Slashdot Mirror
Take Two Shelves Manhunt 2
If you've been following this story so far, it shouldn't come as a shock that Take-Two has shelved Manhunt 2 for the moment, while they decide what to do next. The company is considering its options, and still fully supports the game as a 'work of art'. "Take-Two Interactive Software has temporarily suspended plans to distribute Manhunt 2 for the Wii or PlayStation platforms while it reviews its options with regard to the recent decisions made by the British Board of Film Classification and Entertainment Software Rating Board ... We continue to stand behind this extraordinary game. We believe in freedom of creative expression, as well as responsible marketing, both of which are essential to our business of making great entertainment." Analysts have already started weighing in, with some seeing this as unfairly targeting the GTA-maker for previous 'sins'.
be true, really!
If take-two takes a loss on this game it could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech for years to come, and companies willingness to push the envelope.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
This whole thing is rather interesting. The Wii version is the one that really catches my interest because of what the controls "add" to the game. I was rather surprised at first when I saw what they were doing. While it fits well, it's rather visceral compared to just pushing a button so I wondered if they would have a tough time.
Nintendo banning an AO game doesn't surprise me. Sony banning it does surprise me some. But what all of this has really made me wonder is... does Microsoft have an anti-AO game policy? If Manhunt 2 was developed for the 360, would they be able to release it (problems with Target, Wal*Mart, etc selling it aside)?
The computer is really the only platform where this isn't a problem. If you look at the list of AO games, most of them are on the PC, even if you remove the "Virtual Jenna" type games. Since no-one can stop a game from being published on the PC (you can sell it mail order or download if you have to), this wouldn't be a problem.
Of course, Take-Two has put already had a target on their heads (unfairly). I can see the outrage over a game like this, seeing as how it makes GTA look tame. As adult as this is, I was really looking forward to reading the reviews of what the Wii controls added to it. There are previews out now, but previews are always positive so it's a bit hard to tell based on that. People called GTA a "murder simulator".. heh.
Porting consoles isn't easy. But maybe MS could agree to let them publish and get PR win with the mature crowd. But that would probably cause them problems with the family crowd they want.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
show some goddamn spine and stick to their guns! :)
Is "punishing for previous sins" unfair? No not at all, that's how the world works. Be an asshole, it's not illegal, your free to be an asshole, but that does not mean it does not come without a social penalty. and the next time you need someone else's approval, that someone has a chance to punish you. It's a good thing. It's not unfair.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
>as well as responsible marketing
Ya, right!
While I love Rockstar games as much as the next person, I don't see how they possibly thought they could get away with this game. It's almost as if they're are determined to go bust.
If my local video store sold offensive DVDs, I would stop associating with them entirely. Why should I (or any other third party) have the power to do any more than that to them?
I agree that the ratings systems suck and this company is probably being unfairly punished. But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, what's the problem here?
Release it with the adult rating. If the traditional outlets won't sell it, find new ones or sell it online yourselves. If its such an awesome game, where you sell it should make absolutely no difference and buyers will beat a path to your door/website. But if it blows chunks, then the ratings really don't matter.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Hell no. Political Correctness(tm) was NEVER a slippery slop to censorship. Gosh. Those Chinese sure do suck for their Censorship(tm). We don't suck. We have REAL reasons!!!! I mean, Think About the Children(tm).
Un-frickin-believeable. For you purist-morons, yes, this was both governmental and economic censorship. My belief will always be that pornography is the line. That is to say, sexual contact and insinuated sexual contact when one or both sides' "stuff" is involved. And, it even has to be REAL for that. Not animated.
I am a parent. I am a parent to my kids and I take responsibility for what they see and experience. I have the power to control a heck of a lot of what they are exposed to and I exercise that power. Sucks for the parents who don't, but don't put that on me via government. I'll handle my own situation and you handle yours.
If stuff happens to be viewed or experienced by my kids out of my control "area", then we'll deal with it. But, my kids absolutely 100% won't be "damaged" because of it. Show me one person of us 6 billion who hasn't had a perfect go of it. I can only say that now after Paris Hilton got sent away, but before that, I was 99.999999% sure.
Moe
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Release it on the PC.
Deleted
I'd like to say I agree with the decision to rate Manhunt2 as an AO title. Rating systems are in place for a reason: Too many children up to and including the age of 17, are getting access to content that they should not have access to. If a parent disagrees with this policy, then he/she may purchase a restricted title and supply it to their own child. If they don't purchase the title at the childs request, then so be it. Don't blame that decision on the rating system ... you're merely keeping the decision-making ability for such a purchase from the adolescent, which is as it should be.
You hope he dies? For misclassifying a story? You have anger management issues...
Nobody else has this sig.
I don't really hope he dies. I was exaggerating for effect. If I had to characterize my hopes for Zonk, I'd say I'd like something mildly unpleasant to occur.
After all, I am strangely colored.
If the British classification board doesn't like the game, just don't sell it in Britain. They're not a make-or-break market for worldwide sales. And if British players want the game anyway, I'm sure they'll find a way to import it. Shelving the whole project when 90%+ of the money and effort required has already been expended sounds beyond foolish in a world economy.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I can't beleive they raised the issue of freedom of expression in order to defend this crap. Frankly it just seems weak when they say they want freedom of expression and that they are just trying to use the certain keywords in our society (like terror, freedom etc.) in order to create sympathy for themselves, but the misuse of these things do not wash, because when someone wants to raise a serious point they no longer have an arguement to defend themselves as these arguements no longer carry any value. And to add to that, they claim this whilst rolling over and giving up, so its like saying "Our principles state we should do this in the interest of free expression, but we don't stick by our principles so we'll just give up". I dislike what this game is, I dislike how they've handled the denial of distribution of this game, and I dislike the way this company acts in general making games deliberately to encourage violence, and anything else immoral just to make a quick buck, its not freedom, its moral bankrupcy.
Or more seriously, what about the PC release? There's no one to get permission for, the ratings are optional, and if there's still trouble there's the online distribution. There was a PC version of the first game, so I hope they make this one available. The first one certailnly wasn't GOTY material (although a friend of mine is quite fond of it), but it was still enjoyable... most of the time.
And I was really looking forward to using the Wiimote to hack up some coeds.
The post is tagged as "games" and "politics". Manhunt 2 is a game, and the decision to suspend it's marketing is based on the political decisions made in Britain. Relevant IMHO.
Deleted
I understand that this is a freedom of speech issue, but I don't understand why anyone would care about this game. I've played all the Doom's and Quake's, but I have never understood games that just feel like true murder. I may be a bit biased after just recentlycoming back into the light after a 2.5 year WoW binge, but games like this are sick. Don't even get me started on the Saw and Hostel films, which are just overly promoted heights of a deeper sickening genre. What is wrong with people that find this entertaining?
-tyfighter
license it as a SPY vs SPY game. Same argument when that came out but we won last time (1st amendment supporters)
If there was ever an argument for Mod Chips, this is it! Once I purchase a console it's mine, d@mn it! I should be able to play whatever games I purchase for it, and shouldn't need Sony's or Nintendo's blessing first. That's like buying a Mustang, and then finding that only Ford Brand Gasoline service station nozzles will fit the weird shape of my fuel filler tube.
I wonder if you could win an anti-trust suit over this? Imagine if your Dell PC would only run software resold through Dell stores. Where does it say on the outside of the PS3 box -- This unit only runs software licensed by Sony. Any other use of this equipment violates the Sony Playstation 3 License Agreement.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Isn't that just what the ESRB did?
My kingdom for some mod points.
If you live in UK, why don't you attack the BBFC directly. Normally it's the USA that runs the whole d@mn world, but here Britain seems to be wagging the dog. I don't have standing over there to be heard, but you must.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
In order for a game to be playable in a console, it must be cryptographically signed by the console manufacturer. So while you can write the code and sell the game for console without manufacturer's permission, no one without a mod-chip or other way to bypass the DRM will be able to play it. And since you are now selling a product that REQUIRES law-breaking (mod-chips violate the DMCA), you open yourself up to all sorts of lawsuits.
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
I hope your daughter gets raped by negroes on cocaine.
As 3D graphics become more realistic the chances of disturbing people become greater. It's not like watching a horror film where you are the observer, you are taking on the role of the killer.
The British Board of Film Classification isn't a government agency.
Look, every human decision that affects other people is political. This is a deep insight, as it opens new avenues to study the way society functions. But it can be easily abused if used shallowly. Let's keep the politics section focused on governments and their agents, lest it becomes inundated with trivial X-Makes-A-Decision-That-Affects-Others type stories.
After all, I am strangely colored.
The local library stocks subject matter that I find offensive, including material that project certain people as subhuman. I find this as offensive as child abuse dvds, but I do realize that unlike child abuse dvds no one was actually harmed in producing these movies. And I think that is the distinction we must make, this is why a movie depicting the rape of a child is not equivalent to a child porn video. As in the latter case an actual crime is being committed. Since these games do not require the recreation of actual scenes they deserve more leeway in their depictions, as no one is being harmed. The images projected in Manhunt 2 and other games are merely pictures, and not particularly realistic ones. There is no actual difference between Manhunt 2 where one slaughters oddly shaped representations of people and Space Invaders.
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
If your British, let the goverment know, right here : http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/videogames/
England Prevails!
No, it's what the BBFC just did (ESRB rated it AO), but without their approval the game can't be sold or imported into the country.
I wish to remain anomalous
If you're going to offer up such a sweeping statement without any evidence to back it up, at least have the courage not to post as AC.
"No, no, no, don't tug on that! You never know what it might be attached to."
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Actually it does have to do with politics, particularly with free speech. Manhunt 2 is being shelved because of an AO rating which some believe to be based more on politicals than actual content. So, in that sense, Politics is a more appropriate section than games. Just as if a studio were targetted with a controversial NC-17 rating and stopped distribution of the film as a result.
If I wanted to read about games, I wouldn't have set my preferences to hide all the stories.
Then don't read it. You are actually NOT udner any obligation to read every story that appears on your slashdot page. No, no, really, its true. You can choose to skip over a story.
You're constant misclassifications circumvent my preference.
You do realize that, based on your UID alone that there are 841,676 other users, right? And that most would find this to be an appropriate classification? In other words, slashdot as a whole is more important than your preferences.
You are a douche bag.
While that could well be true, based on the little interaction I've had with him, I'd doubt it.
I hope you die,
In hindsight, I bet you're thinking that this might be a bit harsh. If not, well, ironically enough, you are actually the target audience for Manhunt 2!
but barring that, I hope you stop foisting your obsession with video games on the clearly uninterested.
Based on the number of comments this and related stories have garnered, I'd have to say that the interested outweigh the uninterested.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Your last post offers a better explanation and is far more informative and insightful and would have been taken more seriously than:
Posting in this thread is a good start though.
Here are the definitions of M and AO from the ESRB Ratings Guide:
"MATURE Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language."
"ADULTS ONLY Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."
I find it hard to believe that this game could not be classified as an M rated game. Both games require you to be at least 17 years old (18 in the case of AO). I highly doubt this game has "graphic sexual content", so it all comes down to whether the violence is "intense violence", or "prolonged scenes of intense violence".
The rating system is really not very well thought out. There should be some kind of process to appeal the decision and have it re-reviewed by a different group.
Come on... IT'S A GAME! They need to lighten up. I probably wouldn't want my kids playing this game, but if it's rated M then that means that you have to be 17 to play it anyways. Hold the stores responsible for upholding that responsibility, just as movie theaters are responsible for upholding the movie ratings by not allowing minors in to see R rated movies.
And for all those articles that talk about the game not being for 'families'.... those people need to get a life. Nobody is trying to claim that 'Manhunt 2' is a 'family friendly' game. It's a game for adults, and it should be available for adults to purchase. I hate it when other people decide what is best for me.
What is everyone so upset about? Half of the comments on here are either anti-ESRB or anti-USA. Why?
Last I checked, the US hadn't banned the game. So there's no reason for that.
And the ESRB didn't ban it, either. The ESRB's website says a game gets an AO is it has "prolonged scenes of intense violence," and, from my understanding, if you "charge up" (presumably hold a button or something) for a kill, it will take longer to do (it will be more complex, or brutal). In other words, it will be PROLONGED.
If you have hostility for this game not being released, blame either Nintendo, Sony, or the countries that are banning it. The ESRB rated the game appropriately and were not directly involved in it not hitting shelves.
What if you are a video game distributor or a video game producer and you decide you don't want to be associated with this game? What if you are part of a ratings board and you decide the violence in the game warrants a high rating? Do any of these have the power to say and do the things they say and do? Should the ratings board give the game a lower rating just because of a silly claim that the game is fine art? Should game distributors be forced to sell games they don't want to sell? Should stores be forced to sell games they don't want to sell or games that will make customers exercise a free choice to shop elsewhere? Nothing in this instance has anything to do with censorship. It's all about organizations and companies making their own decisions in response to this game.
I love my sig.
You just proved my point. I feel sorry for your parents.
Actually it does have to do with politics, particularly with free speech. Manhunt 2 is being shelved because of an AO rating which some believe to be based more on politicals than actual content. So, in that sense, Politics is a more appropriate section than games. Just as if a studio were targetted with a controversial NC-17 rating and stopped distribution of the film as a result.
The British Board of Film Classification, the ESRB, and the MPAA -- none are government agencies. So no, it doesn't have to do with free speech. This is especially true in the US, where retailers have the right to determine what they wish to sell. And they've exercised they exercised their right when they decided to sell ESRB rated games.
Sure, every human decision that affects others is in some sense political. As I said elsewhere, this is a deep insight into how society functions. On the other hand, it can be very easily abused. Should "Microsoft Announces $Next_Gen_Windows, RedHat Folds Under Pressure" or "Kobe Bryant Signs with $TEAM" be in the section? After all, these stories affect many more people than a story about a video game. If not, why not? (A reasonable response would be "Because these stories have nothing to do with the government or its agents" -- what most people mean by 'political'.)
You do realize that, based on your UID alone that there are 841,676 other users, right? And that most would find this to be an appropriate classification? In other words, slashdot as a whole is more important than your preferences.
And most of them are under the delusion that this is a political issue, when it clearly isn't.
In hindsight, I bet you're thinking that this might be a bit harsh. If not, well, ironically enough, you are actually the target audience for Manhunt 2!
I was trying to be over the top. As I said elsewhere, my hopes for Zonk can be characterized by the hope that something mildly unpleasant happens to him. Stepping in dog poo would do nicely. If it weren't so dangerous, a coconut landing on his head would be amusing too.
Based on the number of comments this and related stories have garnered, I'd have to say that the interested outweigh the uninterested.
I have actively shown my lack of interest by setting my preferences. I'm sure many others have too.
Obviously, people posting in a story are self-selecting. These same people likely would have posted if the story were in the Games section as well. On the other hand, of the million members of Slashdot, on the order of 100 have posted. Post counts don't mean much.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Maybe someone should start a write-in campaign. If Sony and Nintendo got a million e-mails maybe they would change their minds.
You obviously dont go to your local video store very often...
They DO sell child abuse DVD's! There are many movies out there about child abuse, and even more which arent about child abuse but have child abuse in them..
... you really don't have anything to complain about when you're caught out in a shit storm.
I piss off bigots.
You might find this inspiring: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=24049 3&cid=19623063
Maybe you should stop being such a fucking sissy and being disgusted and offended by everything all the time. Personally I'm much more disgusted by the fact that we let people starve to death on the streets in the United States. Or that we allow mass genocide. That we allow millions of people to die because they can't afford a few pennies worth of medicine. Or hey, how about that time when we invaded a country that hadn't done anything to us and killed half a million people? Or whatever else you want to add, there are hundreds, if not thousands (tens or hundreds of thousands, probably) of things more disgusting and offensive than a video game with blocky geometry and blurry, low-res textures that depicts violence.
It's a fucking video game. The fact that you think it's ANYTHING like a store selling videos of children (real human beings, a collection of relatively few polygons) being abused is pretty damn disgusting in and of itself. You should seek serious professional help if you actually believe that.
The Farewell Tour II
I am extremely disappointed with Nintendo for this decision, as I've been looking forward to playing this game on my wii for some time. Nintendo systems get criticized a lot for their lack of titles not aimed at 8-year-olds. Now, a new and probably very popular one prepares to come out for the wii, which is lacking in non-party game titles in general, and Nintendo blocks it. Nintendo, do you want to have the best, most entertaining system? Or are you going to base your sales strategy on soccer mom's who don't allow their children to purchase their desired system on account of their irrational paranoia? I skipped the gamecube for that reason, but I had higher expectations for the wii. If "different content is meant for different audiences," shouldn't you be providing content for ALL audiences? Or at least not actively suppressing 3rd parties from supplying it? It's not as if people who are offended by the content are forced to buy the game with the system, or that children can buy it on their own. As you said (and contradicted yourself by including) in your explanation, "that's why the ESRB provides ratings to help consumers understand the content of a game before they purchase it." Let me repeat that. "To help consumers understand the content of a game before they purchase it." Not to cause console manufacturers to actively prevent their adult customers from buying a game whose contents they full understand.
Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
I'm 31 years old and I should be able to buy any game I want.
If TakeTwo bows to this kind of pressure, other pubs will follow.
I don't think anyone under 16 should be playing these kinds of games.
Clerks don't enfoce the ratings system. They should.
I would.
They're using their grammar skills there.
That would be like an automotive company spending 100million to develop a new car, have the parts done and the factory with the ON switch just waiting to be pressed and then throwing in the towel. That kind of stuff doesn't happen, and as a shareholder I'm sure someone is going to be upset with them for this.
Throw in a few suicide bombers and it will be a smash hit.
I dunno, it might bomb.
I'm 100% in agreement here. Nobody is putting a gun to Rockstar's head and making them license for consoles. They do it because there's more money in it, and as a consequence, they play by the console maker's rules.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Well it seems that is the problem.
Clerks do not enforce it so Target and Walmart will just refuse to stock your item instead. Now its just EB Games and the internet. At this point you would lose money as the marketing and cost to cut hte cds require mass production to not be cost prohibitive for the consumer. Why pay $70 for a game?
So its cheaper to take a loss now like poker and not cut it until Target and Walmart get into shape and allow it.
http://saveie6.com/
and here i thought switching to a console would make things cheaper and easier in the long run.
I can understand the AO rating....it should be enforced...but to not even have the option for a console game kinda blows. It's a bit surprising since so many console gamers are well over the age of 18/21.
Oh well....back to PC gaming for the adult stuff i guess.
The first Manhunt had infamy going for it but that didn't change the fact that it was a shitty game.
and it is well documented that everyone who ever smoked dope, snorted some meth, Charlie or whatever that other stuff was, and took heroin, ate magic mushrooms, dropped a tab, smoked cigarettes, indulged in a delicious Cohiba (mmm!), had an ice-cold beer or had sex with another human being,(Who was alive at the time, you slashers.) started on the whole road to ruin,(wait, all of those together?) the moment they had a taste of milk.
t ml to a night in any Scottish Pub!
Ay lad.
Shit, I missed out Poppers, and taking prescription drugs...
I can understands the revulsion people have to such violent images. After being dangerously exposed to Marlon Brando in The Wild Ones, I went to grammar school where I read Stanley Gibbon's magnificent Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Then I had the misfortune to hear the Sex Pistols singing Pretty Vacant on an unguarded radio and I decided to go to University.
You really don't want to know about the period after the Dead Kennedys, The Pixies and God help us, Nirvana.
Once I completed a degree and a post grad (The Smashing Pumpkins, Portishead, post-modern, depressing)I decided it would be wise to avoid further violent images or my skull might explode with too much education.
Of course I do watch Fox's coverage of the war in Iraq/Lebanon/Dafur/anywhere else and I can feel a doctorate looming.
People as individuals make choices that involve actions that have nothing to do with anything other than the fact that they are either good, bad or mentally ill. Television, Computer games or whatever have no more to do with the model than the Coliseum had to do with the Splendour and the Barbarism that was Rome. ( I guess that Gibbon stuff worked. Damn you, Ridley Scott, damn you all to hell.) Would it not be more purposeful if the people obsessed with these surreal concepts of cause and effect paid slightly more attention to economics and how the dynamism of the West does little to affect the levels of poverty and corruption in places such as Africa?
Might I be allowed to suggest with all the sympathy I can for the tragedy that inspires the beliefs of a great number of people who have probably never heard of SlashDot that the people who believe that inert images cause the problems, rather than poverty or madness are wrong?
I used to live in Miami City where they have a concealed weapons law: you can carry a hidden weapon. No one disturbs you in a bar, and no one harasses you. That's because Miami has one of the highest stats for middle aged women shooting dead assailants, with a small handgun - the Lady Colt. Compare a night in Porcaos http://www.rodizioplace.com/THE_PLACE/the_place.h
Did our parents and grandparents in the UK, ban Nazi propaganda in the face of defeat in 1939? No, they fought like lions
If we wish to have a society free from such horror then we too must fight like lions but we must fight against the real enemies and not some shallow paper tiger that is anything on the net. What this is, this attack on a stoopid game, is the forces of the establishment fluttering their wings, because it makes them afraid. And anything they fear they ban - just in case it encourages the unwashed to realise that the mob is the real power broker and that all these capitalist baubles are ephemeral in the face of the mob.
The Barbarian Tyrant Mao Tse Tung summed this up very clearly when he attempted to paraphrase Tsun Tsu with "Political truth springs forth from the barrell of a gun".
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Did anyone else read the headline to say (paraphrased) that Manhunt2 would require two shelves?
No, the violent video games are not helping the "decline of society", but self righteous assholes like yourself are!
You do not get to decide that violent games shouldn't be marketed. No kids were hurt in the making of this game. No kids are GOING to be hurt by PLAYING this game.
If you're so concerned with violence, perhaps you should worry more about our 18 year olds being sent to their deaths for a "war" with questionable backing and purpose, or parents teaching their kids to hate people who aren't of the "norm".
There are far, FAR more dangerous things out there, and a game that kids aren't even allowed to purchase in the first place is definitely not a concern.
Get off of your high-horse, and play some mortal combat. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised/amused, and I KNOW for a fact that you will not come away from it more violent, or with the idea of practicing a fatality on your friend.
Internet: Serious Business
I'm having a hard time deciding if that was satire or not. From the moderations, I'm guessing others picked the satire option. After what Take Two did to David Braben, and after what they've done to other software authors, the only envelopes Take Two have any business pushing are the envelopes containing the pink slips to management. As for "free speech", Take Two aren't even willing to own up to their own speech, so why the hell should I care if they lose the freedom of it? How does one lose what one doesn't claim to have?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Should the customer be able to decide what games he/she plays on the machine they own? The only party that has fewer 'rights' in this case is the consumer. And that is bullshit.
Nintendo didn't make a decision to ban Manhunt 2. Neither did Sony.
The truth is that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have all had long standing policies against licensing any AO rated games for their consoles. It's their console, it's their rules. These rules long preceded Manhunt. Every game developer signed on the dotted line. They know an AO rated game cannot be released on a console, yet Rockstar seemingly ignored these business realities.
I have the first Manhunt game and have read descriptions of the new title. I believe the first Manhunt probably deserved an AO rating. The first Manhunt is little more than a snuff film in game form. I played it for an hour and put it on the shelf. Even though the game disgusted me, I don't think it should have been banned.
But this new Manhunt has taken the snuff film to another level. In the Wii version of Manhunt 2, gamers can perform the physical acts as they would be performed in real life. You don't strangle someone by pushing buttons, you strangle them by strangling them. It can realistically be described as a "snuff film simulator".
I'm not in favor of censorship, but I am in favor of honest ratings. This game seems to fully deserve the Adults Only rating it has received. Why is it ok for 18 year olds but not 17 year olds? It's not. The problem is that the clerks at BestBuy, Circuit City, and Wal Mart routinely sell adult media to kids. I know 10 year olds who've purchased M rated titles at those stores. Bottom line, AO keeps the title from little kids, the M rating doesn't.
Few are outraged that those stores refuse to sell hardcore porn, why are so many people outraged those stores and the family-oriented Nintendo refuse to sell very adult, snuff-film games?
Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal Mart all are fully within their rights to set limits on the products they choose to sell. This isn't censorship, its the free market at work. If they feel it would hurt their business to sell porn and snuff films, fine. I don't have a problem with it, because in the internet age, there are nearly unlimited delivery options for digital content.
The truth is, NOTHING is keeping Rockstar from releasing the full version of their snuff film simulator in all its murderous glory. Rockstar could port it to the PC and sell it directly, through Steam, or Gametap. Of course, they won't sell many copies, and they won't sell to a lot of kids.
Were I running Rockstar, whomever approved the final product for the consoles would probably be sacked. Not because of the outrage, but because the AO rating was inevitable, making this a truly awful business decision.
...but I really want to see this game in action. I played Manhunt and thought it was boring; yeah, there's a lot of blood and guts and shit, but the gameplay itself is tedious and repetitive. I imagine Manhunt 2 is more of the same, so I want to see what the difference is between the two games. I mean what, exactly, makes Manhunt 2 worse (or better, depending on your perspective) than Manhunt? Manhunt was pretty gruesome; aside from rape I can't imagine anything that could make it more gruesome.
You'd make 7 bucks and hour AND give a crap what some kid is buying????
I normally respect the work of the slashdot moderators, but come on guys, you can do a lot better than this.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
The AO rating was not inevitable, and the AO rating is not being used to limit sales to adults. It is effectively being used as a covert ban on games. Ostenisbly it's all voluntary, but a large motivation behind voluntary ratings in this country is the threat of legislation being enacted if politicians don't think it goes far enough. I'm not asking for nintendo to sell snuff films, or even this game. I'm asking them to let it be manufactured for their system. As a libertarian, I agree that they should have the right to not sell games they disapprove of, or help with their development. (Although, as I understand it, 3rd party developers really only need console manufacturer approval because of copyprotection, whose circumvention is outlawed by the DMCA. That is something I strongly disapprove of.) But I, as a nintendo customer, am angry. I will probably not be buying another nintendo system after this, no matter how I much I like the interface. I hope other like-minded Nintendo customers will express similar concerns. Nintendo is being fully hypocritical, too, which annoys me further. In an email a rep said: "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." These statements are not reconcilable. I don't want the game for PC, I don't play this sort of game on the PC. I'd like to play it on my wii, which is a lot more fun for the few decent titles available. This is a tangent, but: "You don't strangle someone by pushing buttons, you strangle them by strangling them." No, you strangle someone by moving a wiimote through the air. (Which is to say, you have a slightly more releastic simulation.) Probably closer to strangling somone than pressing buttons on the spectrum of doing so, but nowhere near actually strangling a person.
Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
and I hope the game never hits the market. Why? Because there are a lot of parents that suck, and would let their small children play ultraviolent games like Manhunt and think nothing of it.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
yeah i'm not sure why this was moderated funny, because I would really like to see this game as an "internet only" release that "mysteriously" got leaked to torrent sites. They wouldn't have to worry about paying for marketing, packaging, pressing, shipping...it would be perfect.
this irritates me, because i'd love to play a game like this. certain people out there want to be everyones parents. to them i say - well mommy, come suck my dick, because i'm going to drink booze all night while playing manhunt
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
What's the difference between artistic expression and psychotic expression of human indecency? Really, from what I've heard about this game on /., it doesn't sound like a game that should have ever left the drawing board.
Stop it.... you're giving them ideas.
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
You bought a Sony "Playstation" or the Nintendo "Wii."
If you thought delivery of AO content was ever part of the deal, think again.
You're mad at Nintendo because they didn't make an exception for Manhunt 2?
It's either that or you've chosen today as the day to get angry at a policy Nintendo has had for over a decade.
If you want to boycott Nintendo for their no-AO policy, fine, great. But put your money where your mouth is. Sony and Microsoft have IDENTICAL policies regarding AO games. If you think Nintendo's AO policy is wrong, each of the console manufacturers are equally wrong.
So if you're serious about your boycott and are not going to be a complete hypocrite, you'll have to boycott all versions of the Playstation and all Playstation games (Sony gets money from every game sold). you'll also have ot boycott all versions of the X-Box and all X-Box games (Microsoft gets money from each game sold). And since Microsoft makes Windows, you'll have to boycott purchasing any future versions of Windows, Office, or even using Hotmail. And any Sony TV's, DVD players...
Sounds great, as long as your gaming needs are satisfied by playing Solitaire under Ubuntu.
I also think you've received some bad information regarding games licensing on consoles. Game licensing didn't start with the DMCA. The DMCA was only passed in 1999. Console game licensing was in place since nearly the beginning. At various times, unlicensed video games have been produced. A lot of court battles were fought in the early '90s regarding unlicensed videogames. But back then, reverse engineering was legal and consoles were much simpler.
Today, consoles are hugely more complex and the dev kit often takes longer to produce than does the design of the hardware. Even if the DMCA had never been passed, the console manufacturers would still be within their rights to use heavy encryption to prohibit unlicensed games. Even if the encryption were removed, the lack of a dev kit would likely prevent most publishers from even attempting development on today's complex consoles.
But the bottom line here is this. If you boycott Nintendo but give Sony and Microsoft a pass, you're a complete hypocrite.
I see a lot of people posting about parental responsibility, e.g., "It's the parent's job to know what their kid is playing.", but in my experience it seems like the parents of the worst know exactly what their kids do and just don't care.
How many kids do you know who got caught with drugs and their entire punishment consisted of "Bad Jimmy. Just don't do it again."?
How many times have you seen kids vandalizing property, public or private, in plain view of their parents?
I walked into a friend of a friend's house a few years ago to see their child, a kid who was so afflicted with ADHD that even highly sedated at age early-teen his parents still had to dress him in the morning, playing a game that at the time I found particularly disgusting (even as someone who loves Hitman, Unreal Tournament and GTA). When I asked his parents if they were aware that the content of that game really wasn't appropriate for a child, their reponse was that they let him play whatever keeps him quiet.
This is a little extreme, but here goes: most agree that the responsibility should lie on the parents to make sure they know what their child is playing. However, at the same time this infringes on adults' freedom of expression. Why not do the same thing we do with pr0n? A parent that gave pr0n to their underage child would get slapped with abuse or worse. A parent caught letting their child commit a crime might be hit with negligence. Why not do the same thing with video games? You give your kid a game that is essentially a snuff film, it stands to reason that you should get the same penalty.
~Ben
How about we say Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are all assholes? Well, at least nutless, as they can't stand to have or enforce a policy of free speech on their consoles. Does anyone remember the huge outcry of GTA3? how about vice city, or san andreas? Instead of this pussy ratings boards the various countries have, why don't Microsoft, Sony et. al. enforce an "anything-published" policy? Because of the children. No one dares develop an ADULT PLATFORM which is what the PS3 and XBOX 360 ALREADY ARE. How many kids shelled out a grand for a PS3, compared to adults? Yet we can't buy games we want on the system. Thanks a lot, Sony, you bitch.
oh ya anybody want a PS3? j/k I never bothered getting one..
I can't ignore in this context Gene Wolfe's memorable and disturbing short story "When I Was Ming The Merciless." Arthur C. Clarke was in a similarly reflective and cautious mood when he wrote "I Remember Babylon."
How is this any different from watching Hostel, or playing Resident Evil? What makes escaping from a mental facility different from Ryu Hayabusa killing ninjas? There were hockey mask wearing enemies in that game...
A game isn't a cause for a culture, it's the effect of a culture. Despite what people think, the culture isn't all that different now than it once was. Was there a point in time where there wasn't violent crime? When was that super special time that we didn't kill each other whenever we thought it was a good idea? I wasn't aware that lynchings and pogroms were because of Grand Theft Auto. I'm sure the Persians hated it when Alexander the Great got that copy of Age of Empires.
Honestly, I thought the first Manhunt was a pretty fun game. Spooky, engrossing, and it honestly made me NOT want to be hunted for my life in a future dystopia. You know, because of the dying (myself). Also I probably don't want to go work at Black Mesa, enter the Mortal Kombat tournament, or vacation to the Mushroom Kingdom.
But, while we're at it, let's ban violent books, movies, and tv shows because your kids might read, or watch them. I also don't really like reading about serial killers on the newspaper we're using to make masks so let's ban that too. Let's then ban gangsta rap. You know, I think there's also a Kenny Roger's song about rape, an Elvis song about sex, and every Johnny Cash song about getting beat up that we can ban. Roots is pretty violent, so is every episode of America's Funniest Video (all those crotches being hit really culture a society of sexually violent humorists).
Also, Jokey Smurf and Woody Woodpecker are just total assholes.
Or you could, and I'm just putting it out there, not buy it if you don't like it. Somehow you've managed to get by without being forced to sell issues of Oui to kids - you can do it here too!
I'm probably not going to be very interested in Spanish Inquisition: The Game myself. Unless it's on the Wii, boy those heathens are gonna yell then!
I disagree with you. I have a child on the way as well. However, I subscribe to the theory that I will raise my child to know the difference between fantasy and reality and that when they eventually do come across something like this (and don't kid yourself, they WILL, regardless of how many games/movies/songs you decide to ban), they understand what it is and how to approach it. In this case, as just a game, not reality, not a "murder tutorial device".
You can't shield your child from every bit of evil out there, so you must teach them how to deal with it themselves. Any other way is a band-aid on a far bigger problem, and will not work in the long run.
Open your own store, then. That way you can sell whatever nobody else wants to....
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
If your daughter is worth a damn, she will not kill people based on a video game. If every school shooting was caused by video games, which they obviously were not, it would still be so rare that it is not worth restricting millions of other people to prevent.
The worst thing that can happen in the world isn't random acts of violence, we created it through our society and it isn't going away, ever.
The truth is that your daughter will probably never be affected by a game like Manhunt 2. It's great that you want to protect your daughter but you can only do so much, it is still a free country, regardless of the added danger that it adds. If you want to rally behind a cause, there are about a zillion that are more dangerous than videogames, videogames just happen to be a popular target because of the ease of exposure.
We don't all have kids, we don't all want kids, and we all don't want to give up our passtimes for the 0.000000001% decrease in danger for your kids.
You take it, I don't want it...
Just kidding. :)
In that case, you're just a sad, twisted little man.
The thing is, the AO policy didn't mean nearly as much when games weren't being rated AO. M is supposed to mean 17+, and AO 18+. There is essentially no difference between the two. Effectively, for console games AO has not existed as anything more than something companies can point to and say "we're responsible, no need to step in and regulate us." So the policy has stayed the same, but its implications haven't. Nor am I really "boycotting" Nintendo. It would be pretty futile, because as you outlined, I don't have many options. I don't agree with what they're doing, but the reason I'm just not buying another Nintendo system if they keep acting like this, is the paucity of mature titles. I think that if Nintendo's trying to appeal to everyone, this is not the way to do it. They're just going to dig themselves deeper into the hole of only being considered a system for kids. I probably won't be buying sony or microsoft consoles, either. I don't complain about them because I don't care about them. Neither one is really worth it to me, compared to computer games, which I can play free of hypocrisy using my unlicensed copy of windows.
Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
How exactly is this a freedom of speech issue? The government isn't prevent Take Two from publishing this game. The ESRB isn't preventing Take Two from publishing this game. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have an option to not allow AO rated games on their platform. They are proprietary platforms, so you must abide by their rules. Someone above mentioned that libraries stock questionable material. Well, libraries are public. Take Two is free to publish this game on the PC.
Yes, I'm certain the only reason that this game is getting an Adults Only rating is because of "past sins"...
It's not as if it's very difficult... you don't have to "give a crap" you just have to do the job you are getting paid minimum wage to do.
You take it, I don't want it...
If only it were really that simple. The ESRB was not created due to an independent realization by producers and retailers that they need to set limits on what they will make and sell, it was created in response to the US Congress threatening to force government regulation the videogame industry. Clearly the industry would much rather self-regulate than be subject to the whims of the government, but they would really prefer to have complete control over what they are able to sell.
You could be sure that absent any government pressure this game would absolutely be sold on at least one system.
There is massive resultant difference in an M (+17) rating and an AO (+18) rating. The stated age difference is just an aside. The AO isn't about keeping the game out of the hands of 17 year olds, it's about keeping it out of the hands of 10 year olds.
The mass market retailers sell M rated titles. These retailers have proven they cannot be bothered to verify the age of their customers. As I posted above, I know 10 year old kids who've purchased M (+17) games from the WalMarts, Circuit City's and Best Buy's of the world.
Since the merchants can't be bothered to police themselves, the only way to keep truly adult content out of the hands of small children is to give that truly adult content an adult rating. WalMart doesn't sell NC-17 and they don't sell AO. The retailers actually want this, because they don't want to have to bother with the age checks, or more likely, the resultant bad press when their staff don't bother to check ages.
I have a question for you. The mass market retailers don't sell porn, don't sell NC-17 movies. I very much doubt Nintendo would allow hard core sex porn games, even if the ESRB gave them a low rating. So if you're ok with those companies not selling hard core sex-porn, why are you surprised or angry that they refuse to sell hard core violence-porn?
Yes, violence porn exists. Butcher movies are an example, as was the first Manhunt. Personally, I feel extreme violence is FAR more harmful to small children than is a bit of sex. And from what I've seen, Manhunt 2 falls directly into the violence-porn category. Sure, Rockstar has the right to make violence porn, sex porn, or whatever the hell they want. Just as Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have a right to pass it up. Rockstar could have and could still make the game for the PC and totally avoid the ratings board.
Another point of clarification. Were Nintendo to have allowed this game on the Wii, Nintendo would have effectively been selling it. The way the console licensing business is set up, the console manufacturers take a cut of every game sold for their hardware. So were this game to be released on Wii, Nintendo would be one of the profit participants. Nintendo couldn't just allow it to be sold, they would be "selling" it themselves.
Even people who love porn don't find it hard to see why a children's toy company like Nintendo won't sell hard core sex-porn games. I don't understand why so many gamers find it hard to see why Nintendo doesn't want to sell hard core violence-porn?
Companies should be able to include whatever they want in their products, without having to put up with crap like this from consumers.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I'm surprised you people are so upset about Manhunt 2 being canned. Anyone remembers Thrill Kill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrill_Kill ? Same old, same old... and I bet a lot of you people played it anyways. Anyone wants to bet when Manhunt 2 hits the internet, should it *really* not be published? You'll all be playing it by the end of this year, most likely.
Here's the link from above to give some better insight...: http://wii.ign.com/articles/792/792012p2.html
in an interview when they announced support for yellowdog linux on the ps3 to encourage user generated content
They wouldn't have to worry about paying for marketing, packaging, pressing, shipping or making money out of it... There, fixed it for you :)
Global warming is a cube.
You got me! ::frownie face::
After all, I am strangely colored.
Here's where the funny thing about nintendo. Very rare a game console company goes to you and ask to make a game for your console and name that game Nintendo DID that for this game Nintendo KNEW That this game was boarder line AO Now NINTENDO BACKING out on the agreement. Plus from reading previews the content you can buy at a major retailer it's called hostal or saw Maybe you should do a little research Also the Nintendo licensing was created not for approval of games but to prevent a atari 2600/ET Fiasco from happening or games over flowing the market by limiting a game companies release
Where does it say on the outside of the PS3 box -- This unit only runs software licensed by Sony. Any other use of this equipment violates the Sony Playstation 3 License Agreement.
System Software Licence agreement for Playstation 3:
Restrictions section (v):
exploit the System Software in any manner other than to use it in your PS3(TM) system in accordance with the accompanying documentation and with authorized software or hardware, including use of the System Software to design, develop, update, or distribute unauthorized software or hardware for use in connection with the PS3(TM) system for any reason
Information taken from here
Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
Disgusting, violent games like that shouldn't be marketed. Would you let you local video store sell child abuse DVDs? No? Well, this is the same sort of thing.
I realise this is an unpopular opinion here and will probably get modded down as such, but it's true - the decline in society is not helped by pandering to the violent.
Decline in society is not helped by limiting what people can do, should do, will do. Nor it is by governments and various NGOs setting 'morale' standards. Because they don't know what 'morale' is. It comes from the home and parents, not from any 'organization'.
I played violent game for past 15-20 years. I never hit anyone in my entire life (not counting wrestling with other kids when I was 8 or so).
Blame it on my parents, who were clever enough to take care of those issues instead of blaming government, society, TV, etc.
This has been the case since the NES so it isn't as if this is anything new. I doubt that it would be an anti-trust issue. I would imagine that the DCMA makes it illegal to circumvent the copy protection in the games. I know that back in the NES days Atari set up a seperate company, Tengen, that ended up making unlicensed games for the NES system they were sued for copyright and patent infringement.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
I hope Take-Two were developing also a PC version in parallel with console version. They don't need Sony or Nintendo to approve the game for a PC. And with the publicity they are getting, the PC game would sell. And if stores would not sell it, they can sell it online as a downloadable. They have the technical know-how to make this happen. Actually, no need for license could be one good reason for a PC to remain a viable gaming platform for some time to come. Otherwise we'll be all under tyranny of 10-year-olds and the only games we'll play will be some sort of family-friendly Mario.
It is unlikely that either Rockstar or Nintendo thought the game would get an AO rating or be banned in the UK, as both parties knew of the obvious problems related to such ratings. Also note that Nintendo don't commit to publishing a title at any stage prior to final approval, and they probably have clauses in the contracts that let them back out at any time for whatever reason. They are also the console company with the strictest content restrictions by far, even if they've relaxed the rules since the NES and SNES days.
How much you want to bet TTI will re-release this game with a quick patch that "hides" the most gratuitous content ... then a month or two later accidentally "leak" a crack to make all that content playable/viewable again.
and that would be scan item. take cash. Smile.
The more this story goes on, the more I want to play this game.
I hope game makers see the long term problem with consoles, and look for some way to force the makers to open their platforms, or maybe someone should make an open console and put this whole mess to bed once and for all.
If the AO rating is intended to keep the game away from 10-year-olds, what is the M rating for? This is a horrible and ineffective system. Games like RE4 should no more be in the hands of 10-year-olds than AO titles. Looking at the way ratings have been used, it's pretty clear the AO rating existed so the manufacturers and retailers had something to point to when dealing with crazy people like Jack Thompson attempting to use legal means to control them.
I have mixed opinions on whether/how to prevent children from playing certain games, but solutions that prevent adults from playing such games are not acceptable.
I think the term violence-porn makes little sense. Unless it's intended for people to masturbate to, it's not porn. In your sense of the word, it wouldn't be inappropriate to call restaurant ads food porn. But more importantly, calling these games violence porn is just making use of America's porn pathology. I think we should be much more ambivalent about youth being exposed to violence than to sex.
And why couldn't Nintendo allow the game but refuse to take their profit cut, or donate it to some charity? They wouldn't be taking a loss, as they'd have no expense in the process.
I really don't think we're going to reconcile our opinions here, because I don't see Nintendo as a children's toy company. A children's toy company would not have released the first manhunt, or any of the other M-rated games. I don't think Nintendo wants to be pidgeon-holed as one, either, but if so they're doing a good job of it.
Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
This is the pro-piracy thread. Don't expect a whole lot of logic or sense in here.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
As opposed to Red Steel or Zelda: Twilight Princess, where you don't cleave somebody in twain by pressing buttons, but by cleaving them in twain; it can realistically be described as a 'bloody murder simulator.'
Should Manhunt 2 be rated AO? Probably. But unfortunately, AO has a terrible stigma that isn't deserved. Hell, the ESRB's M rating is already pretty much the equal of the MPAA's NC-17 rating; do not allow anybody under 17. As opposed to the MPAA's R rating; under 17 OK if accompanied.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
"Once I purchase a console it's mine, d@mn it! I should be able to play whatever games I purchase for it," Kinda like exercising your second amendment rights and then finding out there are limits on how you can use the damn thing.....oh wait......
Now... if they could only figure out some way to sell advertising in-game it might actually be a profitable business model... Hell, they could even port it to linux and still make money that way!
I use friend/foe to signal strong [dis]agreement instead of mod points. What else are f/f good for?
don't feed the trolls
Cause the same crap is in all the movies for psychos to learn from.
They whine about freedom of expression, creativity, and being free to push the bounderies... but I don't buy it. All they've ever done is push ONE VERY SPECIFIC, and incredibly OBVIOUS social boundery. It's not original, creative, or anything of the sort. It's simply sensationalistic. If they REALLY were a creative company, one game would feature horrific violence, and the other would be an incrediblely innocent game, the next would be something completely different. But no, everything we've seen out of them at least has this looming undertone of mass violence. Even Bully (which I consider completely acceptable) could be defined as an alegory to criminal human nature. Why are Rockstar so intent on pushing the concept that humans are so evil? If they're trying to tell us some moral lesson, then they've done a VERY BAD JOB in getting it across.
This isn't about creativity, it's the opposite... it's chosing one really divisive topic and sticking with it, without any given reason, other than it being purely sensationalistic. Fuck em, as far as I'm concerned, I really fucking hate this kind of unthinking, lazy, sensationalism. I'm a very strong supporter of Civil Liberties, and that's actually WHY I'm so upset... it's companies like this that are almost TRYING to get limits put on our civil liberties.
No sense of class, no sense of taste, just pick the most divisive things you can think of, and make big $$$$. Why are Slashdotters so quick to put up with this line of thinking? Sure, maybe you can defend it on principal, but you have to admit that what Rockstar ARE is really against everything that slashdot stands for.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
and you have sand in your vagina, sir. Truly, if there are things more important and disgusting in the world that need to be addressed before that video game does...then maybe you shouldn't waste your time playing a sick fucking game and go try to contribute to a solution to one of those sick fucking things that plague our world. Yeah, see, we could go back and forth on this all day...one up-ing each others accusations of wrong-headedness. It's stupid. That guy who called this game sick expressed his opinion, and said nothing to the effect that he thought it was worse than any of the "real" problems in the world...but you go and put those words in his mouth, because you got a little threatened and upset that he questioned what you take to be true. Hm...maybe these games do make you a little violent...in attitude if not in physical action, at least.
And consumers should be able to do whatever they want to their products, without having to put up with crap like this from companies.
YUM YUM, I LIKE ATTENTION.
::frownie face::
I guess you got me.
Oh wait, I really am sick of Zonk misclassifying games stories.
After all, I am strangely colored.
This is like the British debate about fox hunting. First a bit of background - the traditional fox hunt in Britain was performed by a large number of people on horses and a large number of beagle hounds chasing after a fox until it was so physically exhausted that it simply gave up, at which point the dog would tear it apart while it was still alive. This was, I believe, the last remnant of the 'Royal Hunt', which was something European kings enjoyed doing; only, they would chase a stag, which would at the end just stand there, waiting for the sword to cut it down. It is said that the carcass was more or less just discarded, because the meat wouldn't be any good to eat after a chase like that. In other words, this was a kind of sport that was not only cruelty just for the fun of it, but also utterly pointless. The same could be said about the fox hunt - it was cruelty for fun, and it was pointless, because it had no discernible effect on the number of foxes.
A lot of stupid nonsense has been said in that debate; those in favour of fox hunting would say 'It's traditional', and 'It's necessary to regulate the number of foxes', whereas the other side would have their own, rather emotional nonsense. But what it boils down to in the end is: do we, as society, want to encourage the kind of mentality that sees meaningless cruelty as 'fun'?
The same goes for violent games, especially a thing like Manhunt 2. Yes, 'Freedom of speech' is important, and 'Simply don't buy it if you can't stomach it' - that all sounds very convincing, but at the end of the say - do we, as society, want to encourage the kind of mentality that enjoys meaningless cruelty and casual murder? I know that I don't; and although it is important to allow people to make up their own mind and to protect minorities, it doesn't make sense to protect minorities to the extent that it harms the majority. And it does harm the majority - the majority of parents don't want their children to be lured into that kind of mindset, just like they don't want their children to get into contact with other things they consider harmful; and as a parent YOU are the one that is responsible for your children, and therefore YOU have the right to decide what your children are exposed to.
So what is more important: 'Freedom of Speech' used as an excuse by a company out to make money, or the right to bring up our children according to what we believe is best? A company like Take Two willing to go right to the limit of what is legal and acceptable, and if we don't show where that limit is, they are not going to stop; they'll just wade on, as long as it makes a buck for them.
1 GHz Pentium III, Athlon or 1.2 GHz Celeron/Duron processor
32 MB AGP graphics card with hardware transform & lighting support
256 MB RAM
1.5 GB hard drive space
Manhunt 2 is also a PS2 port so won't require significantly more power to run. Any PC that can play World of Warcraft or Sims 2 has enough juice for Manhunt 2, and that is a huge number of computers.
I quit!
Sony lies in interviews all the time. Didn't you know?
If a dipshit clerk sells a 15 year old an AO game, the parent can still lock it out.
IIRC, Tengen won that lawsuit.
- Target and Wal-Mart have sales policies to the effect of 'respect the ratings'; and
- [some/many; pick one] clerks at said stores do not adhere to said policies;
If said policies are not being adhered to by the clerks, that points to:- clerks are unaware of the policy; and/or
- sanctions for violation of said policy are not applied
So rather than fix this deficiency, Target and Wal-Mart are trying to sweep the problem under the rug. Wait, both chains also sell movies, do they not? Would I be correct in assuming that they have an effectively communicated and enforced 'respect the ratings' policy with respect to movie sales? Do their movie offerings happen to include the likes of Saw and Hostel?If the answer to either of the last questions is 'yes', then said chains are leaving themselves open to accusations of having a double standard in this matter.
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
"If they REALLY were a creative company, one game would feature horrific violence, and the other would be an incrediblely innocent game, the next would be something completely different. But no, everything we've seen out of them at least has this looming undertone of mass violence."
A fine display of research skills on your part, sir. I salute you!
List of Rockstar games.
Hint: Rockstar Table Tennis and Midnight Club do not exactly feature a "looming undertone of mass violence".
I quit!
No, this would be like my local video store renting films such as Hostel or Saw. Bloody & violent? Yes. Illegal? No.
"Konnichiwa", said the boneless horror.
I suspect that if Manhunt 2 had, in it's intended form, slipped by with an M rating, no would would know the difference or bat an eye. Of course, since there's this whole scandal because of the AO rating, people will just be looking for reasons to demonize it.