choice but to become involved in that world.
  "
  
  Forced? I didn't realize Rockstar Games had a feature that forced you to play this game. If the theme of the game is something you want to part of then by all means don't play it. Done and done, Parents are the end all be all of this. If they do not want there kids playing this then they are the ones that have to enforce it upon the kids.. not a blanket ban.
  
  --
  "I am a kernel in the linux army"
9. Re:Order it online by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-12-12 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Okay then, use the Red Dragon. I didn't see the film but I read the book. Starling's character in that book allows Lecter to go on the loose and commit murder. She is an accessory at best. And there's a romance that blossoms between Starling and Lecter. Given your premise that we're supposed to identify with Starling - she's a murderer in that chronicle. Still a big difference?
  If that doesn't suit you, I was trying to stay close to the original comment, I can dig up other popular films where the main character is a murderer. It's not that you're supposed to identify with the guy in Manhunt, I would think that you're supposed to experience a completely different point of view than one you are used to. Take the film or book 'American Psycho' if you want. There's really only one character whose fully fleshed out and that is Bateman, the serial killer. There are plenty of books and films that focus on the exploits of evil people. You're ignoring the fact that video games are just recently becoming a medium where realistic violence can be simulated - these topics of censorship have already been dealt with in books, film, and music. It's generally thought that there is no direct link between violent entertainment and violent behavior - a person has to have other problems going on in their head in order to be affected to commit violence. So as the video game industry matures, alarmist views like yours who can't see that video games are just another entertainment medium, will fall by the wayside, I believe.
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
10. Re:Order it online by leifm · 2003-12-12 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't advocate the censorship of Manhunt, but Manhunt is a crime against gaming by Rockstar. Manhunt contributes nothing to gaming, and gives Lion and Lamb type people ammunition, as Manhunt has no redeeming qualities. It's violence for violence sake, wrapped in a uninspired boring game. GTA had a sense of humor, almost cartoonish violence, and a fresh way of progressing through a game world. Manhunt is Rockstar arrogantly saying 'Hey we can sell any POS based on our brand, violence, and controversy', sadly they are probably right.
  
  --
  
  "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
11. Re:Order it online by mellon · 2003-12-12 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Okay then, use the Red Dragon. I didn't see the film but I read the book. Starling's character in that book allows Lecter to go on the loose and commit murder. She is an accessory at best. And there's a romance that blossoms between Starling and Lecter. Given your premise that we're supposed to identify with Starling - she's a murderer in that chronicle. Still a big difference?
  
  I didn't see Red Dragon, so I can't really comment in depth. But again, I think the degree of identification is different - in the movie, you're watching the protagonists do stuff, and even if they're doing stuff that's immoral, there's some distance between you and the act - it's not *you* doing it. If anything, it sounds like Red Dragon illustrates my point pretty nicely - hang out with a psychopath for a while, and their way of thinking starts to make sense.
  
  Whereas with a first-person-strangler game, it is most definitely *you* who is doing the killing, and there's no opportunity to distance yourself from it at all.
  
  The larger question of whether we should interfere when people try to experience the viewpoint of a psychopath is another question. I tend to think we should - I think this kind of practice is potentially dangerous. The human mind is quite malleable, and just as you can work to become a better person, so you can also work to become a worse person. I think these games jump over the line into actually practicing to become a worse person.
  
  Should they be censored? I don't know. Should someone give you a friendly head's up when you buy one of these things that you're putting yourself in danger? I think so. I'm not big on government enforcement, personally, but I do find this stuff worrisome, and am not sure how to react, other than that I think not reacting at all is not a particularly good choice.
  
  This is why I don't read Patricial Cornwell anymore, BTW - I find her first-person descriptions of the thinking of psychopaths disturbing and worrisome. Also the idea that this sort of thinking is common or normal - I don't think it is, and I think these books can lead us to become more paranoid than is justified, and then to react irrationally to things we see based on that paranoia. To the extent that this kind of stuff helps us to develop compassion for psychopaths, I think it's a good thing, but I think it's more likely to help us to become psychopaths, and that's obviously (at least to me!) a bad thing.
12. Re:Order it online by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-12-12 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Alright, I'll mostly agree with what you've said. I don't know if there's a link between video games and becoming a worse person, as you put it. All I know is that I do not believe these types of games/movies/music/books do not have an effect on me that would make me loose my grip on reality or start to believe that murder is an appropriate means to an end.
  I agree that there should be a reaction and I think it's already happened in the form of the ESRB. People can see what type of game they're getting into before they make a purchase. Now, you don't want to play games like Manhunt. I might, [I don't know about the gameplay so I can't say that I really want to - but know this, I can be just as happy playing GTA as I can playing Animal Crossing, so it doesn't run my life. I think this type of material could potentially be damaging if it is all you are exposed to.] So why take that chance away from me because you don't want it? I think government censorship is completely out of question. What is wrong with a ratings system? Government censorship is a slippery slope. Who determines what's appropriate and what is not? Eventually, this could landslide out of control to the point where media becomes the mouthpiece of the government. I know there aren't any video games that criticize the War in Iraq but if there were [and such a thing could happen], couldn't the government censor that if you start to give them this sweeping power to say what you can and cannot play? I think so. (And this is coming from someone who supports the War In Iraq.)
  Personal choices are great. You made one regarding Cornwell - that's great. Let's have more of that; personal responsibility and personal choices. No need for the government to step in.
  You see what I'm saying?
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
13. Re:Order it online by mellon · 2003-12-12 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  You see what I'm saying?
  
  I pretty much agree with what you're saying, except that I think that some intervention (I agree government intervention is a slippery slope, so I'm not suggesting that) is worthwhile.
  
  I don't think playing Manhunt is going to turn you into a psychopath. But what I do believe it will do is to desensitize you to this sort of violence. It will make you maybe 10% less able to be compassionate towards others. It will maybe reduce your impulse control a little. In your life, this may never make a difference. Or it may be the difference between you being happy and unhappy, because of what it does, e.g., to your ability to form functional relationships with MOTAS.
14. Re:Order it online by unclethursday · 2003-12-12 05:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I haven't played Manhunt so I don't know if the ESRB should have rated it Adults Only. I'm sure it deserved the Mature label at least, which it got.
  I have played it. AO or M is a tough call. The ESRB said M, others say AO should have been given. But due to some of the violence, I say it really is tough to call.
  The thing is, it all depends on how you kill the people that determines how graphic the scene is. The longer you hold the button, the more graphic the scene (a target indicator goes from gray, to green, to yellow, to red; with each successive color more violent and graphic than the last). Using a glass shard, for example, and going all the way to red has you stab the guy in the throat, then gauge out his eyes with the piece of glass, which is pretty violent and graphic in my book.
  All in all, though, Manhunt just isn't a fun game. The game gets repetetive early on (and stays that way), has in incredibly boring pace, and has some major issues when it comes to collision detection, the use of sound as something that gives you away (press the attack button before your stance changes, and your fist(?!?)/weapon makes a really loud whoosh which alerts enemies to your presence), and AI intelligence. Honestly, the only two reasons it will sell are because Rockstar made it, and it is incredibly violent. Although I hear it does some neat things with the USB headsets, such as allowing you to scream into it and scare the 'hunters' if they're near you.
15. Re:Order it online by dev0n · 2003-12-12 05:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Agreed. It's a disgrace that this game is being censored, but I also believe that it's a disgrace that it was even created in the first place.
  
  I realize that violence sells, but you'd think that the folks making these games would try to direct the powers of their talents in a much less horrific direction. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be violence in games, but to make it the focus, the goal, the reason that the game exists? It just seems wrong and sad to me.
16. Re:Order it online by Txiasaeia · 2003-12-12 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you choose to play the game then you're forced to murder. I agree that it's up to parents - if they would watch the games that their kids play, then there might not be any need for gov't regulation.
  
  --
  Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
17. Re:Order it online by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-12-12 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Guantanimo Bay is holding prisoners of war. They are not afforded the same rights that a U.S. citizen is. Honestly, after you said that I really couldn't take much of everything else you said seriously. All the people currently being detained there didn't say something to get there - they were actively fighting against our troops in a fucking war.
  And what's your bit about hate crimes?
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
18. Re:Order it online by bitrott · 2003-12-12 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, well thank YOU mr. moral majority. While you're at it, why not make a list of perversities that you find offensive and we'll just go right ahead and make it all illegal. Listen up old biddies. There's GOOD ART and there's BAD ART. There's no "immoral art', only "immoral actions". Only in the twisted mind of easily offended and truly shallow can ART and ACTIONS be confused. I advise you to take some ethics of art classes.
19. Re:Order it online by einTier · 2003-12-12 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  I've played the game as well. It's far from what I'd call a fun game, though it was interesting for about half an hour. My wife hated it, and requested several times that I turn it off. It's quite graphic, and the atmosphere is such that the game feels violent, dirty, and criminal. It's not something you'd watch and laugh at, like you might with Grand Theft Auto.
  The only saving grace is that the game is somewhat of a "Running Man" scenario, where you are placed in a sealed off section of city with a bunch of homicidal gangs. You are innocent, they are cold blooded killers. It's literally kill or be killed. You also have to kill them "execution" style, so that the other gang members don't hear and come to save their bud. Oh, yeah, and the point is that some guy is filming it and giving you instructions through an earpiece.
  My biggest problem with the game is that it's repetitive and the controls suck.
  
  --
  -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
20. Re:Order it online by bl0nd13 · 2003-12-12 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Re: American Psycho: There is no way in hell the maker's of that film intended the viewer to "identify" with Patrick Bateman. The entirety of the film is an exercise in alienation for the purpose of satire.
  Difference between games and movies: In movies, it is indubitably not you doing the doings. In games it simultaneously> you and not you doing the doings.
  In this light, what disturbs about Manhunt is the absolute lack of choice. Max Payne pulled a similar trick by confronting the player with his enjoyment of the spectacle of a desperate man rampant. It turned the tables on the me-not me distance that let's so many gamers get away with the "only a game" excuse. Manhunt does nothing of the sort.
  First of all, it puts the player in the position of always already being a killer. One, in fact, who was sentenced to death. From their, it goes on to try and destabilized the safe pleasure of voyeurism through the snuff film device. However, the player is not implicate in these snuff films. He is not offered a choice but to become their hero or their victim. You could say that either way you go, the player is the victim. Ultimately, then, the player is "justified" by this doubled victimization.
  The question that begs asking in this light is the one the NZ censor answered. Manhunt may not "glorify" killing, but certainly does demand the player enjoy it, and justifies that enjoyment.
  Does that justify censorship? Not in my book, but neither does it justify Manhunt. "It's only a game" is a weak excuse denying the implications of our own culpability in our fantasies of violence.
  Play Deus Ex: Invisible War instead.
21. Re:Order it online by bl0nd13 · 2003-12-12 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  ah shit, I really gotta' double check those tags. sorry 'bout the italics.
22. Re:Order it online by bl0nd13 · 2003-12-12 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Arts may not have moral valuation, but it is undeniable that it has a political valence. My above post (apology for the italics) is an attempt to point out the way that Manhunt goes about making itself into a "statement" about voyeurism, and simultaneously erases all serious consideration. In that sense, it encourages false conciousness. Therefore, politically considered, it is bad art.
23. Re:Order it online by exick · 2003-12-12 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Going through all the comments in this thread, there's one important point missing from the discussion.
  
  In many films and other literature about ruthless murderers, they murder innocents. The people they kill are killed for no reason. Hannibal Lecter didn't kill people in self defense. In Manhunt, you are forced to kill people. That's the whole plot of the game. Your character is already a murderer who was about to be executed, but instead your execution was faked and you were handed over to a man (for a price) and he is forcing you to kill for his own amusement. How does he force you? By putting you in a kill-or-be-killed situation. The people around you will kill you if you don't kill them. There's no getting around it. It's not like in GTA where you might run over some innocent pedestrians or something.
  
  It's important to look at the game within its narrative context, otherwise all the discussion is pointless. The game is not just brutal, disgusting murders for the sake of killing (except maybe in the eyes of the Director who apparently gets off on seeing other people killed) rather your character kills others because he must.
24. Re:Order it online by darkmayo · 2003-12-12 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  "If you choose to play the game then you're forced to murder"
  
  I can name a ton of games where you "Murder" albiet they may not have it as graphic as in this POS game.
  
  --
  "I am a kernel in the linux army"
25. Re:Order it online by leifm · 2003-12-12 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  One point about your America Psycho comment that differentiates it, I think, from Manhunt/games in general. By reading (or watching)AP you are passively observing Batemans actions, so you're making moral observations throughout, but you aren't involved. Manhunt puts you in the position to actually carry out these acts, so now you are directly involved. And American Psycho is another piece of 'entertainment' that really need not exist. Easton Ellis I believe says there is some point he was trying to make, don't remember what, and that once you got that you could stop reading. Another interesting parallel between Easton Ellis and Rockstar is that they've both done other things that were arguably just as violent, but had humor and purpose (GTA and Glamorama), and whose existance could be justified.
  
  --
  
  "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
26. Re:Order it online by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-12-12 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Read the book and then I'll have a discussion with you about how you can identify with Bateman.
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
27. Re:Order it online by Txiasaeia · 2003-12-12 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hate crimes - you're not allowed to write, say, or do anything that discriminates against another person. Don't you think that this goes against your whole "freedom of speech" idea?
  Let's talk about Maher Arar for a second. He is a Canadian citizen who travelled into the US on a Canadian passport. Without any due process or notification, he was deported to Syria where he was tortured for a year. Why? Because the US suspected he was a terrorist. They didn't have any proof at all. Let me remind you that this was a CANADIAN who was sent there. This is US justice? After *that*, I can't take seriously any American who uses the phrase "prisoner of war."
  I don't actually have anything against Bush himself; he seems like a good president. However, some of his government's policies right now are seriously screwed up. I wouldn't call the US a fascist state, but some of the policies and procedures that the US is implementing right now is very, very close to pre-WWII Italy and Germany. Can't you stop waving your flag for a few seconds to take a look at what's going on in your country?
  One last thing: the civilians being held in Guantanimo were *not* actively fighting your troops - they are suspected terrorists not being charged with a crime, but being held as material witnesses. This is a gross violation of US judicial law.
  
  --
  Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
28. Re:Order it online by Txiasaeia · 2003-12-12 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  "It's important to look at the game within its narrative context, otherwise all the discussion is pointless."
  Not necessarily; you can choose to object to the whole narrative too. If I created a video game where the player had to rape as many little girls as possible, but only because s/he would be raped if they didn't, would that make it an acceptable game?
  
  --
  Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
29. Re:Order it online by exick · 2003-12-12 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Acceptable to whom? Should it be acceptable that you even mention the rape of little girls? Some people might be offended or disturbed just by the mention of it. That example is ridiculous anyway. There's a difference between killing someone who would kill you if you didn't and raping an innocent person to prevent yourself from being raped by someone else.
  
  Objecting to the narrative isn't the same as forcing the narrative to not exist. However, you can't object to things within the game outside the context of the game. It's unfair, for example, to call what you do in the game "senseless murder". If you don't like it, fine. If you don't think kids should play it, I don't disagree. But if you actively pursue activities to prevent other people from making things available that I might enjoy because you think your morals are the standard by which all others should live, then you're just an asshole.
30. Re:Order it online by Txiasaeia · 2003-12-12 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  "But if you actively pursue activities to prevent other people from making things available that I might enjoy because you think your morals are the standard by which all others should live, then you're just an asshole."
  I was going to agree with you all the way until the "asshole" bit :) I don't try to stop people from playing anything; I don't know where you got that impression. I'd like to stop kids from playing games like this, but I'm not about to go out and join some sort of organisation to do so.
  yes, I object to the game, but on the other hand it's just a video game. It might be disturbing, but it's not hurting anybody. There's no conclusive proof that such a game wouldn't encourage little kids to become murderers, though, which is why I wish the game didn't exist (too tempting, easy enough for anybody to get the game, etc. etc.) Note that this is not the same as actively discouraging people from buying the game or retailers from stocking it.
  
  --
  Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
31. Re:Order it online by unclethursday · 2003-12-12 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  You are innocent, they are cold blooded killers.
  I would disagree with this part. Your character is, after all, a convicted multi-murderer and was sentenced to death by lethal injection. And he seems to be able to kill in the most grisly ways without a second thought in the game as well.
  Hardly innocent by any stretch of the imagination.
  The kill or be killed motto only goes so far. I would assume that put in the same situation, most normal people would throw their guts up after the first kill (and they certainly wouldn't be going for eye gouges with a shard of glass, or crowbars through the back of the skull), if not just totally screw up and get themselves killed real quick.
  Still, I didn't finish the game, either. But it was so boring, I couldn't play more than 2 hours before being thankful I only rented it and returned it to the video store.
32. Re:Order it online by exick · 2003-12-12 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't try to stop people from playing anything; I don't know where you got that impression.
  
  It wasn't directed at you, it was just a general statement. And it's not really about stopping people from playing the game. If you want to discourage people from playing it, that's your business. But I draw the line at lobbying governments for the purpose of passing legislation that would make the creation and distribution of these types of games illegal. Again, not saying you do that.
  
  I'm in favor of more diligent age verification by retailers and harsher penalties imposed on those that sell M-rated games to kids, but I think they should be self-imposed. If the ESRB doesn't like Wal-Mart's ID checking policy, then they need to fine them. Of course, Wal-Mart is probably a bad example since the video game industry probably needs Wal-Mart more than Wal-Mart needs video games. It's just that governmental bans of "objectionable" art (no matter what the form) just piss me off to no end.
33. Re:Order it online by CFTM · 2003-12-12 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Acidic, if I had mod points I'd be giving you one right now. Your argument in favor of free speech was superb, before reading your post I was about to respond but was having difficulty articulating the point, excellent job.
34. Re:Order it online by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-12-12 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you obviously don't know anything about hate crime legislation in the United States. I can say whatever I want concerning my dislike for a particular group. What hate crime legislation is used for is if I commit a crime against a group of people, the penalty can be more strict. You actually think United States citizens can't write, say or do anything that discriminates against another person? Again, have you seen the Ku Klux Klan organize and have marches? I know that they have had marches and have had rallies so obviously people are allowed to discriminate against others. Might want to get your facts straight before you bring up this type of nonsense.
  Again, you've missed the point of the bill of rights. The bill of rights protects United States citizens. It gives us the freedom of speech. Deporting a foreigner from our country is a violation of whose freedom of speech? Maher Arar had no freedom of speech in this country. You can argue that international law states that he should have been sent back to Canada BUT that again has nothing to do with the free speech issue, so I see no point in you bringing it up.
  Give me an example of policies and procedures that are "very, very close to pre-WWII Italy and Germany." I'll give you a little bit to think about - socialized medicine is very, very close to the healthcare system of the Soviet Union. Does that mean I go around and say that any country with a socialized health care institution in place is very close to being the Soviet Union?
  The flag waving line was tired and stale. I'll discuss whatever you want with you but the minute you try to attack me personally for loving my country (and you certainly don't know enough about me to make a statement concerning whether I am a blind patriot or whether I see problems with the way the government is functioning), I will say goodbye to this conversation. Make another comment like that and I'll wash my hands of you. Give me some concrete examples of what policies and procedures you're talking about here.
  Finally, since I was talking about freedom of speech for United States citizens, you still have to clarify how prisoners of war being held in Guantanimo have been deprived of their rights? They come from countries where they have no rights. They're not U.S. citizens so we have no obligation to give them freedom of speech - but you still bring them up, why?
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
35. Re:Order it online by CFTM · 2003-12-12 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Hannibal Lecter is a poor example though, through his paradigm the people he killed were not innocent they had offended him in someway. Lecter is a social deviant for sure, but he doesn't just kill people. Every person he kills in some way wrongs him or others, in many respects he is a vigilante. If you don't agree, go watch the three movies again and look at the relationship his character builds with Clarise, why do you think he cuts his own hand off at the end of Hannibal as opposed to hers?
36. Re:Order it online by mellon · 2003-12-12 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  What do you think about the censors? They must have to play the game a lot, probably beat it. They must have to play a lot of games like this. Should they recieve therapy?
  
  First, I doubt they played it for very long. Second, they played it critically, rather than for fun. So I think they probably came out okay. Of course, I realize you were speaking somewhat tongue in cheek...
37. Re:Order it online by exick · 2003-12-12 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Well, nearly all killings have some justification, whether real or imagined. I guess that wasn't really my point.
  
  My point was that if I tell you I beat someone to death with a baseball bat, you might be pretty horrified. But if I tell you right before that he was running at me full speed, swinging a bloody knife, and screaming how he was going to gut me, then you probably understand why I did it.
  
  P.S. I've never seen any of the Silence of the Lambs movies nor have I read the books. I'm only familiar with the character through references to him in parodies and such. It probably was a poor choice of an example.
38. Re:Order it online by randyest · 2003-12-12 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's so amazing to me that you reached all those (inane) conclusions without every playing the game or even seeing anyone play the game.
  
  I would like to gently suggest that you shut your stupid pie hole until you have some experience with the game in question.
  
  Thank you in advance for your cooperation, you annoying fuckwitted asshat censorship-mongering moron.
  
  --
  everything in moderation
39. Re:Order it online by randyest · 2003-12-12 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, you would think that. I would not. Clearly, this game is not made for you. Isn't it wonderful that no one will force you to buy or play it?
  
  I think it would be just as wonderful if you bit your lip instead of spouting your self-righteous moral judgments about a game that some people want to play.,
  
  --
  everything in moderation
40. Re:Order it online by leifm · 2003-12-12 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  I've played it, and had I not I'd probably not be posting here at all. My biggest problem with it (after playing it) is they've used extreme violence to sell an incredibly shallow, repetitive, and overall boring game.
  
  --
  
  "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
41. Re:Order it online by Txiasaeia · 2003-12-12 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Re: hate speech - I have no idea what the heck I was talking about (I was probably thinking about a case in Ontario where a professor was being brought up on criminal charges for hate speech), but I can't find anything that supports my earlier claim that hate speech in the US is a crime; it's protected by the First Amendment, right?
  The thing that disturbs me is how much the US has changed since 9/11. Let me give you an example: my mom's American, and her relatives live in Oregon (my parents live in BC). The whole gang of American relatives decided to travel from Salem to Seattle for a soccer game. My mom asked if they wanted to come up to Vancouver to visit (from Seattle it's a three or four hour drive), and they refused. Do you want to know why? "Canada isn't supporting the war in Iraq."
  These are my relatives we're talking about, and fairly bright people too -- one of my uncles has his Masters in history, the other a Bachelors in comp sci, and my grandpa has his doctorate. They've been to Canada before; they know it's not a scary place. And yet, when they turn on the TV every night and get fed propaganda that Canada is a harbour for terrorists, and Canada doesn't support the war in Iraq, and on and on and on...
  And then I'm pissed off about Arar being deported and tortured, and then Colin Powell saying that it wasn't their fault. The people in Guantanimo Bay are being held as prisoners of war when the war is over. Bush sneering at the world, saying "If you didn't help destroy Iraq, you don't get to help rebuild it."
  The bill of rights may protect US citizens, but who's going to protect the rest of us? It's like living with a gun to your head - "Snap in line or we'll invade you too." Because what, we didn't want to go to war? It's ridiculous.
  You can't have this perspective. You don't know what it's like. And I have no idea what it's like to be an American, either, how you guys can know that these things are going on and wonder what is happening in your country. Canada's not perfect either, but at least we're not deporting US citizens to Serbia to be tortured or detaining foreign nationals indefinitely. What makes me worried is the US acting unilaterally in instances like this, and there's nobody to keep them in check.
  How we've come to this from a discussion about Manhunt, I have no idea. Anyway, Acidic, you don't deserve the sarcasm or anything that was pointed at you earlier. Sorry.
  Bottom line: in my opinion, games like this shouldn't be played by kids, and both parents and gov't need to do as much as possible to keep games like this out of their hands. This includes controls on advertisements and placing games out of sight in game retailers/rental outlets. As for adults, whatever. I don't exactly approve, but I wouldn't dream of doing anything to prevent them from playing it.
  
  --
  Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
42. Re:Order it online by bl0nd13 · 2003-12-12 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  We weren't discussing the book. It was the movie that was mentioned. Those are two different texts.
43. Re:Order it online by bitrott · 2003-12-12 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Manhunt's political valence is amost a total non-issue (not completely, I'll get to that).
  
  This isn't public policy Rock* is selling, it's entertainment meant strictly for adults. Pornography (or killography as some pinhead pundits have recently invented) isn't selling a statement on the plight of women in a male dominated industry, its selling lines,curves and semen and explosions. It takes a pundit or a politician to take that entertainment and make bad law and bad analysis.
  
  Manhunt DOES have political valence, but only because it speaks to something the creators have decided to portray in an illicit manner. This is where AU censors get their panties in a twist. Suddenly a possibly thoughtful musing becomes this "offensive" moral play, where the audience is challenged to defend themselves and seek freedom. A lot of people (I call them shallow, and of short attention span) say that entertainment like this loses its point the second it does something 'extreme'. I say they're being naive to the nature of expression the moment they let their 'disgust' get the better of them. If the director succeeds, and the game/movie is good, then the audience will be entertained, feel challenged, etc.. I really think the AU censorship board is violating a core human right by denying victimless experiences to their citizens. That law then, becomes "bad art" of the worst kind.
  
  It's always an uphill battle defending the rights of libertarian-minded adults when your test case at hand isn't exactly Shakespere.
  That Manhunt fails to satisfy the misdirected and ligitious moral philandering of Australian censorship boards is no real loss for most people, but there are many like me that see this as a slow erosion of personal resposibility and rights.
  
  I imagine that AU, like America has bigger problems with their politicians creating false issues ('conciousness') than entertainment can ever bring to the fore. B.S. flag-waving, pro/con life issues and anti-gay marriage legislation creates more noise than entertainment often does. And those are just to get votes.
44. Re:Order it online by einTier · 2003-12-12 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, my recollection of the game could be somewhat wrong. I played it over the Thanksgiving holidays, so that's almost a month ago. I don't know that I watched the intro movies either, or maybe I just didn't pay attention.
  Either way, I was fairly shocked by the content, and I consider myself pretty unshockable. I think I played through the first three levels or so then got bored with it. Shocking only goes so far, and I thought that the controls made executions overly difficult.
  
  --
  -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
45. Re:Order it online by unclethursday · 2003-12-12 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Either way, I was fairly shocked by the content, and I consider myself pretty unshockable.
  I wasn't shocked, really. Some of the violent kills made me go 'ew' for half a second, but not shocking.
  I think I played through the first three levels or so then got bored with it. Shocking only goes so far, and I thought that the controls made executions overly difficult.
  100% agree. In fact, we made it to around the same area, it sounds, before we both got bored of it.
46. Re:Order it online by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-12-12 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  Direct quote from my post: "Take the film or book 'American Psycho' if you want."
  We didn't bring up the book? Funny...what "we" are you talking about?
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
47. Re:Order it online by bl0nd13 · 2003-12-12 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  The film and the book are, as I noted above, two completely different texts. In Easton-Ellis' novel, the reader is invited to sympathize with Bateman. In the film, the viewer is being invited to pity Bateman while holding him under the light of satire. However, this isn't a particularly useful direction for the discussion to go. I'm not interested in one-upsmanship. The comment was merely and aside that prefaced the actual content of the post.
48. Re:Order it online by mokiejovis · 2003-12-12 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  The bill of rights protects United States citizens.
  
  Silly me. Here, all this time, I thought those self-evident truths had been protecting all the men created equal.
49. Re:Order it online by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-12-13 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Governments around the world do not guarantee the same rights to their citizens. Your comment is stupid.
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
50. Re:Order it online by Stormwatch · 2003-12-13 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  *checks urbandictionary.com for MOTA*
  
  Eh... what do you mean, a functional relationship with MARIJUANA? weird...
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
51. Re:Order it online by mellon · 2003-12-14 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  MOTAS == Member Of The Appropriate Sex. It's a usenet acronym - I'm showing my age... :'}
I wonder if these will be collectors items.. by LordJezo · 2003-12-12 01:32 · Score: 2, Funny

With all the censoring going on I wonder if I should go out and buy this game and Vice City now while I still can and then sell them on eBay in a few years for a few $100 dollars each..
1. Re:I wonder if these will be collectors items.. by bartok · 2003-12-12 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Wait for the collector's edition. It will come with a vial real innocent people's blood that was used to make the game.
Lawyas be suspect..... by jotaeleemeese · 2003-12-12 02:00 · Score: 1

.... of people doing things "for the good of the public"....

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
..it better not be at Hatians... by RobK · 2003-12-12 02:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

We're going to end up convincing all publishers to create yet more versions of of safe boring titles.

No matter what the liberals think - trying to control people's minds doesn't work. In fact, it may even be more dangerous as those who rebel have no healthy outlet.

(OK, the game may be sick, but it might be satisfying too.)

I can't wait for the day when we have to sign a liability waiver to play a game....
1. Re:..it better not be at Hatians... by mike_mgo · 2003-12-12 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  No matter what the liberals think
  Funny, I thought that there were just as many on the right (especially the religious right) who are interested in censoring things.
2. Re:..it better not be at Hatians... by Kirby · 2003-12-12 07:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  >Funny, I thought that there were just as many on the right (especially the religious right) who are interested in censoring things.
  
  This is clearly true - extremists on both sides are censors, for different reasons but to the same ends.
  
  Not convinced that it's not the other side of the spectrum from you? I present data:
  
  In a list produced to mark the American Library Association's annual Banned Books week, 2002's most frequently challenged books were, with their alleged 'offence:
  The Harry Potter series, by JK Rowling - glorifying magic and wizardry.
  The Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, - sexual content and unsuitability to its targeted age group.
  The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier - offensive language and unsuitability to age group.
  I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, - sexual content, racism, violence and unsuitability to age group.
  Taming the Star Runner by S.E Hinton, - offensive language.
  Captain Underpants, by Dav Pilkey, - encouraging children to disobey authority.
  The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain - racism, insensitivity and offensive language.
  Bridge to Terabithia, by Katherine Paterson - offensive language.
  Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry, by Mildred D Taylor - insensitivity, racism and offensive language.
  Julie of Wolves, by Jean Craighead George - sexual content, offensive language and violence.
  
  Harry Potter is clearly a right-wing protest, as well as most of the sex and bad word complaints. Huck Finn is clearly a left-wing protest, as well as most of the insensitivity and racism complaints.
  
  This problem doesn't come from the classic American political spectrum. It's more on an individual rights vs. community standards axis. The techie crowd skews strongly towards individual rights, but it seems like the general popluation in most countries is more towards community standards.
  
  (Personally, I'm not a big fan of censorship, either for these games or these books, but anyone blaming the Left or the Right is just not paying any attention.)
  
  --
  -- Kate
3. Re:..it better not be at Hatians... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 07:23 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Right, and don't forget about Saddam's Republican Guard.
4. Re:..it better not be at Hatians... by CFTM · 2003-12-12 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  I plan to make my kids read all those books, save Harry Potter because that series is a complete waste of time. A problem that exists with censorship is that it just represses tough issues people don't want to deal with. God forbid people be proactive and actually get involved with their children to contextualize situations. Stop using TV and Video Games as a babysitter and experience the world with your children.
5. Re:..it better not be at Hatians... by RobK · 2003-12-12 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  Even better - experience this with your children.
  
  Prepare them for the REAL WORLD. It's not a nice place - the underdog doesn't always win.
  
  The most important thing is that my kids won't be surprised and they'll know when to duck.
  
  That's something I want games to prepare them for.
  
  Res up the carrier....
6. Re:..it better not be at Hatians... by CFTM · 2003-12-12 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  I agree 100%, much better articulation of what I said.
If anything by darkmayo · 2003-12-12 02:26 · Score: 1

it will save the people from playing a crappy gimmick game, kinda like how Acclaim stopped making games for the gamecube.. they are doing us a favor.

--
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
Great by Blublu · 2003-12-12 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

The game will now be infinitely more interesting to teenagers.

--
meh
Re:Amen! by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-12-12 03:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you're so sure that there is no link between violence in video games and violent behavior in real life, why should the game be banned?
That doesn't logically follow from the rest of what you've written. You say that the parents are ignorant and that kids should not play Manhunt. I agree, parents are not doing their job. So what you propose is for the government to step in and do the jobs of parents but also prevent anyone who long ago moved out of their parents' house from getting the game as well? Pardon me but if some parents are doing a poor job, you don't allow the government to become the parent of everyone. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Yes, there are differences between the driving gameplay of GTA and Manhunt. There's a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You might think government censorship is a good way to protect everyone but that's just a way for the government to ensure that it is the only voice - Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia spring to mind as two countries which used government intervention to ensure that only the voice of the government could be heard by the people. [Yes, it is a video game. Yes, it is not really a political message. Yes, it is a first step towards further censorship. You give an inch, the government takes it today. They'll be back tomorrow for another inch. At what point will you stand up?]
You seem a little young so if any of this went over your head, just reply with what confused you and I'll try to clear it up.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Is censorship a working answer? by redelm · 2003-12-12 03:17 · Score: 1

Sure sounds like "ManHunt" is a nasty and revolting game. I'm not against vidgame violence, but I'd rather not see this one succeed.
But does censorship decreases sales? Yes, NZ retail won't carry it. Will that stop online shippers, travellers or purchasers in other countries? "Banned in NZ" might well be a powerful reason for some to buy it.
1. Re:Is censorship a working answer? by Matrix272 · 2003-12-12 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Sure sounds like "ManHunt" is a nasty and revolting game. I'm not against vidgame violence, but I'd rather not see this one succeed.
  
  If you'd rather not see this game succeed, don't buy it. No government has the right to control what people say, hear, or think... I don't care what anybody says. Rights are given to people simply by the fact that we all have free-will, whether you believe that comes from God, or from billions of years of evolution, you can't deny that humankind is the only species we know of that can reject our instincts, and proceed on free-will. When the government censors something, they are rejecting our free-will, especially in cases like this, where nobody is getting hurt.
  
  If you don't want to see it succeed, don't buy it. Feel free to have seminars and conferences to like-minded individuals explaining to them why they shouldn't buy it either. But don't tell me that I don't have the freedom of choice to buy it and play it. If I immitate it and murder someone with a plastic bag, throw me in jail because I'm obviously a moron... but don't punish me for a crime I have yet to commit.
  
  --
  "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
2. Re:Is censorship a working answer? by bitrott · 2003-12-12 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Awww. Panties in a twist? Learn to appreciate GOOD art and BAD art. you'll find that you're "revolted" less and "entertained" more. Only in the twisted mind of a moral simpleton can art and action be confused.
3. Re:Is censorship a working answer? by CavemanKiwi · 2003-12-14 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  This can be put another way. I am willing to bet that you do don't get arrested for importing the game or to have it in your possession. What they in fact stopped is the ability of the retail shops to be able to sell this product to the public. PS I believe there are no rights only restrictions.
4. Re:Is censorship a working answer? by tuxedobob · 2003-12-14 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  What if that art involves action?
  
  As a side note, that whole "whispering in the ear" deal sounds eerily like brainwashing.
Censorship sucks, but I can understand the reasons by falcon5768 · 2003-12-12 04:15 · Score: 1

Has anyone actually SEEN this game.
Honestly I love the GTA series but I think rockstar games is going a bit too far with this one.
A SUFF film????
I can see the board room presintation now!!!
Guys we need a new game!!!
Well what do you have in mind
Ya know what no one has done before... a suff film game
your right, that would be the coolest game EVER!!!! So lawyer dude what do you think????
SCREEEEEECH HUH???? YOUR GOING TO DO WHHHHATTTTTT!!!!! shakes head. honestly this is going to be bad. Even if it does slip below the radar here which it has so far, you know the minute something happens this game will be brought up and thats the end of freely being able to buy games here. This game will piss EVERYBODY off free speech be damned!
I just think this game is sending the wrong message to the people we have to watch out for, the bleeding heart liberals and the wack job right wingers.

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Excuse me? by floydigus · 2003-12-12 04:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

"a usually liberal Censor's Office"

They ban one game and their not liberal any more?

--
All things in moderation; including moderation
1. Re:Excuse me? by Chris+Mattern · 2003-12-12 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I found the concept of *any* "Censor's Office" being "liberal" rather odd. "Liberal" to me means not having a "Censor's Office" at all...
  
  Chris Mattern
2. Re:Excuse me? by floydigus · 2003-12-15 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Before you tick other people off about their use of language, try not posting anonymously. Or are you afraid of the backlash for being a gutless pedant, karma-whore?
  
  --
  All things in moderation; including moderation
Re:Censorship sucks, but I can understand the reas by leifm · 2003-12-12 04:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yeah, this game is like a gift to those that want to see games censored. And it's not the graphics that make it appalling('cause like all Rockstar titles, save MP, it looks like ass) it's the presentation, the lack of a story, and those filters that leave more to your imagination because the killing is kinda blurred. The whole thing just feels wrong. Rockstar probably couldn't outdo themselves here, except maybe releasing Manhunt 2: Rape and Kill (get and extra star for vaginal tears).

--

"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
Censorship is immoral also countereffective? by redelm · 2003-12-12 04:39 · Score: 1

Oh, I agree. I won't be buying it, but I agree that censorship is profoundly immoral.
Censors impose their free-will to reduce their subjects free-will. I met and listened to a censor once. I had a strong urge to wash my hands afterwards.
My point is that irrespective of morality, censorship may be counter-productive by enoucraging more "forbidden fruit" sales than it reduces by depriving retail channels.
Oh, about the speciesism -- I don't know that humans supress their instincts more than others. Many animals can be taught to delay gratification. Chimps and dolphins have recently been shown to be aware and capable of judging their own thinking processes.
Re:Censorship sucks, but I can understand the reas by falcon5768 · 2003-12-12 04:55 · Score: 1

(get and extra star for vaginal tears). Oh GOD I didnt need to read that!!!!!

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
I still say you all need to sign this protest! by LordJezo · 2003-12-12 04:55 · Score: 1

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi? havc

Get humans censored out of Vice City!
It got banned? by Andy+Smith · 2003-12-12 04:57 · Score: 1

I'll order my copy tomorrow!

As will thousands of other people when they read this news.
List of purchasers=list of suspects by Attaturk · 2003-12-12 04:57 · Score: 1

This game sounds like a groundbreaking new system for tracking potential violent offenders. Conspiracy theorists should start checking out where Rockstar got its advance for this project right about now... ;-)
Mixing issues by devilsadvoc8 · 2003-12-12 05:03 · Score: 1

Too many people are confusing seperate issues here: (1) censorship and (2) game ratings. Lets toss the 2nd out the window. If a game is properly designated under a rating system then only the parents are to blame if a 10-year old is playing an ultra-violent game. Adults can do whatever they want. If attending a KKK or neo-nazi meeting isn't illegal than how can playing a game be? As for the first issue (censorship) I have two thoughts- its wrong! (Pbbbbbt!) and in the situations where a commercial product is banned for content then sales go through the roof. Just ask 2 Live Crew, the authors of Postal and Salman Rushdie. Banning/censoring only improves the demand for crappy products. It helps reward people for crappy products with try to band-aid it with a controversy (e.g. Marilyn Manson).

--
B O R I N G
Re:Amen! by Mahrtian · 2003-12-12 05:11 · Score: 1

We've hit Godwins law already? That didn't take very long.

--

--
Re:Say what? by CFTM · 2003-12-12 08:41 · Score: 1

Are you out of your mind? Censorships and repression has never worked in any society, it will never work and in fact it causes things to fall apart.
Rockstar does like things gory... by can_dcm · 2003-12-12 09:25 · Score: 1

They were filming one of my martial arts instructors demonstrating and talking through kali knife fighting techniques. They definitely wanted bloody techniques, like disembowelments, not just efficient techniques. I wonder if this was the game? PS -- Before somebody flames me, Kali knife techniques are very brutal, as are all realistic knife fighting techinques. Still, some are bloodier than others.
Whats the big deal? by MeThOdXxX · 2003-12-12 10:10 · Score: 1

Lets face the facts here, granted Manhunt may be one of the most bloodiest games ever made but its not the only one of its kind. Maybe everyone should think back to the early to mid ninties when the infamous orginial Mortal Kombat came out, it was the most gruesome game of its time and look how well it did and is still doing. I agree with all the other /.'ers who say if you dont like the game dont by it. No one can force it apon you and no one wants to hear anyone bitching about it either. There is already an age restriction on the game in the U.S., and that in my opinion is all there needs too be. In this day and age one can turn on their cable television and see the same stuff if not worse. So let me ask again, whats the big deal?

--
HaHaHaHaHa
1. Re:Whats the big deal? by tuxedobob · 2003-12-14 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  As I recall, MK was limited to 16-bit graphics and had characters spewing ice shards from their wrists. Manhunt sounds like it's aiming for photorealism and the sense that, "Hey, you could do this in real life, too."
Sure this is Rockstar? by Guppy06 · 2003-12-12 12:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would have thought adding a "Banned in New Zealand!" sticker to a game's case is a marketing tactic more up Acclaim's alley.
Re:hmm... by Stormwatch · 2003-12-13 09:43 · Score: 1

Seems you're mixing New Zealand and Australia... :P

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
In Australia by randomlogik · 2003-12-14 13:00 · Score: 1

I dont know if fellow Aussie slashdotters have realised, but they are advertising the crap out of this gamer already. Full page ad's in PC Magazines to Game Magazines to Street Fashion Magazines. Billboards, posters and stencils all over the place. If the OFLC hasnt got banning Manhunt yet, I'm unsure of whats going on. This game really deserves a R18+ rating by all means, but since there STILL IS NOT R RATING for games, it looks like a cut down MA15 version or banning altogether. On another note, I think most here are quick to judge a game before playing it. Come on all that controvertial 'features' of the game is just to stir up exactly this. The hype this game is getting is ridiculous, considering very little has been mentioned about the how the game plays. The game will probably make about as much social impact as BMX XXX.