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.'"
You lift the Wiimote to strangle people? It's like my very own Force-choke! Awesome!
End of lesson. You may press the button.
I have no problem with people publishing ManHunt2, or playing it. But is anyone else very disturbed by the idea of using a Wiimote to stab/strangle/maim people? This just seems over-the-top to me. I don't think I could play this even if it appealed to me.
RTFA. The article is fair. It describes what the game is about and how it is played. I am not sure what is sensationalized about the article itself. If having the game described shocks you then your problem is with the game itself.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
You know, I may be one sick puppy for admitting this, but I had zero interest in this game before I read that summary. I'm just finishing up Metroid 3: Corruption, and I gotta say that the little gimmicky Wiimote actions ("Hold A, and twist the wiimote counter-clockwise...") are actually pretty fun. They're good for immersion and make an interesting new game mechanic.
So, being able to do the same with a shank? I'm in.
I believe the word they were looking for was "metaphorically", but it is USA Today so you can't really expect too much.
Oh please, stop with the faux sense of outrage that someone might accurately describe a video game for the murder simulator it is.
Seriously. This is what this game is. You kill...almost indiscriminately. That is the name of the game. Hell, this is probably why I'm going to buy it.
And this is a big step for Nintendo. I just finished the Godfather: Black Hand Edition and it too was a 'bit' violent. But there is some history with this...not much, but some. The Godfather, violent as it may be, is in the publics culture. I believe it too was an Adult Only game. Manhunt? It is ONLY about killing. What is the backstory? Who knows -- it is about killing. That is like trying to put a backstory on Doom. Oh wait -- didn't someone try to do this? The story is you are put into an unrealistic situation where you need to kill or be killed...and given extra points or kudos and maybe a gold star next to your name because of how bloody a killing you make it.
Honestly, I think games are getting way too violent and too realistic. I don't think these things need censored for adults...but I also don't think kids under a certain age need to be playing them either -- and that is the point of these sorts of articles to warn the parents.
So please, spare us the faux indignation about sensationalism when the article does a good job of accurately describing what the game is and does.
Don't know about that. Lifting to strangle sounds similar to what you do in The Godfather. As if you're going for a grab on someone's throat, moving your hands from around waist level to the neck. A lot of what I'm hearing about Manhunt 2 I already did to endless Tattaglia goons, and yes, it felt damn real.
(Go play The Godfather on Wii. Not so much for the game, which is an okayish GTA clone, but for the violence, oh such violence it is...)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Since the Wii version uses the motion-sensitive controllers, it literally gives players the hands of a killer.
I was unaware that the hands of a killer were constantly wrapped around a white piece of plastic.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
USA Today may as well run a cover story slamming punching bags and their far-too-realistic simulation of actually using your fist to hit something that's meant to be the equivalent of a human. Or perhaps they should ban the sport of MMA, because anyone that fights in the ring is just training to fight elsewhere. How about banning the army? All those kids learning to shoot real guns at real people, surely all of these things must be just as harmful as a video game about simulating killing people, right? Or just maybe, there's a chance that by engaging in gameplay, people can let out frustration that OTHERWISE might lead to bad things. That would be much more understandable.
It isn't the training of killers that kills people, it's the killer's will to actually go out and kill. If they don't know how to aim a gun properly, it will just take more tries. I wouldn't use a gun that way despite knowing how to aim it... USA today apparently doesn't know the difference.
stuff |
The Godfather : Blackhand Edition for the Wii had choking (requiring you to shake the controls vigorously in a throat-grab position), garrote usage (requiring you to use the Wiimote and nunchuk to simulate looping the garrote around a neck and pulling it taut), gratuitous use of the word "Fuck!" and dancing call girls, in addition to being able to violently murder innocent bystanders in a variety of ways. Not entirely sure why Manhunt 2 was so outstanding, except that it was produced by Rockstar Games, and not EA.
Oh please, stop with the faux sense of outrage that someone might accurately describe a video game for the murder simulator it is.
Hi Jack Thompson, nice to see you on slashdot!
Seriously. This is what this game is. You kill...almost indiscriminately. That is the name of the game. Hell, this is probably why I'm going to buy it.
Er, um... maybe. Oh wait. Hi Jack Thompson, nice to see you on slashdot!
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
M is a rough equivalent to R. R pretends to mean "No one under 17" just like NC-17 but everyone knows many parents, older brothers, etc. will ignore that warning and choose to take kids anywhere (I sat through Scream 3 while a woman took her roughtly 3, 5 and 10 year olds in with her). In the same way, Walmart and BestBuy will happily sell M rated games as they know they won't scare parents off from buying them for their kids in the same way Ao might do.
Hollywood has been sending movies back for re-review for years. There are even famous letters of producers debating how many "fuck"s a "Jesus Christ!" is worth. Generally, they pick a rating they want, aim for the edgy end of it, submit, then make whatever edits they're told they need to to squeeze it back in to that category. All that's changed is that game companies have learned from Hollywood - nothing more, nothing less.
The real shame isn't that "evil" games are getting reclassified after receiving edits. The greater shame is, much like movies, potentially great pieces of art that are totally appropriate for an adult audience are being squashed in the name of commercial viability.
Games such as Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines are examples of the truly amazing art form the genre can become. From betrayal to lust, infanticide to the damaged adult personalities of children who were abused, it was far and away the most epic piece of game storytelling I've ever experienced. Though also flawed by bugs at the time of launch, its biggest issue was no one talked about it, no one advertised it and it was hard to find. An amazing game studio crumbled because they released something phenomenal that couldn't be sold in puritan America. Since then, no one has even tried to launch a game with close to that depth of adult themes.
Coming soon to Wii OJ Simpson's "If I did it, here's how you can to!" - , not only do you slit two people's throats using the Wii-mote, you get to drive the Bronco too!
The MPAA doesn't give a flying f*** about what movies people can or can't see, so long as its members make money.
If the MPAA hadn't stepped in and created their own voluntary code, the government would have. By making their own voluntary code, they ensured they remained in control of it and not the government. This is exactly why publishers are supporting the ESRB ratings right now - they may not like the limits they impose but they'd much rather their own voluntary limits than the government making compulsory ones (the only problem being that theaters did a passable job of applying the limits and so the government backed away while many game stores keep ignoring the ESRB and so leave politicians with ammo).
So, the MPAA's ratings are only there to make the government go away. Given that that worked, they're totally happy for their members to release "unrated" versions - so long as a) the government stays away and b) their members make money. As the big chains are more than happy to sell unrated movies as something titilating and decades passing means politicians get no mileage from it, the MPAA is more than happy to support it.
Were the ratings really a symbol of MPAA power, sure, they'd fight "unrated" releases. But, given the ratings are simply there so they control censorship rather than letting the government do it, so long as their members don't upset the cart, they're more than happy for those same members to make even more money by appearing to flout them. They're still members and this is just another way for them to keep making a profit - which is all the ratings really were in the first place.