The simple truth of this discussion is there is no right answer. It comes down to the individual. What do you find to be a more involving experience? Most horror movies that try to build up a scary atmosphere and have lots of boo scares and jumps and monsters tend to turn into silly action romps or simply fail to engage me in the way the game did. Resident Evil the game is way more intense than the movie. Same goes for Doom. Also, games can be intense in a visceral sense, but hardly in an emotional or psychological sense, whereas a good deal of well made horror films have more to do with the characters portrayed than the number of scares they can elicit from the audience. In short, pick your own poison, but especially with the current trend in silly horror films, I find certain games to be far more frightening than many movies I've seen.
Metroid Prime 3 is the best game on the Wii right now and the control rocks. Simple as that.
I hope the next Metroid game that comes out is as different from Metroid Prime as Metroid Prime was from Super Metroid. Three games in the series is enough. I would hate for Metroid Prime to become like Zelda, which has been the same game over and over since Ocarina. (To Wind Waker's credit, it had a lot of water).
Anyway the point of this rant is MP3 is the best game right now because it was designed for the Wii, even if the Wii controls came in a later stage in the development. Zelda games haven't changed since N64, and the Wii controls are neat but obviously a port from Game Cube mechanics. It doesn't help that the game is routine and bland in comparison to something like MP3. Sequels are fine and all, but Metroid Prime has peaked. Zelda peaked at Ocarina, and has taken various steps forward and backward and is essentially walking in circles.
That would be the hot coffee incident. Have you heard of it? It caused GTA San Andreas to be pulled off shelves and re-rated as AO. So hiding AO content will only mean that once it's found the game will be pulled and re-rated anyway.
I wonder if there are any laws about "hiding" content in games...
What, only the games/movies you like qualify as art? Who are you to say what is worthy of being "art" or not? The fact of the matter is that any media produced (e.g. music, movies, games) can be interpreted artistically to some degree. Just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean it isn't someone else's.
"AO does not mean the game is banned, it means that it has to carry an Adults Only rating....The bigger hurdle is that Sony and Nintendo refuse to carry AO titles, they are the ones being the nanny here not the ESRB."
"Banned" no, but effectively banned. Just because there's a technicality involved doesn't really mean the game isn't banned. Now, I'm no expert, but I'd wager a few dollar that the ESRB knows and understands that AO titles will not play on any consoles. The only way Manhunt 2 hasn't been banned, in its current form, would be to release it as is on the PC. So yeah. Technically, not banned. In reality, banned. In summary, Manhunt 2 has been banned until Take Two edits the game to comply with censorship ideals of ESRB/Sony/Nintendo/Congress (don't forget that if the ESRB or something like it wasn't born, the government would have intervened and censored/banned games itself).
Walmart sells 25% of al Video's games sold in the US. In addition to walmart not selling AO, ether does Gamestop/EB. That's a very size profit loss.
How is that a profit loss? AO rated games are not released on any platform except computers. AO games won't even play on Nintendo and Sony consoles. Not sure if they will on the Xboxes or not.
No, it was created in response to a threat of an act of Congress, by the industry itself.
It was created by the industry; if the industry did not create a rating system then the government would have intervened and rated/censored games itself.
I applaud your post sir. Indeed, your point about you playing the good guy vs the obvious bad guys means it's ok, but it's wrong the other way around is indeed a load of crap because, when is it ever ok to carry out vigilante justice? Even if you're the "good guy" in a first person shooter, you're still killing hundreds of people.
I cannot agree more when you ask, rhetorically, who can decide what's moral. Freedom to think, to decide, to choose, and to act, these are what make America great. What may me moral for you may not be moral for me. I will never force my beliefs on you, and you shouldn't force yours on me. It's really as simple as that.
People will argue till they are blue in the face about Sony and Nintendo have the right to forbid AO games on their systems (they do) and the ESRB has the authority to rate games as they see fit (they do) and it's not really censorship because the ESRB isn't directly tied to the government (to the best of my knowledge) but somehow, in between the middlemen, companies wanting to maintain a friendly public image, people sitting on boards evaluating the content of games, we've come up with a system that allows games to be censored or even banned. Somehow, admist all the confusing mess of who's right it is to do what, freedom of speech is being infringed upon.
The point is that there is no one person to point a finger at, but that everyone has done some wrong. I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't play, I don't want Nintendo telling me what I can or can't play, and I don't want slashdot users telling me what I can or can't play, we should all be allowed to play what we want to play and not catch hell for it.
"As for the 'political' motivation... What political motivation is needed to rate a game? They didn't sit down and say 'Well, we hate them, and AO will basically ban their game, so let's do that.' They watched the video, it was beyond M rating, and they rated it appropriately...
"...As for the AO rating itself: What point is there in having that rating exist if they aren't allowed to use it when warranted? I seriously doubt they are flippant with their ratings. They don't just watch video while eating popcorn and say 'Oh, hmm.... AO.' and go for a beer at the pub."
They don't go for a beer at the pub? Really? How do you know that? Wonderful speculation, the point being that we don't really know if there were any motivations to rate the game beyond just content. This is America after all, where corruption, personal and political favors, and the good ol' boy system simply don't exist. Moral of the story, to assume makes an ass out of u and me.
"Without seeing what they saw, or at least playing the game, none of us could possibly argue that they rating it improperly. We don't -know-..."
Now there I'm in agreeance with you. But we can't know that they're rating the game properly either. Let's not be naive. How many games get an AO rating that aren't porn games. None? I don't really know but the only exception I know of is the hot coffee incident. All I'm really saying is I would bet a few dollars that if Manhunt 2 just got an M rating no one would be begging for an AO rating. I mean it's too late now, there's already controversy, but if there hadn't been this "scandal" I bet Manhunt 2 would have been just another game. But hey, I could be wrong.
"And when you think about the amount of clinical death and destruction in real-time strategy games like "Supreme Commander" and "Command & Conquer Generals 3," perhaps Stalin was right: one death is a tragedy, 200 gruesome deaths is ban-worthy, and a million clinical deaths is E10+ for Comic Mischief, Fantasy Violence, Mild Language."
Perhaps the most entertaining and also most insightful comment in round 3. Enough said.
I was disappointed to hear that N'Gai found Manhunt 1 a more engaging experience. I've never played Manhunt but for some reason I've been really looking forward to Manhunt 2. I hope it's an entertaining game, if it ever gets released.
Just finished reading round 1, I'll get to the other rounds soon. Something I am in complete agreement with though was this statement...
"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.
"Reading the screenplay isn't the same as watching the movie.
Passively watching the movie about a guy gruesomely killing people isn't the same as playing a game, taking on the role of the violent character and actively causing him to gruesomely kill people. And of course, playing the game isn't the same as picking up a lead pipe and heading out into the alley."
So...books are the least evil, movies the middle evil, and videogames just one step away from cold blooded murder. That's quite the progression. Call me crazy but I've found books to be more disturbing and graphic many of the films I've seen. The imagination is a powerful thing.
Lest we forget that back in the day we didn't have violent cinema for our entertainment, we as a species watched other humans murder and maim one another in the Colisseum where even the spectators would sometimes get the chance to vote for the defeated gladiator to be executed. Seriously, the worst society has to offer right now is Hostel and Manhunt 2? I think we're doing fine.
This topic has covered far too many areas to address in one post so I'll be brief; the subject of do videogames and movies cause violence is not scientifically proven. Does life imitate art or does art imitate life? It's not been proven either way and so this debate is left to the realm of speculation. I do not feel that videogames, movies, books, music, etc. should be banned or censored due to speculation or personal preference.
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.
I've noticed people tend to get real personal when debating on a message board so I don't mean to attack you directly. With that being said, I find your fox hunt argument to be irrelevant at best, and downright silly if I'm speaking my mind (which I am).
Now I'm with you in thinking that running a fox into the ground is a cruel and senseless act. Your logic has one crucial flaw though; foxes are real. Videogame characters are not. "Killing" a polygonal digital character by means of another polygonal digital character is not in my estimation cruel and senseless. Comparing a creature that is flesh and blood and emotion to something that is polygons and A.I. is not really a comparison at all.
If we designed and created a videogame that depicted a fox hunt, would you still say that we're breeding a mentality of cruelty and murder?
Reality vs. fantasy. Your argument is apples and oranges.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple truth of this discussion is there is no right answer. It comes down to the individual. What do you find to be a more involving experience? Most horror movies that try to build up a scary atmosphere and have lots of boo scares and jumps and monsters tend to turn into silly action romps or simply fail to engage me in the way the game did. Resident Evil the game is way more intense than the movie. Same goes for Doom. Also, games can be intense in a visceral sense, but hardly in an emotional or psychological sense, whereas a good deal of well made horror films have more to do with the characters portrayed than the number of scares they can elicit from the audience. In short, pick your own poison, but especially with the current trend in silly horror films, I find certain games to be far more frightening than many movies I've seen.
Metroid Prime 3 is the best game on the Wii right now and the control rocks. Simple as that.
I hope the next Metroid game that comes out is as different from Metroid Prime as Metroid Prime was from Super Metroid. Three games in the series is enough. I would hate for Metroid Prime to become like Zelda, which has been the same game over and over since Ocarina. (To Wind Waker's credit, it had a lot of water).
Anyway the point of this rant is MP3 is the best game right now because it was designed for the Wii, even if the Wii controls came in a later stage in the development. Zelda games haven't changed since N64, and the Wii controls are neat but obviously a port from Game Cube mechanics. It doesn't help that the game is routine and bland in comparison to something like MP3. Sequels are fine and all, but Metroid Prime has peaked. Zelda peaked at Ocarina, and has taken various steps forward and backward and is essentially walking in circles.
I wonder if there are any laws about "hiding" content in games...
What, only the games/movies you like qualify as art? Who are you to say what is worthy of being "art" or not? The fact of the matter is that any media produced (e.g. music, movies, games) can be interpreted artistically to some degree. Just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean it isn't someone else's.
"Banned" no, but effectively banned. Just because there's a technicality involved doesn't really mean the game isn't banned. Now, I'm no expert, but I'd wager a few dollar that the ESRB knows and understands that AO titles will not play on any consoles. The only way Manhunt 2 hasn't been banned, in its current form, would be to release it as is on the PC. So yeah. Technically, not banned. In reality, banned. In summary, Manhunt 2 has been banned until Take Two edits the game to comply with censorship ideals of ESRB/Sony/Nintendo/Congress (don't forget that if the ESRB or something like it wasn't born, the government would have intervened and censored/banned games itself).
How is that a profit loss? AO rated games are not released on any platform except computers. AO games won't even play on Nintendo and Sony consoles. Not sure if they will on the Xboxes or not.
It was created by the industry; if the industry did not create a rating system then the government would have intervened and rated/censored games itself.
I applaud your post sir. Indeed, your point about you playing the good guy vs the obvious bad guys means it's ok, but it's wrong the other way around is indeed a load of crap because, when is it ever ok to carry out vigilante justice? Even if you're the "good guy" in a first person shooter, you're still killing hundreds of people. I cannot agree more when you ask, rhetorically, who can decide what's moral. Freedom to think, to decide, to choose, and to act, these are what make America great. What may me moral for you may not be moral for me. I will never force my beliefs on you, and you shouldn't force yours on me. It's really as simple as that. People will argue till they are blue in the face about Sony and Nintendo have the right to forbid AO games on their systems (they do) and the ESRB has the authority to rate games as they see fit (they do) and it's not really censorship because the ESRB isn't directly tied to the government (to the best of my knowledge) but somehow, in between the middlemen, companies wanting to maintain a friendly public image, people sitting on boards evaluating the content of games, we've come up with a system that allows games to be censored or even banned. Somehow, admist all the confusing mess of who's right it is to do what, freedom of speech is being infringed upon. The point is that there is no one person to point a finger at, but that everyone has done some wrong. I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't play, I don't want Nintendo telling me what I can or can't play, and I don't want slashdot users telling me what I can or can't play, we should all be allowed to play what we want to play and not catch hell for it.
"...As for the AO rating itself: What point is there in having that rating exist if they aren't allowed to use it when warranted? I seriously doubt they are flippant with their ratings. They don't just watch video while eating popcorn and say 'Oh, hmm.... AO.' and go for a beer at the pub."
They don't go for a beer at the pub? Really? How do you know that? Wonderful speculation, the point being that we don't really know if there were any motivations to rate the game beyond just content. This is America after all, where corruption, personal and political favors, and the good ol' boy system simply don't exist. Moral of the story, to assume makes an ass out of u and me.
"Without seeing what they saw, or at least playing the game, none of us could possibly argue that they rating it improperly. We don't -know-..."
Now there I'm in agreeance with you. But we can't know that they're rating the game properly either. Let's not be naive. How many games get an AO rating that aren't porn games. None? I don't really know but the only exception I know of is the hot coffee incident. All I'm really saying is I would bet a few dollars that if Manhunt 2 just got an M rating no one would be begging for an AO rating. I mean it's too late now, there's already controversy, but if there hadn't been this "scandal" I bet Manhunt 2 would have been just another game. But hey, I could be wrong.
Perhaps the most entertaining and also most insightful comment in round 3. Enough said.
I was disappointed to hear that N'Gai found Manhunt 1 a more engaging experience. I've never played Manhunt but for some reason I've been really looking forward to Manhunt 2. I hope it's an entertaining game, if it ever gets released.
"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.
So...books are the least evil, movies the middle evil, and videogames just one step away from cold blooded murder. That's quite the progression. Call me crazy but I've found books to be more disturbing and graphic many of the films I've seen. The imagination is a powerful thing.
Lest we forget that back in the day we didn't have violent cinema for our entertainment, we as a species watched other humans murder and maim one another in the Colisseum where even the spectators would sometimes get the chance to vote for the defeated gladiator to be executed. Seriously, the worst society has to offer right now is Hostel and Manhunt 2? I think we're doing fine.
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.
I've noticed people tend to get real personal when debating on a message board so I don't mean to attack you directly. With that being said, I find your fox hunt argument to be irrelevant at best, and downright silly if I'm speaking my mind (which I am). Now I'm with you in thinking that running a fox into the ground is a cruel and senseless act. Your logic has one crucial flaw though; foxes are real. Videogame characters are not. "Killing" a polygonal digital character by means of another polygonal digital character is not in my estimation cruel and senseless. Comparing a creature that is flesh and blood and emotion to something that is polygons and A.I. is not really a comparison at all. If we designed and created a videogame that depicted a fox hunt, would you still say that we're breeding a mentality of cruelty and murder? Reality vs. fantasy. Your argument is apples and oranges.