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'.
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! :)
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.
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
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.
The problem is that it's illegal for them to release it. Both Sony and Nintendo require that all gamees released on their platforms be approved by them (it's part of the contract a developer must sign to get a dev kit). In some countries it's even more illegal because selling an unrated game is prohibited.
All I really have to say is "Ha, Ha! That's what you get for developing for a proprietary platform".
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
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."
You don't understand the "freedom of speech issue" about this game, because it falls on the dark side of YOUR morality line. What if someone saw your Quake or your Doom game in the same way that you presently see Manhunt 2? Would you still be so unconcerned with a decision to ban the Quake? Of course you would be outraged, and yet there would be someone else saying the ban is justified because Quake is a murder simulator.
Freedom of speech doesn't become an "issue" only when something you like is banned, it becomes an issue when the things you don't like are banned and precedence is made. When someone else is making the decision on what is appropriate and not appropriate for your viewing, you are living in a non-free society.
I'm not defending the game. It sounds gross to me, too, and I wouldn't even consider purchasing it. However, I defend people's RIGHT to purchase it. Whether this is a true censorship issue is questionable, because people purchasing PS or Wii know these systems will not play Adult Only content. It's just one more example why it's better to purchase only open standards.
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!
This only applies to people who are already unstable, assuming that video games actually have that kind of an effect on people.
You can't use it period, at least so far. The DRM for this generation's consoles hasn't been effectively broken yet. It has been worked around from the piracy standpoint, but you still can't run unsigned code. Modchips don't help.
It's a shame that (almost) the entire console industry consists of closed systems (and this generation it looks increasingly complex to crack). I was hoping that this generation I'd be able to form part of the homebrew community, but it looks like it isn't going to happen anytime soon. Anyone willing to form an *open* team dedicated to opening up the Wii? I'm sure there are ways, but if either no one tries or those who do keep their findings to themselves, nothing gets done.
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.
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.
... you really don't have anything to complain about when you're caught out in a shit storm.
I piss off bigots.
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
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.
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
Wait a second... the "Diagnosed Mental Disorders" that you mention... do those include the crap like ADD? Or are you talking actual disorders, you know, the ones that don't sound suspiciously like: "drug the kids, they'll behave then!"?
Also... I assume you actually have a source for the claim that there is a rising occurrence?
Nephilium... avoiding modding to post...
Is it Wrath? Attempting to kill everything in GTA will not advance the plot - perhaps even set back the player as he gets reduced back to what's considered the absolute basic equipment and stuff.
Is it Lust? While it is true that GTA III had a dry-humping sex scene that cannot be obtained through normal in-game means, it's still considered an isolated incident.
Is it gluttony? Probably not, since Pacman would obviously be considered the most awful game of all time, as would any other game that allows eating strawberries for points/health.
Sloth? If a person is playing video games to a degree where he isn't a productive member of society, there's something already wrong with him. In any case, GTA doesn't present sloth as you need to act to advance the plot. If you want a prime example of sloth, Don't shoot the puppy.
Envy? GTA's protagonist doesn't really desire the aspects of others.
Greed? Probably, but call me when someone punishes the other game developers for not breaking the "packrat" mentality.
This leaves pride. The release of this game has caused many self-important attention whores use the "video games made me do it" defence, as well as allowing the florida-lawyer-who-shall-not-be-named to perform the peacock defence. In addition, there are those that take satisifaction in bashing rockstar for releasing the violent video games. Because GTA has spread the sin of pride throughout society, I am in full agreement that Rockstar should be crushed into oblivion.
Why do I have this weird feeling that, in the long rung, it will be released internationally? The extra publicity will make up for lack of UK sales (which will probably still be considerable via import). Maybe, they'll get around it in the UK with slightly different in game art (see Carmageddon or Fallout).
It's called showmanship. Foreign 'art' films have been benefiting from the mock outrage of the conservative British press in this way for years.
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
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
2) People are living longer in Western civilizations, so one would expect a rise in age related mental disorders (if in fact this is occurring)That's a pretty vague statement in itself. If you are implying that people who already have schizophrenia or clinical depression are more likely to commit murder after playing a video game than not, then this seems unrealistic. From what I have read there is no evidence of this. From my own experiences with people who can't distinguish reality from fantasy, they are not likely to be the types of people to play video games in the first place. They are more likely to indulge in excessive alcohol use or just spend their time ranting at people or stalking them (granted this is anecdotal, but I have met my fair share...). I think it would be more worthwhile to prevent these people from gaining access to actual weapons than to games.There will always be anti-discrimination challenges, and so there should be. It's a matter of finding something that is fair. I don't think there are laws from banning the mentally ill from buying alcohol, but maybe there should be. There are laws discriminating against mentally ill people from making there own decisions in some cases, like in regards to taking care of their children, or even the freedom to walk the streets.
I think it would be better to focus energies on proper social support, psychiatric counseling, and medication; rather than to try to ban everything that could be considered a problem for the mentally ill. So far video games doesn't even come close, as there is no evidence that video games cause mental illness, much less murder.
It would be nice if people would just admit that they want something banned because they find it morally obscene, instead of making up FUD. I'm not sure if you are one of those people, but I hope I helped give you some insight.
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!
Yes, I'm certain the only reason that this game is getting an Adults Only rating is because of "past sins"...
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.
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.
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.