Slashdot Mirror
Croal vs. Totilo - The Manhunt 2 Letters
N'Gai Croal (of Newsweek) and Stephen Totilo (of MTV) once again match wits in a textual format, this time over the Manhunt 2 controversy. In Round One, the two reporters discuss the process of playing the game for the first time, and wonder what the experience must have been like for the ESRB raters. Round Two sees them take things up a notch, discussing what exactly it is about the game that's so violent. Round Three ... has them questioning the nature of gaming itself. As always, these are two smart guys with some interesting insights into the medium. Well worth your time. From N'Gai's final letter: "It's difficult to 'read' or derive much meaning from a game. That's why in our three Vs. Modes, we ultimately don't spend very much time talking about or analyzing the experience of playing a game, because it's hard to do so without turning our emails into "I went here. I did this. I picked that up." Which is, after all, what games are. So if the essence of a game is located in what we do, is a walkthrough--go here, do this, pick up that--the most truthful way to write about the experience of playing a game? I hope not. But it's something we should consider. Once again, if the essence of any game is located in its action, reaction, interaction, and the rules which circumscribe those three elements, what does the narrative do?"
Once again, if the essence of any game is located in its action, reaction, interaction, and the rules which circumscribe those three elements, what does the narrative do?
Here's an example of a writer trying to sound smart by taking something obvious and "deconstructing" it to make it look not obvious. ("Deconstructing" is in quotes because that's not actually what deconstruction is, but it's how some writers define it if they don't know any better.)
The answer is the narrative guides your action, reaction and interaction, and it describes the rules which circumscribe those three elements.
There - happy? It really is that simple. The narrative exists for the purposes of guiding you to various places to do various things, and to tell you what you are and aren't allowed to do in those places and with those things with which you can interact.
Which is just a fancy way of saying what we've all known narratives do since time began. Questioning it now doesn't make it any less true.
(You can question anything - is the sun hot? Is ice cold? Does gravity = 9.8? But those questions don't in themselves form indictments or arguments against tradition or fact, which means they really have no point.)
From TFA:
I wonder how the people rating the game played it. I wonder if their room was well lit or if they locked the door. I wonder if that matters. For that matter, I wonder how the people who made the game played it. What were all those people thinking? Did they absorb what it would be like to be an average "Manhunt 2" gamer? Does it make a difference? It does matter. It does make a difference. Playing Doom 3 at 1 in the morning with no lights on and headphones is a helluva lot different than playing it at noon on a sunny day with all the windows open. The scary thing is, I bet that the raters, if they played the game at all, played it in an office with a bunch of people around them. And the game disturbed them like that. Imagine if they played it under the "optimal" conditions. That said, I don't think that this game should be "banned". As a 29 year old gamer, I should be able to decide what I want to play. I hope that if the rating is upheld, Rockstar will sell it directly, because I'd buy it without a second thought.
Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
They allow wit on MTV? o_O
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
the article discusses what the raters "were thinking as they played the game." and i know exactly what they were thinking: nothing! the ESRB raters don't actually sit down and play, instead, they watch a several-minutes long reel featuring the most violent stuff from the game. does anyone else see a problem with this method?
" In Round One, the two reporters discuss the process of playing the game for the first time, and wonder what the experience must have been like for the ESRB raters." Actually, the ESRB rarely, if ever, actually plays the games it rates. They look at footage sent to them by the publisher.
These letters were a surprisingly broad look at the issues surrounding video games. What I thought was especially nice was some discussion of implications on the gamer who chooses to play the game, which is rare since most of the time these are just defense or attack pieces. It's funny because this sort of discussion is what actually makes me interested in the game. When the previews came out it always centered on action and mechanics which were quite frankly droll in the first game. In Manhunt the killing is just mechanical. You creep around and want to see all the animations, but after that the execution scene could just be a bop on the head rendering them unconscious and it would have the same visceral effect on the goal oriented player. But when we look at the similarities between the Director, the game designer, and our selves sitting there guiding Cash to and then passively watching the gruesome offings, that makes me genuinely interested in Manhunt 2.
The only thing I thought was missing was a better comparison between manhunt 1 and 2. They talk about some things like the tone and and narrative structure which doubtlessly had the largest impact on the ratings board, but I'm still unsure whether 2 plays the same pretty much (ignoring the Wii) with the same structure. This seems like a strange omission considering all the talk of repetition in gaming and how that makes up the core. I would like to have known how Manhunt's core compared to Manhunt 2's.
"Unless they have good reason to believe that this game is an imminent threat to the public order, or that it will in and of itself incite adults to violence, their decision seems to me to be based on taste, and I will never believe in substituting anyone else's tastes for my own."
As far as I know, there is no true scientific evidence that videogames are indeed the cause of violence. Unless it's proven that a game like Manhunt 2 will in fact make you act out violently against another person, it seems to me that the best we have is speculation. Any evidence that such a game is the cause of detrimental behaviour would be empirical at best. I actually have yet to hear of any evidence that proves entertainment like movies and games is the root of evil. I've heard opinions and unfounded claims only. Indeed, I have heard such arguments on Slashdot that kids played GTA and then went out and stole cars, thus GTA is the cause of felonies. Hardly scientific.
"In the U.S., where many retailers would likely refuse to stock an AO-rated title, the game hasn't been banned. But that doesn't mean that gamers will ever be able to play it in the form that you and I are experiencing. Here, it's ultimately Nintendo and Sony's whose judgment is being substituted for ours, because they, along with Microsoft, don't allow AO-rated games to be published on their systems."
I don't believe a game should be banned, or, in the case of the U.S., effectively banned based on speculation. Does the game deserve it's rating, is it really necessary for Sony and Nintendo to ban AO games, etc. etc. none of that really matters because the bottom line is that the game has been banned in its current form in the U.S. and a couple European countries. I'm well aware of the technicalities about how ESRB doesn't ban games they just rate them yadda yadda, the game is still banned, in its current form. I don't want someone else telling me what is in poor taste. I know what I can handle. Personally I don't think Manhunt 2 would phase me; I could be wrong since I've not played it but the point is I don't want someone else telling me it's too offensive so we won't allow the game to be released unless it's been censored.
I'm not an authority I'm just a dude who doesn't need his hand held. If something shocks and offends me, I'll steer clear of it.
The problem with games like Manhunt 2 is that you are a playing a person of questionable/evil morality. It's all about your perspective. I've seen so many games where you fight the obviously evil Nazis, Aliens, or Hellspawn. There's no moral ambiguity there, just obvious good versus obvious evil.
Lets say I'm making 2 games which are almost identical, which would you guess would garner more controversy?
A. A tactical shooter where you must prevent terrorist acts from being committed in America.
B. A tactical shooter where you must plan and execute terrorist acts on America.
I recall a recent article in PCGamer about how it is actually impossible to role-play an evil character in any RPG. Sure, you are granted a few evil choices, but you are not actually allowed to do truly evil things.
I guess my point is, violence in games is OK so long as you're on the "good side," but playing evil or amoral characters is a whole other story. This, in my opinion, is a large load of crap. Who decides what's moral and what's not? The ESRB? Again, crap. I hate it when people try to push their morals and values on others, and I consider myself a Christian. The great thing about being an American (or at least it used to be) was my ability to believe whatever I wanted, without being bullied into someone else's beliefs. Why is it I'm only allowed the see, hear, and experience that which the government deems "safe?" Life is supposed to be dangerous. It's what makes being alive worthwhile.
"Now I'm seriously serious!" - Serious Sam