Slashdot Mirror
USA Today's Sensationalist Take on Manhunt 2
Fozzyuw writes "USA Today has up a story on Manhunt 2 for the Wii, the 'AO'-rated then re-rated title from Rockstar games. They appear to be specifically aiming to sensationalize the story, with evocative and needlessly violent language. Here are a few snippets from the article: '"Nintendo Wii takes a murderous turn." Manhunt 2 was originally rated Adults Only — equivalent to an X in films — and now carries an M for mature audiences (17 and up) ... Since the Wii version uses the motion-sensitive controllers, it literally gives players the hands of a killer ... Nintendo doesn't need to expand its user base to help the Wii continue to outsell its pricier and technologically superior competitors ... On the Wii, players physically make killing motions with the controllers — slashing for stabs and lifting to strangle — rather than simply pushing buttons.'"
I believe the word they were looking for was "metaphorically", but it is USA Today so you can't really expect too much.
But is anyone else very disturbed by the idea of using a Wiimote to stab/strangle/maim people?
Uh... it sounds like the most obvious thing to do, exactly what you would expect to do in any similar game for the Wii.
I mean, you hack things apart in Zelda by waving the wiimote around. Granted it's cartoony, and manhunt is "realistic". Same difference between Zelda for GC and GTA:SA for PS2. Either way, just like on those consoles you expect to control your character's actions with buttons, on the Wii you expect to do so by simulating the action with the Wiimote.
So how exactly is doing the most natural thing "over the top"? How exactly should they abstract the act of stabbing someone (besides the fact that you'll be 'stabbing' your wiimote at empty air)?
If pushing buttons vs making vague stabby motions in the air is all it takes to turn something like GTA:SA from a fun romp into something deeply distrubing, well, I guess that is what disturbs me.
The enemies of Democracy are
Did you seriously just call 'acting out a murder in a video game' "the most natural thing?"
It's the Wii. It uses motion controls. In most games the motion controls are used to simulate the action your avatar performs. It has a paucity of buttons. So yes, using motion controls to control your actions is the most natural thing to do.
I'm sure you meant the acting part, but if you can't see what makes that disturbing, where pressing buttons wasn't disturbing, I can't even begin to imagine how to clear that up for you.
I'm sure that you have no idea what I meant.
You're acting out a virtual murder in any event. If making your on-screen avatar brutalize innocents by pressing "A" or "X" is fine with you, but doing the same thing by making vague stabby motions in empty air is not fine, then it's because you've never actually thought about what you were doing before. If you actually found the violence itself disturbing, that would be fine, and these games simply wouldn't be for you. But when shanking someone in the neck is honky-dory as long as you do it with a button but not a motion, then that speaks to greater issues that have nothing to do with the game or its interface. That's why you can't make the difference clear, because it rests on essentially a hairs breadth difference in level of abstraction in what is in either case a completely abstracted and artificial act.
By the way, how do you feel about murdering virtual people with a gun by pulling the trigger button? Are shooters too disturbing for you?
The enemies of Democracy are