BBFC bans Manhunt 2 in UK

[cresshead]

good move, i'm sure the family of the now deceased lad who was killed by a manhunt loonie gamer in leicester will be encouraged by this defiant stance...about time a line was drawn
on sick ''games''.

[vauric]

I agree too. Developers dont need to do that. A game doesnt need to go that far to be fun.

This is just bad taste.

[leigh]

While I personally agree that some of Rockstar's recent offerings have wandered into distasteful territory (at least, for me), I personally abhor censorship of this type. The game should simply be sold with a strict 18 age restriction. People should never have decisions made for them in this manner.

[Steve Green]

Playing Devil's Advocate, I can think of a bunch of things that have caused more harm than a video game that would never be banned.

IMHO it's a slippery slope to start banning games. I don't particularly want to watch the likes of Hostel, Saw etc. but I don't think they should be banned.

- Steve

[vauric]

I cant stand censorship either, but now developers are asking for it.

I dont think 18 rating is enough as we all know it will still end up in the hands of teens and even younger kids.

I mean there's no need for sick stuff like that....just come up with great fun designed game, without relying on gratuitous "sick" violence, which a lot of games nowdays rely on.

just my view of course ;)

[septopus]

The game should simply be sold with a strict 18 age restriction. .

that has not been a deterrent thus far.

neither has warning labels etc... in fact, those just seem to make the product more enticing to audiences under 17...

good move imho. what are those designers thinking...

[leigh]

but now developers are asking for it.

People should be free to make decisions for themselves. If they want to play a sick game, let them, just as developers should be free to develop what they want. It's part of being a modern, free civilisation where people are free to choose for themselves. I don't want some board of people making decisions for me.

It's up to parents to monitor what their kids are playing. The moment we start letting the government make decisions for us, we're surrendering our right to choose, surrendering our right to think for ourselves. That is not a world I want to live in.

Go read Nineteen Eighty Four. Yeah, this just one video game, but the principle is the same.

[vauric]

People should be free to make decisions for themselves. If they want to play a sick game, let them, just as developers should be free to develop what they want. It's part of being a modern, free civilisation where people are free to choose for themselves. I don't want some board of people making decisions for me.

It's up to parents to monitor what their kids are playing. The moment we start letting the government make decisions for us, we're surrendering our right to choose, surrendering our right to think for ourselves. That is not a world I want to live in.

Go read Nineteen Eighty Four. Yeah, this just one video game, but the principle is the same.


I do agree on that aspect with you. I dont want either a board of people making the decisions.
What I'm trying to say is that developers like medias, tabloids, etc. need to have some kind of morale. Society is already going down the trashy way.
I mean there's no need for those extremes. Like I said, Im not for censorship. (hate it) But for a bit more common sense from developers (and basically everything else, medias etc).
Geez, who actually enjoy playing "sick" games?? is it fun to kill civilians, kids, cops...does it make it fun?....cant they gear violence towards somethin like doom, aliens, unrealistic baddies? Just my 2 cents...;p

[cresshead]

try explaining that to the family who had to identify their son who was bludgened to death by a manhunt fan....

most people are fine without rules..their balanced people...but there's plenty of smack heads and unbalanced people who just need a sick game like this to push them over the edge and ''encourage'' them that in this game you must kill to get on to a better score..this is not set in a fantasy world like doom but in a realistic city....i also don't like rules but if we have to have boundaries and rule for the lesser mentally capable in out society then i'm okay with that.

[leigh]

A person who is unbalanced enough to kill will kill, regardless of whether or not they play some game. Games have become a fashionable scapegoat for violence these days because people don't want to accept the fact that the problem lies within society itself. Violence begets violence, and in a world filled with hatred, xenophobia, and war it's not surprising that there are so many off-tick people around these days.

Manhunt was not to blame for the murder - the person who killed was to blame. He played the game because he enjoyed killing - it wasn't the game that inspired him when the desire was there before he played the game in the first place. People don't just suddenly become killers.

Censorship, suppression of free thought and the suspension of liberty to choose are just as dangerous to mankind's future as murderers are to society at large.

[vauric]

I work in the game industry, (just to be clear that Im not bashing the industry).

I want to clarify too that Im against blaming video games for all the violence in our society.

That guy who killed and was a manhunt fan, was certainly deranged in the first place...the game might have triggered something, I dont know. I havnt followed the case.

What really annoys me, and scares me, is that a lot of people find it normal (and some enjoy it) to play sick games , enjoy reading a dodgy newspaper tearing apart somebody, just for the fun of it...to make a few more sales...
A society of sharks, scavengers (or whatever u wanna call em).

To come back to the subject of this thread, I think the censors wanted to warn Rockstar, that there's some limit. Freedom of speech is great, but can really hurt people if used the wrong way.

There's a difference between violence, horror movies, etc...and "sick" (immorale) video games, where you, the player is actually performing the action.

I guess this debate could go on forever...;p

[cresshead]

i didn't realise you worked on that murder investigation...

unfortunatly we do not live in a ''perfect'' world...and some people need rules...we commonly call them 'laws' over here...as for 'opinions'...i don't think that the UK would be a 'better' more enjoyable and safer place WITH manhunt2...it brings nothing positive to our way of life and only makes cash and emplys people who prefer to make their way by going down the extreem route in video games.

list some positive GAINS that having manhunt2 on the shelves and i may change my mind...

would you feel the same defence of a game if it portrayed the exclusive murder of black people, disabled, jewish, fat, skinny, japanese, red hair'd or mentally ill people..?

where are YOUR limits?

[Steve Green]

Absolutely - Taking the under-18's can access it argument -

Ban cars, cigarettes, booze and any adult material. Games just seem to be a popular target at the moment, as comics were in the US when the comics code was introduced.

That said, I think Rockstar are their own worst enemy at times. I'm curious as to how this is much worse than the original to warrant a ban.

And with regards to the original game, the police rejected the connection with Manhunt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3538066.stm

- Steve

[Bonedaddy]

If there were no violent games, they'd go after violent movies. Then violent comic books. Then violent novels. Then violent pictures. Then, I guess, violent thoughts?

I find this game in extremely poor taste, to the point of... well, being pointless. But I think if you're going to do anything, you should raise childrens' level of mental/moral maturity to where they will disdain such a game on their own, rather than doing it for them. I mean, keep making choices for them and they'll rebel just because it'll piss you off. Respect their decision and let them make it, and you'll have a lot better discourse going on.


As bad as Manhunt is, there is stuff a hundred times worse on the internet, uncensored and available for free.

[leigh]

i didn't realise you worked on that murder investigation...


Sorry but this cheap, sarcastic intro invalidates the rest of your post. If you want to have a debate, then at least post comments with some level of respect.

[cresshead]

quote>
Stefan's mother, Giselle, who called for violent computer games to be banned, claimed her son only had the game because it had been lent to him by Leblanc.

"Warren Leblanc gave Stefan the game just two days before he killed him," she said.

"Leblanc is responsible for what Leblanc did and what he did was horrible."

Mrs Pakeerah added: "He liked violent films and games and particularly liked Manhunt.

"There are obvious similarities between the game and how Stefan died."





end quote<

[cresshead]

Sorry but this cheap, sarcastic intro invalidates the rest of your post. If you want to have a debate, then at least post comments with some level of respect.

well your certainly entitled to your opinion

[vauric]

If there were no violent games, they'd go after violent movies. Then violent comic books. Then violent novels. Then violent pictures. Then, I guess, violent thoughts?

I find this game in extremely poor taste, to the point of... well, being pointless. But I think if you're going to do anything, you should raise childrens' level of mental/moral maturity to where they will disdain such a game on their own, rather than doing it for them. I mean, keep making choices for them and they'll rebel just because it'll piss you off. Respect their decision and let them make it, and you'll have a lot better discourse going on.


As bad as Manhunt is, there is stuff a hundred times worse on the internet, uncensored and available for free.

Totally agree with you. Its the people at the top...parents, governments, medias, etc who should change their approach.
You could raise your kids in the best way possible, but with all the trash we get through medias, bad tv, sick games, it kinda cancel the effect on kids.
Society needs to change, but hey...that wont probably happen tomorrow.

As long as people are making money...they wont care. Sad world really....

[Bonedaddy]

Being a victim doesn't make you an authority.

If my brother died playing Russian Roulette and I blamed the gun company, that would not make me correct.

[BoostAbuse]

You can compare similarities all day long, it will get you nowhere. There's always going to be something to compare a real life event to in relation to the occurences of a game or film.

The point is simple, Rockstar double-faulted even after they were warned heavily by the ESRB and put under the scrutiny of every rating system board. To me it's like getting pulled over by a cop for speeding, you take the ticket, let the cop go on his merry way and then a minute later you go racing by him again thinking he won't notice.

Rockstar made their bed on this one and if the UK felt the need to ban the sales of the game, I think it's more of a way to make an example of the company trying to push the envelope too far rather than limit the choices their citizens can make. Albeit, I completely agree with you Leigh about a society left without choice isn't a society at all and if this was Rockstar's first fault then I can see it being a bit of a rash decision.

If the UK bans it then I wonder what the end result will be here in North America, should be interesting to see when the ESRB gives their rating for the game.

-s

[P_T]

People should be free to make decisions for themselves. If they want to play a sick game, let them, just as developers should be free to develop what they want. It's part of being a modern, free civilisation where people are free to choose for themselves. I don't want some board of people making decisions for me.It is a free civilisation. The developers aren't threatened with jail sentence if they make sick games, they're just not allowed to sell them which is fair enough. Same thing with those hate books, people are allowed to write them, just not sell them legally.

I'm not against violent and gory games, I love playing games like Soldier of Fortune but I thought there's no valid reason for Manhunt's gameplay other than using the controversial content to market the game.

[cresshead]

what are YOUR limits to a game?

[leigh]

well your certainly entitled to your opinion

If you're going to continue with this childish approach instead of actually making the effort to engage in a sensible debate, then you can refrain from posting here right now.

Your remark was uncalled for, not to mention contradictory. You're insinuating that since I wasn't a part of the murder investigation, that my opinion is invalidated. By your own reasoning, your own opinion is therefore invalidated as well, by your own lack of involvement. I posted my opinion based on my own experiences in the last 28 years as a human being.

And I absolutely stand by what I said, as would any rational person. Normal people don't pick up a game, and suddenly become killers. There has to be something wrong with the person to drive them to murder. You simply cannot argue with this. Games don't turn people into murderers, and anyone who says they do is simply using games as a cheap scapegoat for the wider problems in society today. You cannot blame a game for a murder because then you're simply helping to propagate the problem that is inherent within society by denying that it's there. Censorship silences rational debate, and exacerbates this phenomenon.

[Steve Green]

Much as I understand how the mother of the victim feels about violent games, she's not going to be particularly objective about it.

She wants all violent video games banned - so that's HL2, Halo, BF2, Counterstrike all out by her reckoning.

As for worthiness - IMHO unless your CG involves the like of curing cancer, or saving the environment it's all fairly trivial in the great scheme of things.

- Steve

[cresshead]

now you want 'rules' to enforce me to stop being 'childish'...see you fell into my trap!
once something gets personal..as in affects 'YOU'...whoever that maybe...not just leigh
this was just an example...then rules or laws suddenly look like a 'good idea'....

i'll refain from any more comments as i unlike rockstar don't wish to offend people just for 'kicks'...and i don't wish to be 'banned' from the forum...:)

steve g

If you're going to continue with this childish approach instead of actually making the effort to engage in a sensible debate, then you can refrain from posting here right now.

Your remark was uncalled for, not to mention contradictory. You're insinuating that since I wasn't a part of the murder investigation, that my opinion is invalidated. By your own reasoning, your own opinion is therefore invalidated as well, by your own lack of involvement. I posted my opinion based on my own experiences in the last 28 years as a human being.

And I absolutely stand by what I said, as would any rational person. Normal people don't pick up a game, and suddenly become killers. There has to be something wrong with the person to drive them to murder. You simply cannot argue with this. Games don't turn people into murderers, and anyone who says they do is simply using games as a cheap scapegoat for the wider problems in society today. You cannot blame a game for a murder because then you're simply helping to propagate the problem that is inherent within society by denying that it's there. Censorship silences rational debate, and exacerbates this phenomenon.

[vauric]

other than using the controversial content to market the game.

Exactly...Im disgusted at how far people would go, to make money.

They dont need to market a game that way. Half life didnt need to.

Especially if its not the first time for Rockstar...they re actually damaging the image of games for the general masses. Way to go ;p

[Kid Dynomite]

A person who is unbalanced enough to kill will kill, regardless of whether or not they play some game. Games have become a fashionable scapegoat for violence these days because people don't want to accept the fact that the problem lies within society itself.

Scientific evidenice indicates otherwise. A growing body of evidence indicates that levels of aggression are raised by short term exposure to playing violent games like Manhunt, rather than something like Teletubbies. This doesn't mean playing violent games leads to murder, as some would have you believe, but your conversely simplistic statement is just as false.

I think that since video games are relative new, compared to other media such as television and movies, a lot more will be learned about the adverse effects of games in the future, particulary as technology advances to the point of *very* realistic games.

Censorship silences rational debate
then you can refrain from posting here right now.
Irony?:thumbsup:

[kevOrama]

in the end this is all about censorship, plain and simple. Does the government have the right to tell me, a law abiding, tax-paying adult, what I can and can't play? If I want to play Manhunt or Neo-Pets, it's my choice. I should NEVER have that choice made for me.

[leigh]

now you want 'rules' to enforce me to stop being 'childish'...see you fell into my trap!

Trap? Please show me exactly where I said I was going to ban you. I suggested that if you aren't going to take this debate seriously, then you should stop posting because you're not contributing in any structural way to the conversation and are therefore wasting people's time.

You're continuing to ignore all the points I am making and instead of presenting reasonable responses, you're simply resorting to ad hominem waffle.

Kid Dynomite, whether or not a game raises aggression levels doesn't alter the plain and simple fact that some people have violent tendencies regardless of what they do as a hobby. All I am saying is that people cannot claim that games turn people into murderers. No-one can prove this. When you look at cases where kids who played violent games have killed people, the media always seems to overlook what seems obvious - that the person was more likely to have enjoyed games and violent films because they enjoyed violence, period. The enjoyment of such entertainment was a side effect of their mindset, not the genesis of it.

in the end this is all about censorship, plain and simple. Does the government have the right to tell me, a law abiding, tax-paying adult, what I can and can't play? If I want to play Manhunt or Neo-Pets, it's my choice. I should NEVER have that choice made for me.


Amen.

[BoostAbuse]

in the end this is all about censorship, plain and simple. Does the government have the right to tell me, a law abiding, tax-paying adult, what I can and can't play? If I want to play Manhunt or Neo-Pets, it's my choice. I should NEVER have that choice made for me.

True, but what if Manhunt 2 violates the terms set in place from previous legislatures? Like I said before, Rockstar got slapped around before and were told to smarten up and they seem to have just ignored it. While you might have the right to choose the product you purchase, they have the right to govern what is sold and not sold in their country (we all have rights, including the government to choose what to allow in the country). It's a double edged sword really, I'd love to own a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 8 but Mitsubishi won't follow Canadian mandate and reinforce the front rebar where the intercooler sits, therefore the government won't allow the car to be sold in Canada. Is that controlling and revoking me of my right to choose what car I can drive? Not really, it's Mitsu's decision not to adhere to the standards just the same as it is Rockstar's decision to do the same.

Another side to the coin...

-s

[Crimsonstring]

Censorship silences rational debate

then you can refrain from posting here right now.

Irony?:thumbsup:

A perfect example that shows that people see whatever they want to see. Kid, you took those quotes out of context to prove what? See the whole phrase and then say it has anything to do with the first quote you posted

If you're going to continue with this childish approach instead of actually making the effort to engage in a sensible debate, then you can refrain from posting here right now.


I find it interesting how people always have someone to blame a tragedy on. I've seen quite a few people blaming God for the loss of their childrens' lifes (why not try and ban Him?).
So i find it strange for the mother to start a personal war against games instead of maybe sueing the killer's parents.
A friend of mine died very recently at the age of 21. Car accident. Should I start asking games like Need for Speed to be banned?

About sick games, I find them a powerful stress reliever. Instead of punching one of my superiors for being a jackass, I go and punch some polys to death. Guess which one has worse consequences..

[flipnap]

these threads are borderline troll bait.. theyre just like "mac vs. pc" threads.. theres no point in debating. Its always the same thing. let me make a prediction. in one more page this thread will go from politics and social ramifications, to religion, followed by thread closed.

[Steve Green]

To be honest, I smell interference in this decision, although it's been denied in a report on Gamesindustry.biz.

I would have thought Sony or particularly Nintendo would have picked up on this during the approval process if it was distinctly worse in tone than the first one.

There are already areas that would be no-go, such as anything that could be construed as racial incitement or violence towards children for example. Areas like that would be *very* risky, either legally or commercially.

I wonder if events would have happened the same if it had been called something else, rather than having the history of the first game?

- Steve

[siouxfire]

There have been far worse games going back to the age of the Atari console way, way back. When I was growing up, there was a game released where the avatar was General Custer and the point of the game was to rape and kill as many Native Americans as possible to rack up the points.

Even coming from a family with Native American heritage and being a kid, the idea of banning it didn't come to mind (that's just sweeping the problem under the carpet), but the question was why? Why do people find this kind of thing enjoying? Why do people actually go through the effort of making something like that?

It's undeniable that there is a demand for entertainment that is offensive to one person or another. I'd say most of them are just symptoms with the cause being much deeper.
The game didn't make the audience--they're out there waiting.

[P_T]

About sick games, I find them a powerful stress reliever. Instead of punching one of my superiors for being a jackass, I go and punch some polys to death. Guess which one has worse consequences..You don't need a snuff game like Manhunt for that. Any good old fashion fighting games like Street Fighters or even violent and gory FPS like Doom should do it just fine.

Where do you draw the line with these kinds of games? I suppose it's ok to make games about family violence just because you're allowed to do it? I don't think so. It's one of those cases where just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should. Games like Manhunt only give those whom are against violent games in general a stronger position in their argument.

[Boone]

RockStar knew exactly what they were playing at and stepped over the line where videogame violence is concerned. They called the BBFC's bluff and lost. Serves them right.

I mean, what are they going to do next? Advanced serial-rapist simulator? But of course, it would only be a video game...:rolleyes:

[Steve Green]

The thing is, we don't know for certain how much they pushed it.

The BBFC passed the original Manhunt without cuts as an 18, GTAs have been passed uncut, the same with Bully.

Since it is effectively banned (unless this gets overturned on appeal) we can't make a judgement for ourselves.

- Steve

[cresshead]

here's my response:-
*Normal people don't pick up a game, and suddenly become killers.
1.most probably true...yet abnormal people, people on drugs, mentally unbalanced
people, your average violent person can also buy those games....there's no customer personality profile exam before you purchase a game..if society was only made up of normal people we'd have a much nicer place to live in but we put violent people back on the street just cos the prisons are over crowded, mentally ill people also live in the community as it's cheaper such as [suse my spelling] schizophrenic, deperssed
pariniod etc.


*There has to be something wrong with the person to drive them to murder.
2.correct, and when there's something basically wrong with a person some things can act as a catalyst...such as a very violent game based in a modern day city.

*You simply cannot argue with this. Games don't turn people into murderers,
3.correct, never said it did...but unbalanced people, mentally ill people and darn right your 'basic drunken or drug induced' oaf could take such things as a stepping stone to the 'real world' or indeed use it to simulate a proposed mugging or stalking if they are a criminal already.

*and anyone who says they do is simply using games as a cheap scapegoat for the wider problems in society today. You cannot blame a game for a murder because then you're simply helping to propagate the problem that is inherent within society by denying that it's there. Censorship silences rational debate, and exacerbates this phenomenon
4.in the same breath you cannot say that these games bring any good to society as a whole...does manhunt have any positive impact on people?

[Boone]

Re: Steve green.


Yeah, I suppose only the BBFC is in possesion of the full facts. Its just that Rockstar appear to be trying their best to get their games banned.

[Crimsonstring]

You don't need a snuff game like Manhunt for that. Any good old fashion fighting games like Street Fighters or even violent and gory FPS like Doom should do it just fine.

That's true. Just to be clear, I'm not holdin Rockstar's side on this. I played the first Manhunt only once and I didn't find it fun (even though for some reason I do love excess gore)

[cresshead]

could be just a 'smart' marketing ploy...like that of the sex pistols record 'god save the queen' back in 77 when the bbc banned playing it...

it went straight to number 1...there's a certain thing in people that rebels and wants things that they are banned from...

[P_T]

Here's a gameplay video for it.
http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=66505

I personally think the extra sick way to kill done in cutscene is totally unnecessary. I really can understand why it's banned.

[charleyc]

RockStar knew exactly what they were playing at and stepped over the line where videogame violence is concerned. They called the BBFC's bluff and lost. Serves them right.

I mean, what are they going to do next? Advanced serial-rapist simulator? But of course, it would only be a video game...:rolleyes:

I agree with this. RockStar knows full well that this vein stirs up trouble. They deserve this and as long as they want to push this envelope, they deserve more of this.

It was said that the murderer was already disturbed and that the game interest was a result of the preexisting problems. Perhaps. But let me ask this. Would you (any of you) want to be (even possibly) responsible for creating a scenario that desensitizes young people from the more extreme violent behaviors all because it is within your 'freedoms'? Sure the man already had problems. But this is sort of like pouring fuel on the fire. It is common knowledge amongst law enforcement that pedophiles are set off by pornography. Do you really think murderers are any different? These type of games are no different than violence porn.

This is a very foolish venue for 'entertainment' companies to start pushing deeper into.

But...this is all my own opinion anyway.

[Steve Green]

Judging by that video, I think the first one was actually worse because the deaths were more plausible, such as suffocation by plastic bag.

This seems more like cartoonish gore (death by pulling out someone's vertebrae with a claw hammer)

Hard to judge on only one video though.

- Steve

[Boone]

Apart from that guy getting his head blown off, I could really make out what he did to the guy he snuck up on...:shrug:

[cresshead]

example...bit of fun...

your in a room with 20 people your told you'll be locked in there for 2 hours
you are also told that there are 6 mentally unbalanced people amongst
the 20...your there to test manhunt 2 the video game for 2 hours.
each pc game station has a real meat cleaver for each player just to get them
''in the mood'' free from rockstar games...

would you be happy to be locked in that room for 2 hours playing manhunt2?

[Boone]

Re: Cresshead.

Screw that!:eek:

[DrBalthar]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=25909

I think this is the first time (in the UK) that a mainstream label has been refused a certificate, with not even the option to cut it.

Should be interesting to see how this develops.

- Steve

Well deserved, #1 never made it to Germany as well and I've seen footage of it and I understand why. This game has nothing justifying its existance in any way. I also read that #1 was hard on the edge of being refused by the BBFC so Rockstar obviously have not learned their leason.

[Steve Green]

The head getting blown off was pretty tame compared to Soldier of Fortune, released as an 18 cert in the UK.

With regards to Charley's question, I wouldn't particularly want to work on a Manhunt style game, but nor would I want that sort of game to be banned.

IMHO it's very much a glass houses/throwing stones thing.

If we're living in a western society, as most of us are, it's likely that we're having a negative impact on someone, somewhere. Whether it's from the environmental impact of our lifestyles or exploiting labour to get cheap electronics.

- Steve

[leigh]

does manhunt have any positive impact on people?

You're asking the wrong questions. The disturbing subject here is not so much the game itself, but the fact that a choice is being made for us. There are many, many, many things in the entertainment world that don't necessarily have a positive impact on society, but that doesn't mean they should be removed altogether.

I'm no fan of Rockstar's output over the last few years, but I don't think the government really has any right to put their foot down on what Rockstar choose to make, especially when there is a market for such products. The government is basically taking the stance that we're incapable of making a decision for ourselves regarding whether we want to subject ourselves to this content or not. It's insulting.

I feel I am going in circles here, but this is a very important issue to me.

[DrBalthar]

People should be free to make decisions for themselves. If they want to play a sick game, let them, just as developers should be free to develop what they want. It's part of being a modern, free civilisation where people are free to choose for themselves. I don't want some board of people making decisions for me.

I think Leigh you got your worldview a bit to narrow. Should anyone be allowed to do anything they like?

Yes

*BUT* only as long as they do not harm any others by doing so. That's the golden rule of social living. Since people do not want to play by that golden rule, you need an authority to do so.


Go read Nineteen Eighty Four. Yeah, this just one video game, but the principle is the same.

No it's not! Rockstar knew the first minute when they created it what they are upto. Rockstar as a company and each employee working in that company has as much responsibility to society than anyone else. But if they think money/profit first responsiblity comes later than they are plain WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

Shifting the responsibility soley to the parents is just a simple excuse for hiding from your own. We as a society are equal responsible with what values the next generation will grow up with. There is no simple escape route! And companies think often they live outside of that. It's good that some instutions or governments show they are not!

[siouxfire]

example...bit of fun...

your in a room with 20 people your told you'll be locked in there for 2 hours
you are also told that there are 6 mentally unbalanced people amongst
the 20...your there to test manhunt 2 the video game for 2 hours.
each pc game station has a real meat cleaver for each player just to get them
''in the mood'' free from rockstar games...

would you be happy to be locked in that room for 2 hours playing manhunt2?
Or how about watching the news? The latest documentary on serial killers? Playing "Hitman"? Watching a horror film? Watching documentary footage of war? Reading Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus? ...a lot of things can set off someone who is "mentally unbalanced" and often times they're a lot more unpredictable than something directly related to violence.

[UrbanFuturistic]

mentally ill people also live in the community as it's cheaper such as [suse my spelling] schizophrenic, deperssed
pariniod etc. Yeah, I think you just disqualified yourself from having an opinion on anything regarding mental states. What's a depressive going to do, cry at you?

[siouxfire]

here's my response:-
*Normal people don't pick up a game, and suddenly become killers.
1.most probably true...yet abnormal people, people on drugs, mentally unbalanced
people, your average violent person can also buy those games....there's no customer personality profile exam before you purchase a game..if society was only made up of normal people we'd have a much nicer place to live in but we put violent people back on the street just cos the prisons are over crowded, mentally ill people also live in the community as it's cheaper such as [suse my spelling] schizophrenic, deperssed
pariniod etc.


*There has to be something wrong with the person to drive them to murder.
2.correct, and when there's something basically wrong with a person some things can act as a catalyst...such as a very violent game based in a modern day city.
On television, there are endless documentaries on serial killers, television series on on serial killers, and sensationalized news reports on serial killers. At the cinema, a continual roster of films about murder. At the theatre, there's tons of blood--Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus is one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen. And books, there are whole sections of libraries devoted to crime and horror let alone humanity's blood history. Then there are plenty of games where you kill people, even innocent people.

Now, if we're going on the tact that there are psychopaths out there that are vulnverable to the material--do you really think they'll differentiate between the "high brow" gore and "low brow gore"?

You simply cannot argue with this. Games don't turn people into murderers,
3.correct, never said it did...but unbalanced people, mentally ill people and darn right your 'basic drunken or drug induced' oaf could take such things as a stepping stone to the 'real world' or indeed use it to simulate a proposed mugging or stalking if they are a criminal already.
Again, an unbalanced person could be set off by a lot of things for free let alone a video game. So something like say "Hitman" is okay as you play a character whose job it is to kill people? Or even playing 007 is fine for say an "unbalanced person"?

and anyone who says they do is simply using games as a cheap scapegoat for the wider problems in society today. You cannot blame a game for a murder because then you're simply helping to propagate the problem that is inherent within society by denying that it's there. Censorship silences rational debate, and exacerbates this phenomenon
4.in the same breath you cannot say that these games bring any good to society as a whole...does manhunt have any positive impact on people?
Well on that note, you can level the "Does X have any positive impact on people?" question to just about anything.

The thing is that there are sick people out there, but to think a game is going to forge them is ridiculous. There are the worst forums and usergroups on the net where they will congregate, find acceptance, and normalize their behaviour. This is affirmation from another human being, not some avatar in a game where the aliens, nazis, or "bad guys" have been replaced with "people".

I'm not defending Rock Star--it's clear they've gone out of their way to offend, get some "free marketing", and make a bundle. I've not played the game, but their promotional materials are misogynistic sh*t quite frankly. The demand for the game though doesn't stem from Rock Star, it's out there and it exists.

[P_T]

The government is basically taking the stance that we're incapable of making a decision for ourselves regarding whether we want to subject ourselves to this content or not. It's insulting.Isn't that the same with many other things like drugs, hate books, guns (except in the States I guess). Next month there will be total smoking bans in pubs and clubs here in Sydney and people are already proposing smoking ban on the street near schools, sports centers, etc.

[cresshead]

are you saying that market forces is the only real issue here?

do you not want ANY laws or just a select few, i'm a bit confused as to where your stance really is concering rules and laws..i'm all for free speech btw..

i personally feel that rockstar are playing the 'aggressive card' as their marketing for their products to get them in the spotlight and to also make their brand linked to 'extreem' game titles which get them free publicity in the press..i'd wager that someone will back down and this game will be released and look at all the press coverage it got...much more than your average title..

rockstar are a gutter game publisher...there's a market for it and they've jumped in whole heartedly...and it's making them cash...is it a good thing though...i don't think it is...it's low and cheap and rather nasty...if this game gets thru...where next?...they can only go down and more agresssive to outdo this...coudl we see
1.kidnaping sims in portugal?
2.pedo sim's in the nr future?
3.smack head sims killing grannies in flats for their cash to feed their habit?

[mdee]

Shifting the responsibility soley to the parents is just a simple excuse for hiding from your own. We as a society are equal responsible with what values the next generation will grow up with. There is no simple escape route! And companies think often they live outside of that. It's good that some instutions or governments show they are not!

I don't want society, goverment or some institutions to tell me or my child what is good for her. I have very high hopes to raise her in a way that when she is adult she will be able to decide for herself what is good and what is bad. I also take full responsibility for what she watches, what she plays and what she eats.

This is my mission and anyone who would even try to change it would have to face really strong resistance from my side :).

Having said that, I think goverments and instituions should have no right and/nor waste time to ban computer games. This is totally parent's responsibilty to control what their children do.

I'd not buy Manhunt game, because I think it was a piece of poo (first one, I don't think 2nd one will be any better) and I'd right away quit my job if I'd be in a studio trying to make a game like that, but that does not mean that I need a goverment to tell me that this is bad or something along the lines - and - what is more important - this is only my opinion and I'd not ever try to force it on anyone. Being raised in former communist country made me very sensitive to any form of goverment control, or any control for that matter.

Anyway, as I said before - this is waste of time. Thos who want to play this game will get it anyway.

[cresshead]

Or how about watching the news? .

that's watching...
the game is a 3d simulation wher you ARE the mugger/murderer and it's not basedin a fantasy world like doom but on the streets in a modern day ''normal'' city.

[DrBalthar]

I don't want society, goverment or some institutions to tell me or my child what is good for her. I have very high hopes to raise her in a way that when she is adult she will be able to decide for herself what is good and what is bad. I also take full responsibility for what she watches, what she plays and what she eats.


Okay that basically means you have to shield her off from everything and not let her out of the door, cut the TV, telephone, internet otherwise this task is impossible dude! Or should I say utopic!

[Spater]

I find Manhunt to be deplorable, sick and depraved, you know what I'm going to do about it? Not buy it, plain and simple. I wouldn't touch this trash but without a doubt I believe with all of my heart that it is an adult's right to purchase, play, watch whatever they wish.

Are we as a society supposed to destroy every little thing we find offensive or depraved? The price of free speech is that we allow all of it, not just what we like. Popular speech doesn't need protecting, people already enjoy it. Unpopular speech does, because people are out there trying to silence it.

I can decide myself, I don't need the government doing it for me.

Thank you

[Garibaldi]

True, but what if Manhunt 2 violates the terms set in place from previous legislatures? Like I said before, Rockstar got slapped around before and were told to smarten up and they seem to have just ignored it. While you might have the right to choose the product you purchase, they have the right to govern what is sold and not sold in their country (we all have rights, including the government to choose what to allow in the country). It's a double edged sword really, I'd love to own a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 8 but Mitsubishi won't follow Canadian mandate and reinforce the front rebar where the intercooler sits, therefore the government won't allow the car to be sold in Canada. Is that controlling and revoking me of my right to choose what car I can drive? Not really, it's Mitsu's decision not to adhere to the standards just the same as it is Rockstar's decision to do the same.

Another side to the coin...

-s

Just because "previous" legislatures decided to make a new set of rules, doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Same with the Evo. Your government is telling you that because a company won't play by their rules, YOU cannot own their product.

Rebar? Erm, just out of curiousity, what exactly are they wanting done to the intercooler?

Erm, governments have responsibilities and duties, not rights. And being a nanny isn't one of them.


Spater: Very well said.

[DrBalthar]

Erm, governments have responsibilities, not rights. And being a nanny isn't one of them.

Funny I always thought the first and biggest responsibility of a state and in this case a government is to prevent the people in their state from outer and inner threats. Otherwise why do I need a state in the first place?

[mdee]

Okay that basically means you have to shield her off from everything and not let her out of the door, cut the TV, telephone, internet otherwise this task is impossible dude! Or should I say utopic!

That means that I am trying really hard to have enough authority to make her independent thinker as early as possible. So far it goes well. She often refuses to watch telly and shuts it down by herself at the age of 3 :).

[cresshead]

our future?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF2XfCXeZC0

[DrBalthar]

That means that I am trying really hard to have enough authority to make her independent thinker as early as possible. So far it goes well. She often refuses to watch telly and shuts it down by herself at the age of 3 :).
Good luck!

[siouxfire]

are you saying that market forces is the only real issue here?

do you not want ANY laws or just a select few, i'm a bit confused as to where your stance really is concering rules and laws..i'm all for free speech btw..
So if we ban everything that might effect people who are "unbalanced" or psychotic, what do we have left? The thing is that your assertion throws a wide net and covers a lot more than a video game. It has nothing to do with market forces aside from Rock Star's incentive to make the thing. The real problem isn't the game, it's the fact that there is a demand--the reasons behind the demand are what need to be questioned.

i personally feel that rockstar are playing the 'aggressive card' as their marketing for their products to get them in the spotlight and to also make their brand linked to 'extreem' game titles which get them free publicity in the press..i'd wager that someone will back down and this game will be released and look at all the press coverage it got...much more than your average title..

rockstar are a gutter game publisher...
I completely agree, but there are a lot of gutter advertisers, filmmakers, politicians, religions... you name it, there are negative influences all over the place which is why it's difficult to mandate over what adults can see. There have been serial killers set off by clowns--do we ban clowns? People who go mad at the mention of family

that's watching...
the game is a 3d simulation wher you ARE the mugger/murderer and it's not basedin a fantasy world like doom but on the streets in a modern day ''normal'' city.
Sort of like Hitman where you ARE the killer using the old piano wire in a "normal" city listening to your victim breathe his last. There are plenty of games where innocent people are killed. Granted, you often lose points for doing so but is that really a message?

And do you think a person who is prone to violence (or "imbalanced" as you say) is going to make that differentiation between a "normal" city and a fantasy? Or even notice they've been docked a few points?

[BoostAbuse]

Just because "previous" legislatures decided to make a new set of rules, doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Same with the Evo. Your government is telling you that because a company won't play by their rules, YOU cannot own their product.

Erm, governments have responsibilities, not rights. And being a nanny isn't one of them.

It depends on how you view it, if a company isn't willing to abide by the laws set in place then it's not censorship as it's violating the law and thus illegal. If you don't play by the rules then how do you expect to tote your product? I don't see how limiting what can and cannot be imported into a country has anything to do with being a nanny seeing as we're not the ones who govern import and export rules :) If I can't own the product, big deal, I know the reason why and I understand, I don't start burning bra's and fighting the power; said company doesn't follow law, said company pays the price, hardly censorship.. just common sense.

Some countries have stricter rules than others (my previous example, Canada has a 10km/h front crash test rating where the US uses 2.5mph where the car cannot sustain any damage). They're not telling me I cannot own the car, they're simply looking out for drivers safety and saying to Mitsu "hey, you fix your rebar issue to meet our safety standards and your product is welcome here".

-s

edit: the problem with the front rebar is that it was cut to fit the front intercooler so it weakens the front frame slightly. It's not a big fix, usually just an extra piece of support welded to the rebar and frame to support it (i had to do it with my GTI because I needed to cut some of the rebar to fit my front intercooler but the transportation ministry wouldn't safety it until I had the support welded back and a full mechanical inspection). Again, it's just because we have a higher rolling crash test than most countries do.

[Garibaldi]

Funny I always thought the first and biggest responsibility of a state and in this case a government is to prevent the people in their state from outer and inner threats. Otherwise why do I need a state in the first place?

As a video game cannot be a threat, they have nothing to say about it.

What makes you think you do need one? But that is off topic, eh?

[Spater]

It depends on how you view it, if a company isn't willing to abide by the laws set in place then it's not censorship as it's violating the law and thus illegal. If you don't play by the rules then how do you expect to tote your product? I don't see how limiting what can and cannot be imported into a country has anything to do with being a nanny seeing as we're not the ones who govern import and export rules :) If I can't own the product, big deal, I know the reason why and I understand, I don't start burning bra's and fighting the power; said company doesn't follow law, said company pays the price, hardly censorship.. just common sense.

Some countries have stricter rules than others (my previous example, Canada has a 10km/h front crash test rating where the US uses 2.5mph where the car cannot sustain any damage). They're not telling me I cannot own the car, they're simply looking out for drivers safety and saying to Mitsu "hey, you fix your rebar issue to meet our safety standards and your product is welcome here".

-s

edit: the problem with the front rebar is that it was cut to fit the front intercooler so it weakens the front frame slightly. It's not a big fix, usually just an extra piece of support welded to the rebar and frame to support it (i had to do it with my GTI because I needed to cut some of the rebar to fit my front intercooler but the transportation ministry wouldn't safety it until I had the support welded back and a full mechanical inspection). Again, it's just because we have a higher rolling crash test than most countries do.

the crash test is for the physical safety of the citizens of the nation. What does banning a violent videogame do for the health and wellness of a nation?

[BoostAbuse]

the crash test is for the physical safety of the citizens of the nation. What does banning a violent videogame do for the health and wellness of a nation?

They're both governed by laws, you break the law, you suffer the consequences. My point was nothing to do with the 'safety of the nation', it was the fact that there are laws in place on both accords.

[frogspasm]

People have always murdered each other. Before video games, before movies, before heavy metal music there have always been people who are violent and commit violent acts against others. There always will be.

To think that ANY senseless violence would be avoided once you got rid of violent video games is naive.

[Spater]

They're both governed by laws, you break the law, you suffer the consequences. My point was nothing to do with the 'safety of the nation', it was the fact that there are laws in place on both accords.

this is the kind of issue that teeters between legal and moral standards. I choose to argue that this is a moral issue, where you are arguing it is a legal issue, on this ground we can not touch eachother in terms of debate.

What the government is doing is dictating morals. The thing about morality is that it varies from person to person. I have to decide for myself what I feel is harmful to my well being. Banning violent videogames for setting off the mentally unstable makes as much sense as banning red wine for setting off violent alcoholics.

[Rens]

It depends on how you view it, if a company isn't willing to abide by the laws set in place then it's not censorship as it's violating the law and thus illegal. If you don't play by the rules then how do you expect to tote your product? I don't see how limiting what can and cannot be imported into a country has anything to do with being a nanny seeing as we're not the ones who govern import and export rules :) If I can't own the product, big deal, I know the reason why and I understand, I don't start burning bra's and fighting the power; said company doesn't follow law, said company pays the price, hardly censorship.. just common sense.
So censorship isn't censorship anymore when it's backed by law?
The question isn't whether there's a law or not, obviously there is, what's mostly discussed here is if it's a good thing to censor/ban games.

[BoostAbuse]

this is the kind of issue that teeters between legal and moral standards. I choose to argue that this is a moral issue, where you are arguing it is a legal issue, on this ground we can not touch eachother in terms of debate.

What the government is doing is dictating morals. The thing about morality is that it varies from person to person. I have to decide for myself what I feel is harmful to my well being. Banning violent videogames for setting off the mentally unstable makes as much sense as banning red wine for setting off violent alcoholics.

My hat's off to you sir, I was reading your previous post and was going to say the same that we are both debating from different sides of the coin.

Morally, I see your point and agree with you that we are free to decide for ourselves what is harmful to our well being. Legal is a whole other matter :)

[PhilWesson]

This thread is an explosion waiting to happen, (props to leigh for keeping it together so far).

Anyways, my $0.02:
Rockstar is not blameless in raising this issue, but in a perfect world, it should be the adult's decision whether or not to purchase this game, not some board's decision.
Is it good for humanity? Probably not. Does it further us as a society? No, but neither does Reality TV, rock music, heavy metal, alcohol, violent movies/cartoons/books. Should all those things be banned, or rather, should someone else decide if we have access to it? Of course not!
This woman was upset (and understandably so) that her son was killed, and she wants someone to blame. That's human nature. She chose video games, ok, fine, that's her opinion. Doesn't make it correct.

Couple of things to think about:
1. If violent video games are somehow related to violent people, how come there are not more violent crimes? and how come it isn't world wide? (ever see violent japanese games?) There are a lot of people (unbalanced or not) that play games and never hurt anyone.

2. If these games are for 18+, shouldn't the parents be at fault? Whether the game was purchased or borrowed, shouldn't they be aware of what their child is doing?

3. Should each game have to be registered so that there can be some kind of limit to what minors can play? is that too much, or too little?

[leigh]

No it's not! Rockstar knew the first minute when they created it what they are upto.

Yes, it is the same thing. This is the equivalent of Big Brother telling us what we can and can't do. And Rockstar should have the right to develop what they want. Entertainment has no social or moral obligation to society.

And at at the end of the day, people are going to get hold of the game anyway, so instead of putting their foot down and banning it, and thus shirking their responsibility to deal with the issue properly, the goverment should instead tackle it head-on by heavily fining shops that sell games to kids under the specified age restriction (which personally I have no problem with), and actually going to the effort of enforcing this. I think that censorship is just another way of sweeping an issue under the carpet instead of dealing with it properly. While I don't personally believe that games make people violent, I nevertheless do feel that young kids should be spending their time in an environment that promotes constructive inter-human interaction and social development instead of fragging pixels, and at least age restrictions and responsible parents are a step towards this.

[P_T]

The problem is, most parents these days are still clueless about video gaming. Most of the early gaming generation is still young parents at the most, it'll probably take another decade before most parents are savvy in video games and computers. In the mean time, I say let the law protect the clueless, it can always be changed later.

[tuna]

This woman was upset (and understandably so) that her son was killed, and she wants someone to blame. That's human nature. She chose video games, ok, fine, that's her opinion. Doesn't make it correct.

Exactly. Personally I think parents shouldn't let their children hang out with other kids who are on drugs and owe money to gangs (Which was the actual motivation for this crime according to the investigation). The fact that a video game was found in the victim's house shouldn't have played as huge a part in this ongoing story as it did, but thanks to the excellent British tabloid journalism's method of crudely ignoring facts and going to press anyway, Manhunt 2 has just become the most talked about and wanted game umungst a lot of gamers.

Other than the censorship debacle here (a complex issue), nearly everyone has gained from this whole ordeal, except the BBFC who are again issuing statements in defence of their decision.

[Spater]

The problem is, most parents these days are still clueless about video gaming. Most of the early gaming generation is still young parents at the most, it'll probably take another decade before most parents are savvy in video games and computers. In the mean time, I say let the law protect the clueless, it can always be changed later.

I would actually advocate a big parental advisory right underneath the shrinkwrap staring the parent in the face. The little rating ESRB rating sticker means nothing to educate the parents.

[Big_E.D.]

4.in the same breath you cannot say that these games bring any good to society as a whole...does manhunt have any positive impact on people?

You should really be focusing your intent to censor more widely avaliable forms of violence, sex, etc. I'm talking about TV shows and movies you don't have to convince your parents to buy for you that are broadcasted right on your screen. What high moral positions do any of the high ranking tv shows and movies have over these games? That you aren't the one fiddling the controller around to do it?

Have you READ the story behind Manhunt 2? In no way is it suggesting something worse than GTA has ever offered. Quit citing GTA on this unless you're serious about violent games in general, because GTA is far worse.

Games shouldn't be banned, period. It IS giving up our freedom of speech, to go out and decide for ourselves whether we want the game or not. I shouldn't be limited because of the (IMMENSELY SMALL) possibility that a couple of degenerates might get their hands on the game and somehow be inspired to go do something vaguely similar to what you could do in the game.

At that point it is the responsibility of 3 parties:

(1) THE PARENTS if the person is underage
(2) THE RETAILER for keeping it away from those who shouldn't have it
(3) THE INDIVIDUAL for making their own conscious decision to purchase the game

At either one of those points, it becomes on of those three party's responsibility for anything afterwards. NOT the game company.

Argue morals all you want. Those are opinions.

[fuss]

Man, this thread is growing so fast, I started reading it 2 hours ago at work and there were only 2 pages. Now I wanted to finish reading it and there were already 5, at the time I reached page 4 it already grew 6 pages long... As much as I would like to I just do not have the time to read all the responses right now, so I hope I do not repeat points already made by somebody else somewhere between pages 4 and 6.

One thing all the people who would like to forbid violent games etc. forget is this: just because something is available or possible does not mean people will automatically use or do it. It's your responsibilty as a parent to teach your kids about morality and what's right or wrong. If you give them the right values on their way to adulthood they will despise morally questionable things on their own. AND IT'S THE ONLY REAL WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM DOING WRONG - SHOW THEM WHY THEY ARE WRONG SO NEXT TIME THEY *CHOOSE* NOT TO DO IT. Of course, you as a parent can't completely shield your child from bad outside influences which our society is full of, but nobody said your job as a parent would be an easy one. Bad things are part of life and we need them, too, otherwise how would we know what the good things are if we had no comparison. It's your job as a parent to be constantly alert to what your child is doing and when it's exposed to immoral or otherwise "wrong" things to explain to it why it's wrong and to show it the right way. Of course, there are the cases where the child turns out to be an asshole or a pervert or whatever, no matter how hard the parents try. Be it, because it was already born with a mental defect or simply because no matter how hard we may try, we cannot control everything what's happening in this world. This is regrettable, but these things happen and there's nothing we can do about it. That's where the small numbers at the end of every statistic come from.

However, just because there are some sickos out there does not mean the whole society should suffer because of them. It would not heal the sick ones of their perversion anyway and the history has shown, once the government starts to intervene in people's freedom of choice it's only a matter of time when the people rebel against it. Freedom of choice is our most fundamental right and it defines us as humans. If something is wrong, show the people WHY it is wrong, just forbidding something does not solve the problem, it only moves it out of YOUR sight where it keeps spreading and growing just below the surface where you cannot control it.

Now, no time to spellcheck my post so sorry for typos if there are any, but I want to try to post it before the thread gets locked ;). I just hope I did not forget anything important...

[Titus]

Yes, it is the same thing. This is the equivalent of Big Brother telling us what we can and can't do. And Rockstar should have the right to develop what they want. Entertainment has no social or moral obligation to society.

Actually in most societies exists the concept of social contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract). An individual (or an organization) is not free to do anything he wants, that's why we have to pay taxes and cannot commit murder or rape children. The state (not the same as the governement) is in charge of create and enforce the limits.

You may or may not like a ban, but if is part of the social contract you have not much to do.

[leigh]

Actually in most societies exists the concept of social contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract). An individual (or an organization) is not free to do anything he wants, that's why we have to pay taxes and cannot commit murder or rape children. The state (not the same as the governement) is in charge of create and enforce the limits.

You may or may not like a ban, but if is part of the social contract you have not much to do.

No game, music or film I ever heard of raped or killed anyone.

[Titus]

No game, music or film I ever heard of raped or killed anyone.,

That's not the point, at least my point. I never said a game raped or killed anyone (the so tired argument).

My point is that the state has the duty to impose limits, at least in a non-neanderthal society.

[MrPositive]

People need to understand that this is how it all begins. As freedoms are slowly taken away. I'm sorry but a sicko is still a sicko if he hasn't played a game. I find it more coincidence that some of the crazies have played video games over any connection between the two. I'm pretty sure that before video games were invented, there was still violence in the world. In fact, probably five times more. I'd dare say that video games have curbed far more violence than caused, as it's part of the western civilization cerebral entertainment pacifier movement. Jack Thompson is currently going after Halo 3 after he heard about the Manhunt 2 ban in the UK. It's a domino effect of loss of freedoms. Be afraid, be very afraid.

[siouxfire]

Actually in most societies exists the concept of social contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract).
It's one thing to mention the social contract, but would you like to explain how it applies to the censoring of a videogame? In what way does censoring a game bring about the greater good of society as a whole? Particularly when compared to other works that are already deemed reprehensible but within the boundaries of the censor?

[Spater]

,

That's not the point, at least my point. I never said a game raped or killed anyone (the so tired argument).

My point is that the state has the right to impose limits, at least in a non-neanderthal society.

no, it doesn't...I really don't know how more straight-forward I can be here. The social contract you speak of is simply put, the rights of the individual end where another's begin. Who's rights am I infringing upon by purchasing and playing manhunt? Please, I'd love to know

[kevOrama]

The social contract you speak of is simply put, the rights of the individual end where another's begin

Exactaly, how does my playing a video game in my own home, harm anyone else?

Access to games like this should be limited to adults, governments would be better off enforcing their own laws, and go after retailers selling these games to kids, rather then saying no one can have it.

[Titus]

It's one thing to mention the social contract, but would you like to explain how it applies to the censoring of a videogame?

With a social contract you have to give away some freedom. If you ask about the exact case of censoring a game, well since I'm not the sensor or the guy who makes the law I don't have anything to explain.

In what way does censoring a game bring about the greater good of society as a whole?

I don't know, I'm not the censor.

[Titus]

no, it doesn't...I really don't know how more straight-forward I can be here. The social contract you speak of is simply put, the rights of the individual end where another's begin.

I'm with you brother. But unfortunately the law is the law, what are gonna do?

[MrPositive]

I'm with you brother. But unfortunately the law is the law, what are gonna do?
Fight it, like any person with a pair of cajones would do.

[charleyc]

The idea of no censorship relies on people not taking advantage of it. RockStar is a company that chooses to take advantage of it, and for personal gain at that. If you truly want an environment free of censorship, then you have to be willing to accept that you are creating an environment for the wicked to flourish and potentially influence others to their demented desires. I don't believe that humanity works in such an environment. It is a faulty and high minded thing to believe that we can exist all together free of horrible conflicts given only our own wills as the guide. Laws, and even censorship to some degree are in place to protect those who may not be able to protect themselves. Just because some, or even the majority can function in a civil manner does not merit a place where those few who cannot are allowed to flourish. It only takes one screwed up kid to kill dozens in a rampage murder spree. It is the minority who is the greatest risk to the majority. That is why we need to evaluate what is truly best for all in the laws we pass. Would a law that prohibits the sale of excessively violent video games really alter your abilities to express yourself? And if it does, then is that expression really something that the majority needs to be subject to? Standing firm to protect all forms of expression on the basis that any lost ground will eventually result in a total loss is a paranoid delusion. Humanity has and will continue to push the boundaries. It is in our nature.

[Spater]

With a social contract you have to give away some freedom. If you ask about the exact case of censoring a game, well since I'm not the sensor or the guy who makes the law I don't have anything to explain.

In what way does censoring a game bring about the greater good of society as a whole?

I don't know, I'm not the censor.

are you really using the idea of a social contract to promote authoritarianism?

The rights you give away with the social contract are your rights that impede on anothers'. When I join a society, I can no longer destroy my neighbor's property, I can not kill my neighbor, I can not destroy the community owned infrastructure.

When you say "I'm not the sensor" that's a problem because, YES YOU ARE, you get to filter what you watch, play, and read, if you find something offensive, you have the right to put it down, not read it, or turn the channel. You have the right to go into a public forum to denounce and refute it. To educate others as to why they should steer themselves and their children to stay away from this offensive material.

I ask again, who's rights am I imposing upon when I play manhunt?

[Titus]

are you really using the idea of a social contract to promote authoritarianism?


The other way around, the social contract is the base of democracy.

[mech7]

Banning stuff is wrong.. they are crossing a fine line with this close to censorship i think :(

[MrPositive]

The idea of no censorship relies on people not taking advantage of it. RockStar is a company that chooses to take advantage of it, and for personal gain at that. If you truly want an environment free of censorship, then you have to be willing to accept that you are creating an environment for the wicked to flourish and potentially influence others to their demented desires.

See that's the conundrum right there! I don't believe Rockstar is making these games to "influence others to their demented desires". Why do people love horror films? like Psycho, Halloween, Chainsaw Massacre? For the thrill of it! No matter how hard you try, you can't change that people will sit and gawk at a fire or five car pile up on the road. Let's face it, the world is a violent and messed up place and rockstar, directors, and other forms of entertainment are just trying to give you a microchosm of that world.

For instance, I went over to one of my best friends houses for a card game last weekend. Of course, I meandered over to his movie and game collection. The only movies he had were slasher flicks: all the Saw movies, Hostel movies, Hills have eyes, etc. Games were manhunt, grand theft auto games, etc. I turned to him and said "is that what you really like?" His response, "man I love horror films". This coming from one of the nicest, most level headed individuals I've ever met, who is married and has two kids. All I can say is that, a crazy is a crazy is a crazy. Maybe the game sparks something in him, but maybe the apple cider he just drank does as well.

[leigh]

,
I never said a game raped or killed anyone (the so tired argument).

My point is that the state has the duty to impose limits

But you've missed my point. Why impose limits on something that is not harming anything? It's senseless, and fruitless. I can understand imposing limits on a criminal who has killed (ie putting him in jail). But a game, or a song, or a film, a book - these are not the same as a criminal who has harmed others, so why judge them by the same standard?

Censorship breeds ignorance. Ignorance breeds intolerance. Intolerance breeds hatred. This world needs no more of this.

[Spater]

The other way around, the social contract is the base of democracy.

you baffle me. you cannot say that you are a staunch supporter of democracy and then in the same breath tell me that the state has a right to tell the individual what forms of speech are allowed.

[siouxfire]

With a social contract you have to give away some freedom. If you ask about the exact case of censoring a game, well since I'm not the sensor or the guy who makes the law I don't have anything to explain.
Yes, with a social contract you give up the freedom to harm others and society as a whole and you have obligations to offer support in terms of taxes, jury duty, etc., but it is NOT about "giving away freedom" defacto, it's about increasing the relative freedom of society as a whole through mutual contribution.

In fact, as part of the "social contract" you could say it is the duty of individuals to look out for anyone usurping our freedoms by asking questions and keeping our eyes open to those who would infringe on them.

[ingramworks]

The funniest thing about this debate, in 50 years, a hundred years, humanity (if we're lucky) will still be having this debate about some other form of entertainment or self-expression. I remember the D&D debate, the rock & roll debate was just before my time and there have been countless similiar debates over human history.

Some thoughts:
• There have always been violent people, there will always be violent people. Nothing will ever change that. No, you cannot censore enough to stop them; No, you will never breed them out of humanity; No, we and our children will never be safe.

• When faced with blaming ourselves and blamming something else, humanity will always choose the later. Art (theatre, film, books and games) reflect society, not the other way around. A violent society makes violent art. A repressed society makes deviant art. An opressed society makes revolutinary art, etc., etc. Censoring is a tool for a society to rationilze away its own faults and problems. Art is a tool for society to confront and debate them. Censore at your own risk, you may not be happy with the world you end up with.

• Is Manhunter 3 art...? That's up to you. But it is self-expression as is purchasing and playing the game. The State should not tell Adults how to express themselves, or not to, for that matter. Yes, we have the social contract; My rights end where yours begin. But that does not mean I cannot say or do things that you simply don't like, it means I can't force any thought or any action that keeps you from enjoying the same freedom. We see many examples of just this type of thing happening in our world right now, often lead by the very State some here have held up as the defenders of the people.

• As a creative community (on this forum), we should all look at this and any censorship with a concerned eye. As someone pointed out, this is how things like this begin. If it is not your self-expression this time, it may very well be next time.

• Finally, as much as it pains me to say this, there will always be censorship, there will always be those willing to give in and there will always be those willing to take. This is not an individual weakness, it is a weakness that we all share. It is a part of what makes us human. This will never end as long as humanity keeps going.

Plus, I'd like to compliment those who have been involved with the debate so far that have kept it friendly, open and mature. It is rare that I see a thread like this at other forums that has not degenerated to name calling and threats. I honestly chalk that up to who the majority of us here are; artists, creatives and thinkers. The world needs scientist to move forward, it needs artists to stay sane. :)

[Titus]

In fact, as part of the "social contract" you could say it is the duty of individuals to look out for anyone usurping our freedoms by asking questions and keeping our eyes open to those who would infringe on them.

But this is not the case, we are talking about banning a videogame not sending people to Gitmo.

[MrPositive]

Plus, I'd like to compliment those who have been involved with the debate so far that have kept it friendly, open and mature. It is rare that I see a thread like this at other forums that has not degenerated to name calling and threats. I honestly chalk that up to who the majority of us here are; artists, creatives and thinkers. The world needs scientist to move forward, it needs artists to stay sane. :)

Unlike other forums, you can't get away with murder (excuse the pun) here. The mods really mod and if you step out of line you get censored.........er wait what!? hahaha

[Spater]

But this is not the case, we are talking about banning a videogame not sending people to Gitmo.
we're talking about the government usurping our right to play a videogame.

[kevOrama]

The mods really mod and if you step out of line you get censored.........er what!?

LOL!

we are talking about banning a videogame not sending people to Gitmo.

It starts with a video games, then books, then you can't look at websites you like, then movies, then you goto Gitmo.

[JCAddy]

They will ban a video game like this but will sell a rifle to anybody over 18 years of age in the USA.

[Titus]

It starts with a video games, then books, then you can't look at websites you like, then movies, then you goto Gitmo.

Lol, actually I think it's happening in the reverse order.

I'm not supporting censorship but I try to understand the logic behind some limitations in our freedom. I live in a very, very violent city and this didn't happened overnight, then you realize there's a level of insensibilization to the violence, the society finds normal the scalation in general violence, and you even can hear music praising druglords or assasins. You as a society need to avoid to make apology of the violence. Music doesn't kill people, but violence do.

[MrPositive]

They will ban a video game like this but will sell a rifle to anybody over 18 years of age in the USA.

Yep, I've never understood that one either. It's like archaic laws from the 1700's must be upheld at all costs! But new technologies must be feared from every angle. I could say something controversial but I'll hold my tongue like a good little artist. Of course, this is a UK film board and that's a right to bear arms in america law. Quite different.

[tuna]

They will ban a video game like this but will sell a rifle to anybody over 18 years of age in the USA.

The British Board of Film Classification doesn't have anything to do with gun laws in the UK or the USA.

[charleyc]

See that's the conundrum right there! I don't believe Rockstar is making these games to "influence others to their demented desires"...

It is not necessarily the creator who does the influencing. It is usually the person with the major problem. By allowing someone with problems to feed their problem unchecked, you run the risk that not only will they cause harm, but that they may entice others who where not quite at that breaking point to follow suite. Society needs boundaries. If you find yourself on the 'other' side of a boundary, there is the chance you will either step back, or seek help. But without any form of boundary (censorship is a form of boundary) then there is nothing to tell someone they may be on a path to hurting themselves or others.

[fuss]

The funniest thing about this debate, in 50 years, a hundred years, humanity (if we're lucky) will still be having this debate about some other form of entertainment or self-expression. I remember the D&D debate, the rock & roll debate was just before my time and there have been countless similiar debates over human history.

Some thoughts:
• There have always been violent people, there will always be violent people. Nothing will ever change that. No, you cannot censore enough to stop them; No, you will never breed them out of humanity; No, we and our children will never be safe.

• When faced with blaming ourselves and blamming something else, humanity will always choose the later. Art (theatre, film, books and games) reflect society, not the other way around. A violent society makes violent art. A repressed society makes deviant art. An opressed society makes revolutinary art, etc., etc. Censoring is a tool for a society to rationilze away its own faults and problems. Art is a tool for society to confront and debate them. Censore at your own risk, you may not be happy with the world you end up with.

• Is Manhunter 3 art...? That's up to you. But it is self-expression as is purchasing and playing the game. The State should not tell Adults how to express themselves, or not to, for that matter. Yes, we have the social contract; My rights end where yours begin. But that does not mean I cannot say or do things that you simply don't like, it means I can't force any thought or any action that keeps you from enjoying the same freedom. We see many examples of just this type of thing happening in our world right now, often lead by the very State some here have held up as the defenders of the people.

• As a creative community (on this forum), we should all look at this and any censorship with a concerned eye. As someone pointed out, this is how things like this begin. If it is not your self-expression this time, it may very well be next time.

• Finally, as much as it pains me to say this, there will always be censorship, there will always be those willing to give in and there will always be those willing to take. This is not an individual weakness, it is a weakness that we all share. It is a part of what makes us human. This will never end as long as humanity keeps going.

Plus, I'd like to compliment those who have been involved with the debate so far that have kept it friendly, open and mature. It is rare that I see a thread like this at other forums that has not degenerated to name calling and threats. I honestly chalk that up to who the majority of us here are; artists, creatives and thinkers. The world needs scientist to move forward, it needs artists to stay sane. :)

Excellently said.

[siouxfire]

Lol, actually I think it's happening in the reverse order.

I'm not supporting censorship but I try to understand the logic behind some limitations in our freedom. I live in a very, very violent city and this didn't happened overnight, then you realize there's a level of insensibilization to the violence, the society finds normal the scalation in general violence, and you even can hear music praising druglords or assasins. You as a society need to avoid to make apology of the violence. Music doesn't kill people, but violence do.
The music, the videos, films, videogames are a symptom. They're not the cause. There are countless social and economic reasons behind violence that need to be tackled. Banning a videogame--that's easy if not pointless(usually political) as well as promoting that which is targeted. Japan and Korea have extremely violent media but that doesn't translate to a violent culture.

The thing is that banning things, putting warning stickers, and all that in the modern world is actually a status symbol. It legtimizes what it aims to remove. Rock Star know that and they're exploiting it--amoral, but just as fascists have the right to free speech (and I don't care much for them either), Rock Star have the right to produce violent videogames.

[MrPositive]

It is not necessarily the creator who does the influencing. It is usually the person with the major problem. By allowing someone with problems to feed their problem unchecked, you run the risk that not only will they cause harm, but that they may entice others who where not quite at that breaking point to follow suite. Society needs boundaries. If you find yourself on the 'other' side of a boundary, there is the chance you will either step back, or seek help. But without any form of boundary (censorship is a form of boundary) then there is nothing to tell someone they may be on a path to hurting themselves or others.

So you are saying, that 'someone with problems' won't just find another means to feed their problem unchecked if Manhunt 2 wasn't available?

[Big_E.D.]

- Double post -

[JeroenDStout]

I think a lot of problems are in education and parenting as well as the media. But the problem is that, I think, giving children proper education to make them self-aware and intelligent people is less profitable than making sex-ridden video clips about Paris Hilton.

Not that there is anything wrong with sex-ridden video clips per-sé. But the debate around censorship is awkwardly often going around a group of people who think they know what's better for others, whilst the 'mob' is progressive in a rather dumb way. Why do we have sex-clips of Paris Hilton but a large public moral problem with Janet Jackson? Because society should be a lot more liberal, but in a smart way, not in the 'heehee, boobs' way.

Because the people fighting for sensorship are people with 'icky-issues' about the problems they're not really thinking out of the box. Is there truly a problem with young people having healty rich sex lives without strings attached, througout staying safe? Not in my view. But the people who are against it practically even ban sex-education, resulting in the view that having such free sex life spells disastre. And through the seems you get the sex-morals of gansta-yo's, with the whole pimp and ho mentality.

I realise this is not about violence, but the same thought applies to violence, in my head. Killing a person in a game is a weird thing and if all you've heard your life is gansta-yo then you won't respond the same way as when you've actually been tought some life-lessons.

[Big_E.D.]

example...bit of fun...

your in a room with 20 people your told you'll be locked in there for 2 hours
you are also told that there are 6 mentally unbalanced people amongst
the 20...your there to test manhunt 2 the video game for 2 hours.
each pc game station has a real meat cleaver for each player just to get them
''in the mood'' free from rockstar games...

would you be happy to be locked in that room for 2 hours playing manhunt2?

Huh? Are you serious?

I wouldn't want to be near ANYONE mentally unstable even if they were in a padded cell with me on the other side of the door!

Quit trying to make games look like the catalyst of every recent crime and the downfall of humanity. For every untold millions of games with some kind of violence in it, there is a crime commited that has a very vauge link to a game. Indeed, the media tried to blame the VA Tech schooting on video games much like you are now. Testimony from his roommate and others proved he rarely played games.

And regarding your glory case of the murder of Stefan Pakeerah:

"The tabloid press, in particular the extremist right-wing Daily Mail newspaper, have already been heavily criticised for ignoring the police reports and prosecution statements which gave the motive for the murder as robbery, with LeBlanc killing his younger friend in order to pay back a drugs-related debt. Few tabloid stories made any mention of the drugs angle."

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=3918

Drugs, eh? So the drugs had nothing to do with it I suppose. The game was also in the possession of the victim, not the killer.

"the Judge, defence, prosecution and Leicester (http://kotaku.com/gaming/leicester/) police all emphasised that Manhunt played no part in the case".

From the BBFC on Manhunt (not 2):

But a British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) spokeswoman said banning violent games was "using a very large sledgehammer to crack a very small nut".



A statement said: "For a game to be banned the BBFC would have to have very clear evidence that it was a cause of potential harm.

"There is no evidence playing video games results in violent behaviour. There is evidence that violent people are attracted to violent material.

"Manhunt is available throughout Europe without any restrictions. The UK has one of the most restrictive regulatory regimes."

http://www.migandi.org.uk/other!/stuff/Manhunt-Murder-Outrage.htm

Please, if you can bring forth any other evidence to absolutely get everyone to believe that violent games result in violent behaviors and consequential violent ACTS please do so. All I've read is you blowing wind, not even a link to back you up. (besides that youtube link, which was just rediculous)

Keep violent games away from those who shouldn't play them. Done. Maybe if retail stores were more gung-ho about keeping them away from those who shouldn't have it instead of quaking in fear that they will have massive fines and intrusive investigations, things would change.

[Steve Green]

Getting back to Manhunt 2 specifically, it does seem that games are classified more harshly than other media by the BBFC.

I've been quite surprised what a 12A or 15 will contain in a UK film these days, and I'm trying to recall the last time an 18-rated film was cut (other than to get a lower rating).

Obviously, the fact that game is interactive must have some bearing on this, but I wonder if they have some kind of rules for working it out.

What I've found a bit odd about this whole affair is that it wasn't a next-gen game that triggered it. I was expecting it to be a high-end PC/360/PS3 game to trigger this response from the BBFC.

- Steve

[Lyr]

Score another one for the thought police. You've got smoking bans and now a game ban!

R.I.P western civilization.

[fuss]

Score another one for the thought police. You've got smoking bans and now a game ban!

R.I.P western civilization.

Wait, there's a difference between banning smoking in public places and banning a computer game. Smoking cigarettes IS harmful and by doing it in public you expose other people around you to its negative effects, without giving them any choice to avoid it, whether they want it or not. It's not quite the same as playing a computer game behind your own four walls. But anyway, this thread is not about smoking, so let's not derail it (and yeah, I am aware that I am potentially fostering just that by this very posting :rolleyes: ).

[NME-Se7eN]

I guess I'm stuck replying, mainly because I have a preorder.

A. Scientific evidence does suggest violence imagery does have an effect on peoples aggressiveness in the short term. But that's the key word, short term. How short? Longest last effects have been 3 minutes. Someone, that puts the "games made me kill" on a very rushed timer. I mean, have you tried to kill someone? Getting a gun, loading a gun, finding something to strangle someone with. Hate to be sick about this but let's face it. 3 minutes tops. There's a stretch not even Reed Richards could accomplish. So next time you bring up "mounting evidence," take more time to read this evidence. Otherwise all your arguement is good for is drinking conversations with good old Jack Thompson.

B. Violent people are attracted to violent media. Period. The fact that a killer played Doom (Columbine) or wrote horribly violent fiction (Virginia Tech), it's merely circumstance that their media choice was whatever. Violent people love violent imagery. Coincidence does not equal causality and that's where this entire arguement falls apart.

C. The original manhunt was over the top in violence. Yes. But it was also a very dark and deep stealth based game. And in case you missed the entire point, you're not SUPPOSED to be "ok" with the imagery. Manhunt was supposed to disturb you. Just as Manhunt 2 is supposed to disturb you.

D. Whether you guys like it or not, this isn't too far from what Wii has ALREADY been doing, just in a gorier wrapping. Spinal column rips? Mortal Kombat. Did you think hitting enemies with a sword in Zelda just sent them to time out? And let's not forget the "roughing up" sequences in Godfather. We've already been here with this game, just not in this realistic of a packaging. You take a stance against this game, I get to laugh my ass off at you people as all they leave you with is Boogie to play.

Now, I'm not saying this game isn't disturbing, because it is. But as an old school fan of hellraiser movies, I don't see a big deal. Will I let kids play this? No. But should I be denied the right to play it just because some people object to it? Absolutely not. I mean, as horrible as that video looks, I remember the puzzle box suspending someone with chains while electrocuting them. And who do you play in this game? Sorry, not an italian plumber. You play a guy who has been tortured and trained to kill for longer than he remembers. He's making a break for freedom while his tormentors persue. Narratively, these are not good guys by any means.

But, whatever. If you guys want to piss on one of the most socially disturbing pieces of media since Clockwork Orange, go ahead and do it. Just don't complain when you gave the inch that allowed the mile. If Manhunt 2 really offends you, don't buy it. The message would go to rockstar through lack of sales. But all this hubbub? Only makes it more popular.

[siouxfire]

RockStar have put out this statement:

"We are disappointed with the recent decision by the British Board of Film Classification to refuse classification of Manhunt 2. While we respect the authority of the classification board and will abide by the rules, we emphatically disagree with this particular decision.

"Manhunt 2 is an entertainment experience for fans of psychological thrillers and horror. The subject matter of this game is in line with other mainstream entertainment choices for adult consumers.

"We respect those who have different opinions about the horror genre and video games as a whole, but we hope they will also consider the opinions of the adult gamers for whom this product is intended. We believe all products should be rated to allow the public to make informed choices about the media and art they wish to consume. The stories in modern video games are as diverse as the stories in books, film and television. The adult consumers who would play this game fully understand that it is fictional interactive entertainment and nothing more."

[Big_E.D.]

I guess I'm stuck replying, mainly because I have a preorder.

A. Scientific evidence does suggest violence imagery does have an effect on peoples aggressiveness in the short term. But that's the key word, short term. How short? Longest last effects have been 3 minutes. Someone, that puts the "games made me kill" on a very rushed timer. I mean, have you tried to kill someone? Getting a gun, loading a gun, finding something to strangle someone with. Hate to be sick about this but let's face it. 3 minutes tops. There's a stretch not even Reed Richards could accomplish. So next time you bring up "mounting evidence," take more time to read this evidence. Otherwise all your arguement is good for is drinking conversations with good old Jack Thompson.

B. Violent people are attracted to violent media. Period. The fact that a killer played Doom (Columbine) or wrote horribly violent fiction (Virginia Tech), it's merely circumstance that their media choice was whatever. Violent people love violent imagery. Coincidence does not equal causality and that's where this entire arguement falls apart.

C. The original manhunt was over the top in violence. Yes. But it was also a very dark and deep stealth based game. And in case you missed the entire point, you're not SUPPOSED to be "ok" with the imagery. Manhunt was supposed to disturb you. Just as Manhunt 2 is supposed to disturb you.

D. Whether you guys like it or not, this isn't too far from what Wii has ALREADY been doing, just in a gorier wrapping. Spinal column rips? Mortal Kombat. Did you think hitting enemies with a sword in Zelda just sent them to time out? And let's not forget the "roughing up" sequences in Godfather. We've already been here with this game, just not in this realistic of a packaging. You take a stance against this game, I get to laugh my ass off at you people as all they leave you with is Boogie to play.

Now, I'm not saying this game isn't disturbing, because it is. But as an old school fan of hellraiser movies, I don't see a big deal. Will I let kids play this? No. But should I be denied the right to play it just because some people object to it? Absolutely not. I mean, as horrible as that video looks, I remember the puzzle box suspending someone with chains while electrocuting them. And who do you play in this game? Sorry, not an italian plumber. You play a guy who has been tortured and trained to kill for longer than he remembers. He's making a break for freedom while his tormentors persue. Narratively, these are not good guys by any means.

But, whatever. If you guys want to piss on one of the most socially disturbing pieces of media since Clockwork Orange, go ahead and do it. Just don't complain when you gave the inch that allowed the mile. If Manhunt 2 really offends you, don't buy it. The message would go to rockstar through lack of sales. But all this hubbub? Only makes it more popular.

All well said.

[leigh]

NME-Se7eN, if I knew your address, I'd send you a bag of lollipops for that great post.

[NME-Se7eN]

Here's a gameplay video for it.
http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=66505

I personally think the extra sick way to kill done in cutscene is totally unnecessary. I really can understand why it's banned.

Okay, just watched this video....

Ummm... that was the big deal? It was over soooo quickly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0ye7e41X5k

[Apoclypse]

If you're going to continue with this childish approach instead of actually making the effort to engage in a sensible debate, then you can refrain from posting here right now.

Your remark was uncalled for, not to mention contradictory. You're insinuating that since I wasn't a part of the murder investigation, that my opinion is invalidated. By your own reasoning, your own opinion is therefore invalidated as well, by your own lack of involvement. I posted my opinion based on my own experiences in the last 28 years as a human being.

And I absolutely stand by what I said, as would any rational person. Normal people don't pick up a game, and suddenly become killers. There has to be something wrong with the person to drive them to murder. You simply cannot argue with this. Games don't turn people into murderers, and anyone who says they do is simply using games as a cheap scapegoat for the wider problems in society today. You cannot blame a game for a murder because then you're simply helping to propagate the problem that is inherent within society by denying that it's there. Censorship silences rational debate, and exacerbates this phenomenon.

I personally don't agree with you. The media glamourizes violence to the point where it's cool to think about violent acts. That guy over there piss you off? Yeah think about that really cool scene (insert movie) where that guy had that shotgun in his coat and took out that guy who gave him that dirty look, except you are the guy with the shotgun. That girl over there not looking your way, Snooty bitch should know you are thinking about (insert movie) where that guy grabbed that girl by the throat and smacked her around a bit. Yous see we live in a society wher violence is cool. An example, when I was in high school wrestling was the thing and kids would actually pile drive each other in the lunch room. Were these kids unbalanced? No, they were stupid and I'm willing to wager that most people are and seperating reality from fiction isn't something that we are trained to do.

Manhunt glamourizes killing and takes it a step further by making it seem like you are on tv and by giving you points for killing. A terribly stupid person will think, I wonder if I did that what that would feel like. The person does not have to be unbalanced, just incredibly stupid and uninformed. That's all it takes and there are many cases of pure horrors where it all comes down to those things, stupidity and naivete. Guess who are usually involved with such things, yes the young and stupid and naive.

Video games CAN be blamed for violence because they are part of the bombardment of the media trying to make a quick buck on selling violence and sex. Both are rampant in our society and all are sold to our children for profit.

[leigh]

No, they were stupid and I'm willing to wager that most people are and seperating reality from fiction isn't something that we are trained to do.

While I personally share your sentiment that most people are a bit thick, I thoroughly, wholehearedly disagree with your statement about reality and fiction. It's one of the first things we learn - the difference between reality and fantasy. Most people, regardless of how stupid they may be, know the difference, and know that killing people is against the law. If they choose to do it, it's because they're missing a bolt somewhere, and probably don't care about the law. It's not because they saw it in a game.

People either have violent tendencies, or they don't. Whether that's genetic or due to psychological damage or whatever - this is what is needed to create a criminal. If games/films/music/books/other media portraying violence made people violent, then we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more crime. People are quick to forget that the vast, vast majority of people who play video games are not criminals, and do not go out on a shooting rampage after playing Doom.

I come from an extraordinarily violent country, and consider myself very sensitive to violence as a result. This is why I personally choose not to play games like this, because I find it distasteful. But censorship is not a solution.

I'll end off by repeating this from NME-Se7eN:

Violent people love violent imagery. Coincidence does not equal causality and that's where this entire arguement falls apart.

[Apoclypse]

Now, Writing all that above. I do want to make one point very clear. Parent's are as much to blame for this as the creators of the content. Parents should at least be aware of what their children are doing. It's not always possible but the child will notice the effort and may take conscience of what they are doing. Just letting the child do whatever they want, which is what usually happens nowadays, will give a spoiled, attention starved, unbalanced child. Note how most of that seems to apply to Paris Hilton, who's parents I'm nearly a 99.9% sure, were neglectfull.

[Apoclypse]

While I personally share your sentiment that most people are a bit thick, I thoroughly, wholehearedly disagree with your statement about reality and fiction. It's one of the first things we learn - the difference between reality and fantasy. Most people, regardless of how stupid they may be, know the difference, and know that killing people is against the law. If they choose to do it, it's because they don't care about the law. It's not because they saw it in a game.

People either have violent tendencies, or they don't. Whether that's genetic or due to psychological damage or whatever - this is what is needed to create a criminal. If games/films/music/books/other media portraying violence made people violent, then we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more crime. People are quick to forget that the vast, vast majority of people who play video games are not criminals, and do not go out on a shooting rampage after playing Doom.

I come from an extraordinarily violent country, and consider myself very sensitive to violence as a result. This is why I personally choose not to play games like this, because I find it distasteful. But censorship is not a solution.

if that were true more people would seperate what they see on tv from the real facts, and trust me propoganda works and very well, be it a government covering up its follies, a new fragrance that came out that tells you will definately get some if you wear it, or a person you've seen on t.v. for half your life that you think you know. Do you really know that person, do you know George Clooney? Most people believe they know what type of person he is by what they see on t.v. and read in tabloids, I don't believe that peole can seperate fact from fiction. An example, there was this movie a few years back where some guys would lay down in the middle of the highway while cars roled by at high speed. Guess what, peole tried it and died for it. Stupidity, naivite, the main cause of adoloscent tragedy.

I also beg to differ on that quote you posted ont he bottom. There seem to be way too many coincedences that any smart person wouldn't see a pattern. Casuality can be attributed to vioolent imagery in the media, and any one who denies that is turning a blind eye to what i think is obvious. I liek you DON'T like censorship. However, that doesn't mean I don't know what the effects are of our media on our society.

[leigh]

Brainwashing through propaganda and playing a video game are apples and oranges. You simply cannot compare these two.

Most people naively believe what they see on TV, because it's being presented to them as fact. When you buy a video game, you know it's fiction. Just like you know that the violent acts in the game are against the law.

I'm sorry but your argument is fundamentally flawed.

[ingramworks]

Apoclypse, while I see your point, the world cannot be expected to save stupid people or have their rights forfeited to protect them. If a person is stupid enough not to seperate fantasy from reality, no amount of hand holding is going to help them. Basically, both their community and parents have failed them by not giving them the chance to learn the difference.

[UrbanFuturistic]

1) Those who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality are classified as psychotic and sectioned. It follows that there cannot be that many people who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

2) If over one million people buy a game and all of two of them go on a shooting spree, it's as likely a cause as the brand of milk those two drank.

3) Seeing something claimed on the news (especially in the USA) does not make it true; Jack Thompson was on Fox News as an 'expert' claiming computer games were to blame for the VT shootings before they'd even identified the killer. The same Jack Thompson is renowned for his aggressive, threatening behaviour and has been disbarred in several US states. Ironic or just plain hypocritical? You tell me.

4) This all goes back to the same cycle that was had with penny dreadfuls and video nasties. Incidentally, the banning of certain videos in the UK was pushed forward when the gutter press claimed that a man who massacred kids at a school then shot himself had been influenced by horror films from a local video store. They never did quite explain how he watched any of these videos without a VCR or a rental store membership. He did, however, have a sizeable collection of military history books and a membership at the local gun club. As other's have tried to explain, psychos will always find an outlet.

[Apoclypse]

Brainwashing through propaganda and playing a video game are apples and oranges. You simply cannot compare these two.

Most people naively believe what they see on TV, because it's being presented to them as fact. When you buy a video game, you know it's fiction. Just like you know that the violent acts in the game are against the law.

I'm sorry but your argument is fundamentally flawed.

they are not apples and oranges because both use the same method to get the masses to buy into the product. Both use glamorization to propogate the mythos into history. Yes those are large words to describe advertisement but I'm willing to go as far as saying that propoganda is just another form of advertisement. You are looking at it from point of this game alone, I'm looking at it as a steady streaming of violent imagery that will get a reaction from any society if they are exposed to it long enough. We are beign brain washed and the effects are long over due. Not to say that there will be mass histeria or anything, nor am I saying that all this is new. Human history shows that violence is our creed. In fact I think the reason we have such violence in our media is because of the restrictions we have in acting these tendencies out so the alternative is to see it in our media.

[Apoclypse]

Apoclypse, while I see your point, the world cannot be expected to save stupid people or have their rights forfeited to protect them. If a person is stupid enough not to seperate fantasy from reality, no amount of hand holding is going to help them. Basically, both their community and parents have failed them by not giving them the chance to learn the difference.

Again, these are not adults we are talking about, it is our duty and out job to show the young that there is a difference between what is real and what is not. When a child has basically had a T.V. for a day care most of it's life, its kind of hard to teach them otherwise.

[NME-Se7eN]

A terribly stupid person will think, I wonder if I did that what that would feel like.

And just like that, I'm reminded of when a Bugs Bunny cartoon was blamed when a child shot his friend.

You said it yourself, a terribly stupid person will have a problem discerning fantasy from reality, but can the ESRB really help that? For a child, fantasy and reality stop blurring around the age of 8-10. Certainly that's the spot to keep such media out of their hands. Meanwhile, for an adult to have a problem between fantasy and reality, that's a whole other matter and banning a video game will not solve the problem. After all, what's to stop him from reading American Psycho and throwing chainsaws into the backs of women? Or even worse, reading Bentley Little's University and believing "lunging" is perfectly acceptable to do to a little girl.

Why those examples? Because at a public debate on this subject at my local library, a woman actively campaigning against GTA was stating that GTA should be banned but any child of any age should be allowed to borrow those books because they are, in fact, literature.

It's a double standard you are enforcing. To answer an analogy earlier in this thread, would I trust being locked in a room with 20 people playing Manhunt 2 for a couple hours? Truthfully, yes, I would. Because the odds of someone being the tiny, microscopic fraction of our society that is easily lead by the media they partake in is sooo remotely small, that I feel I would be safe. Or to put in another way which applies to real life, I play FPS games all the time with two guys who own, fire, and collect real life firearms. Never once has the thought crossed my mind that they'll be the people to shoot me because of the games we play.

[leigh]

Apoclypse, read odubtaig's post carefully. He explained perfectly everything that I, in my current sleepy state, cannot. Suffice to say I still feel your argument is thoroughly flawed. Violence was around long before TV, video games and other mass media.

[Garibaldi]

Again, these are not adults we are talking about, it is our duty and out job to show the young that there is a difference between what is real and what is not. When a child has basically had a T.V. for a day care most of it's life, its kind of hard to teach them otherwise.

OMG! Think about the CHILDREN!

So now the rest of us have to give up our rights and freedoms because some parents are idiots?

[erilaz]

Quite frankly the debate over videogame violence will rage on for eons to come. There are too many studies for and against the subject to warrant anything conclusive.

Personally, I take Leigh's standpoint. Although there are demonstrated cases of visual violence begetting violence in small children (look up the psychologist Bandura), there are also overwhelming studies showing that violent stimuli only influence those with a violent nature, or those that have had a violent history.

Propaganda which is intentionally designed for consumers (there are textbooks on how to get inside a customer's head) is entirely different to violence as a form of entertainment.

[Nightez]

in the end this is all about censorship, plain and simple. Does the government have the right to tell me, a law abiding, tax-paying adult, what I can and can't play? If I want to play Manhunt or Neo-Pets, it's my choice. I should NEVER have that choice made for me.
There are limits in society placed on everything. I personally wouldnt mind if racist material got banned from general release. Its counter productive. Same with Manhunt 2 with its encouragment of random acts of visceral mass killing. The goal in Manhunt is to kill as much as possible and nothing else.

[Apoclypse]

And just like that, I'm reminded of when a Bugs Bunny cartoon was blamed when a child shot his friend.

You said it yourself, a terribly stupid person will have a problem discerning fantasy from reality, but can the ESRB really help that? For a child, fantasy and reality stop blurring around the age of 8-10. Certainly that's the spot to keep such media out of their hands. Meanwhile, for an adult to have a problem between fantasy and reality, that's a whole other matter and banning a video game will not solve the problem. After all, what's to stop him from reading American Psycho and throwing chainsaws into the backs of women? Or even worse, reading Bentley Little's University and believing "lunging" is perfectly acceptable to do to a little girl.

Why those examples? Because at a public debate on this subject at my local library, a woman actively campaigning against GTA was stating that GTA should be banned but any child of any age should be allowed to borrow those books because they are, in fact, literature.

It's a double standard you are enforcing. To answer an analogy earlier in this thread, would I trust being locked in a room with 20 people playing Manhunt 2 for a couple hours? Truthfully, yes, I would. Because the odds of someone being the tiny, microscopic fraction of our society that is easily lead by the media they partake in is sooo remotely small, that I feel I would be safe. Or to put in another way which applies to real life, I play FPS games all the time with two guys who own, fire, and collect real life firearms. Never once has the thought crossed my mind that they'll be the people to shoot me because of the games we play.

I don't remember stating i'm against keeping books like those described form the hands of children. That is why there are adult sections and children scetions. No double standard, violent content is violent content, I don't care where it's from or what form.

[Apoclypse]

OMG! Think about the CHILDREN!

So now the rest of us have to give up our rights and freedoms because some parents are idiots?

I say yes, but that is your choice.

No not really. I want the parents to do their job I meant our duty as a scoiety not as individuals.

[NME-Se7eN]

We are beign brain washed and the effects are long over due. Not to say that there will be mass histeria or anything, nor am I saying that all this is new. Human history shows that violence is our creed. In fact I think the reason we have such violence in our media is because of the restrictions we have in acting these tendencies out so the alternative is to see it in our media.

The effects are long overdue? I don't knwo the stats from most countries but youth violence and gun crime has been steadily decreasing since the introduction of video games. In fact, a record low in the US was in the very same year GTA:SA was supposed to drive people killing into the street.

So my official stance? If false violence continues to reduce real violence, where is the downside?

[grrinc]

Rockstar have been sinking lower and lower since the GTA franchise started to get dull. This stuff sells, and mainly to kids, as we saw with the GTA series. The 18+ option would only work if it was enforceable, but it isnt. I wouldn't wish job losses on anyone, but I hope Rockstar really suffer for this. I notice it has been banned in other countries too.

A personal note - I think a 21 rating should be introduced. 18 year olds are often no more maturer than 15 year olds.

[Apoclypse]

Boy, this is far more serious than I like. I don't usually like going this far with my opinions.

[Apoclypse]

The effects are long overdue? I don't knwo the stats from most countries but youth violence and gun crime has been steadily decreasing since the introduction of video games. In fact, a record low in the US was in the very same year GTA:SA was supposed to drive people killing into the street.

So my official stance? If false violence continues to reduce real violence, where is the downside?

Well my position wasn't to show that it will breed more violence, but that there are violent acts related to the media. If what you say is true, and I do believe you, that still still doesn't mean that there aren't acts inspired by the media, and not all of them from the unbalanced few. That was my point in all that long windedness, not necessarily that violence has increased.

[Ordibble-Plop]

To be a devil's advocate for a moment, but this thread seems to be riven by a large inconsistency.

Why is it that people are against censorship in general, but are not against banning the sale of such games to people under 18, which is effectively censorship directed at a particular age group?

Is this just adherence to a social dictum that says that in public discourse one must not be seen to be proposing anything that has even the slightest possibility of affecting our children? Or do you really believe that playing such games can have a negative impact on children and how they interact with society?

If the latter, why is it then that once hitting the magic age of 18, playing such games no longer has such a negative impact?

Personally, I am all for protecting innocence and nurturing creative and compassionate people, but I find the logic of the argument that a cutoff point of 18 years will contain any potential issues to be arbitrary and inconsistent with the idea that video games do not in any way shape minds.

[NME-Se7eN]

Well my position wasn't to show that it will breed more violence, but that there are violent acts related to the media. If what you say is true, and I do believe you, that still still doesn't mean that there aren't acts inspired by the media, and not all of them from the unbalanced few. That was my point in all that long windedness, not necessarily that violence has increased.

So what you are saying is we should limit the media in fear/concern of that one in 10 million that WILL be effected by this. Can't honestly say I agree. You never punish and stifle a majority in fear of a minority. And if anything, Virginia Tech has taught us that violent media has a remote connection to a killer, not an influencing connection. As we learned once people were done pointing fingers, Cho was not an active partaker of violent media. In fact, aside from a couple months in high school of Counter Strike, he remained fairly removed from the violence in the media. HOWEVER, what he created was a whole other story. As an example, this is one of his plays, Richard McBeef. Read it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html

Now keep in mind, he didn NOT play violent video games, he did NOT gravitate towards violent media. He created it, rather poorly as well but it's a bit of a drag critiquing the art stylings of a mass murderer.

Now, violent video games, movies, tv shows, and even books could have all not existed and we would still be here, with Cho and his 37 kills, wondering what we should limit next.

[siouxfire]

There are limits in society placed on everything. I personally wouldnt mind if racist material got banned from general release.
But you see, that's sweeping it under the carpet. The real problem is still there and in this example, you're differentiating between who can and can not have access to free speech. Now that's a line that shouldn't be crossed and is far more dangerous than a few bigots preaching to bigots, and a videogame.

I don't want to buy the game; I find the marketing on RockStar's site extremely offensive and misogynistic but I'm not going to buy it just like I'm not going to shell out for the latest nazi handbook.

Criticize it, ignore it, burn an effigy in your garden... but don't ban it.

[Toems]

There are limits in society placed on everything. I personally wouldnt mind if racist material got banned from general release. Its counter productive. Same with Manhunt 2 with its encouragment of random acts of visceral mass killing. The goal in Manhunt is to kill as much as possible and nothing else.

IGN description:
The sequel to Rockstar's sinister action game about a man who wakes up in a living nightmare where he is being stalked for sport and must sneak through the shadows and kill by whatever means he can devise in order to fight his way out. The sequel picks up with a new lead character, new gangs, a new storyline with gruesome twists and turns, and much more.


Manhunt isn't about killing as much as possible... it's about sneaking around to get out of the place using self defense when someone else tries to kill you. :shrug:

[Apoclypse]

So what you are saying is we should limit the media in fear/concern of that one in 10 million that WILL be effected by this. Can't honestly say I agree. You never punish and stifle a majority in fear of a minority. And if anything, Virginia Tech has taught us that violent media has a remote connection to a killer, not an influencing connection. As we learned once people were done pointing fingers, Cho was not an active partaker of violent media. In fact, aside from a couple months in high school of Counter Strike, he remained fairly removed from the violence in the media. HOWEVER, what he created was a whole other story. As an example, this is one of his plays, Richard McBeef. Read it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html

Now keep in mind, he didn NOT play violent video games, he did NOT gravitate towards violent media. He created it, rather poorly as well but it's a bit of a drag critiquing the art stylings of a mass murderer.

Now, violent video games, movies, tv shows, and even books could have all not existed and we would still be here, with Cho and his 37 kills, wondering what we should limit next.

Again, you are presenting me somone who was unbalanced. i'm talking about stupid kids who do stupid thing they se on tv and videogames. Namely the manhunt killer. We already know Cho wasn't sane in the head. Personally i think he just needed to get laid, but I might be wrong.

[NME-Se7eN]

To be a devil's advocate for a moment, but this thread seems to be riven by a large inconsistency.

Why is it that people are against censorship in general, but are not against banning the sale of such games to people under 18, which is effectively censorship directed at a particular age group?

Is this just adherence to a social dictum that says that in public discourse one must not be seen to be proposing anything that has even the slightest possibility of affecting our children? Or do you really believe that playing such games can have a negative impact on children and how they interact with society?

If the latter, why is it then that once hitting the magic age of 18, playing such games no longer has such a negative impact?

I think, as a guy who was just informed that his preorder is cancelled because of the AO rating, I can offer up some answer to your question.

Truthfully? No defined age can be set to tell when someone is truly mature enough to handle violent media. But in a day and age where cashiers cannot even be bothered to check signatures or ID on large credit card purchases, we can't exactly expect cashiers to read through an advanced psychological report of anyone willing to buy these games. We could institute a program close to the FOID system where people DO have to go through basic psychological testing but even that would be disasterous.

And so, our society, in efforts of convenience set sweeping age limits. Truthfully, as a child (I consider myself a child still around the age of 11), I was mature enough for Hellraiser and Mortal Kombat. Not everyone was so lucky. And so it ultimately fell upon my parental units to decide what was and was not appropriate. For the most part, they did good. But not everyone has good parents and likewise, sweeping age limits on certain activities are a necessary evil. If I had a child who was 13 and he showed the maturity level to handle such games, I would buy it, but watch him closely. Whereas, if he did not have the maturity level, he simply would not receive the game until he either DID have the maturity, or I could no longer stop him from partaking of it.

So the age system is not really a way of stopping or imposing a limit upon the child to partake in the media, but forcing the parents into a position where THEY have to decide what is and is not appropriate.

[Big_E.D.]

There are limits in society placed on everything. I personally wouldnt mind if racist material got banned from general release. Its counter productive. Same with Manhunt 2 with its encouragment of random acts of visceral mass killing. The goal in Manhunt is to kill as much as possible and nothing else.

Have you even PLAYED Manhunt? I don't mean to advocate the game, as its each individual's choice to play it or not, but go play it and honestly tell me again that that is all you got from the game. Whole levels could be played without any killing involved.

To be a devil's advocate for a moment, but this thread seems to be riven by a large inconsistency.

Why is it that people are against censorship in general, but are not against banning the sale of such games to people under 18, which is effectively censorship directed at a particular age group?

Is this just adherence to a social dictum that says that in public discourse one must not be seen to be proposing anything that has even the slightest possibility of affecting our children? Or do you really believe that playing such games can have a negative impact on children and how they interact with society?

If the latter, why is it then that once hitting the magic age of 18, playing such games no longer has such a negative impact?

Personally, I am all for protecting innocence and nurturing creative and compassionate people, but I find the logic of the argument that a cutoff point of 18 years will contain any potential issues to be arbitrary and inconsistent with the idea that video games do not in any way shape minds.

The ESRB ratings were initally to inform PARENTS of the contents of the game. They could purchase the game despite the ratings, which I believe is the right thing to do.

Perhaps earleir I should have elaborated: banning of sales of mature games to minors who seek to purchase WITHOUT parental consent. Not adult consent, PARENTAL/GUARDIAN. Not just some adult they can trust who will vouch for them, but the people RESPONSIBLE for them.

Without that agreement by the parents (which I believe should be legally binding so the parents don't go blaming anything on the game company or retailer) games should not come into the hands of minors/ignorant folk who don't know the difference between pixels and flesh.

After all that, it is the PARENT'S responsibility to make sure the one playing the game understands that it is fiction and that what they are doing is entirely wrong in the real world. This was grilled into my mind when I was young, by parents that knew games were my hobby interest. They didn't neglect me or ignore me either. That is what is important. Too many parents throw games at their kids to keep them happy and away so they aren't bothersome.

Replace that ban with a law stating that every mature game purchased laces the parents in direct responsibilty for any influence gained. Games are a form of entertainment as long as you are made to understand that this is what they are.

[NME-Se7eN]

Again, you are presenting me somone who was unbalanced. i'm talking about stupid kids who do stupid thing they se on tv and videogames. Namely the manhunt killer. We already know Cho wasn't sane in the head. Personally i think he just needed to get laid, but I might be wrong.

You keep jumping back to this Manhunt killer. Were you aware Gran Turismo was being blamed for a rise in reckless driving among teenagers in the UK? So you'd also be aware that Harry Potter is being blamed for a rise in atheism among certain states. That AD&D was once blamed for teenage suicide. And that Final Fantasy VII was blamed for those two german kids who kidnapped that teenage girl.

If your stance is that we need to keep this violent media out of the hands of young kids, I'm right there with you. At a young age, fantasy and reality blur. But the human brain matures, the line becomes sharper and sharper until finally, there is a distinction. Once that distinction is made, media becomes safe, but only while being monitored and controlled by the parents.

But if your stance is that violent media leads to causality, then I'm afraid you walk this path alone. I'm fairly certain this manhunt killer was not a level headed being. Just as I'm certain Michael Carneal was not shaped into a killer by Doom, but rather from years of abuse by his peers leading to the development of becoming a paranoid schitzophrenic and a taste of hatred towards organized religion due to being an abused atheist in a bible belt school. Doom was merely coincidence. But I do present to you a challenge.

Find me a killer that was linked to violent media that doesn't have an "unbalanced profile." Because everything I've seen, I never asked "what did he watch" but rather "who was he" and I've never failed to find this stuff yet.

[Apoclypse]

Have you even PLAYED Manhunt? I don't mean to advocate the game, as its each individual's choice to play it or not, but go play it and honestly tell me again that that is all you got from the game. Whole levels could be played without any killing involved.



The ESRB ratings were initally to inform PARENTS of the contents of the game. They could purchase the game despite the ratings, which I believe is the right thing to do.

Perhaps earleir I should have elaborated: banning of sales of mature games to minors who seek to purchase WITHOUT parental consent. Not adult consent, PARENTAL/GUARDIAN. Not just some adult they can trust who will vouch for them, but the people RESPONSIBLE for them.

Without that agreement by the parents (which I believe should be legally binding so the parents don't go blaming anything on the game company or retailer) games should not come into the hands of minors/ignorant folk who don't know the difference between pixels and flesh.

After all that, it is the PARENT'S responsibility to make sure the one playing the game understands that it is fiction and that what they are doing is entirely wrong in the real world. This was grilled into my mind when I was young, by parents that knew games were my hobby interest. They didn't neglect me or ignore me either. That is what is important. Too many parents throw games at their kids to keep them happy and away so they aren't bothersome.

Replace that ban with a law stating that every mature game purchased laces the parents in direct responsibilty for any influence gained. Games are a form of entertainment as long as you are made to understand that this is what they are.

Actually that whole parent thing is a great idea.

[kees]

Leigh (and other forum staff),

I hope not to mass insult all forum staff here as I mean this comment in the good spirit of friendly exchange of opinions ;) , but:

If you are against banning a game, you should probably also stop banning certain posts in threads on CGsociety, because you are deciding for the entire 'cg society' that the topic is not appropriate for this society.

Banning a game in the UK is not all that different.
The law makers determine it is not an item they want in their society and they have been given the power by the people to make those decisions.

They simply feel that the game in question reduces the quality of their society, just like you may feel certain posts reduce the experience people may have at cgSociety.

All you can do is vote for somebody in government who shares your view as closely as possible I guess.

[siouxfire]

Well, it's not exactly the same. If you were at a discussion and the same question kept getting asked again and again, you'd want the moderator to do something about it. And if someone else kept standing up and asking "how much does a piece of string earn?"... well, you get my point. I haven't seen anything deleted on these forums that wasn't either pointless or discussed ad nauseum or wildly off topic.

I don't think it's about stifling discussion as much as moderation of conversation just like in the real world during real life forums.

And residents in the UK don't get a chance to vote in the BBFC.

[NME-Se7eN]

Leigh (and other forum staff),

If you are against banning a game, you should probably also stop banning certain posts in threads on CGsociety, because you are deciding for the entire 'cg society' that the topic is not appropriate for this society.

Ahhh, but here is the difference. When you signed up for your account, you agreed to adhere to certain terms of service. Meanwhile, in a society, you don't agree to rules as soon as you are born. The TOS is to maintain a harmony amongst the community. A community you CHOSE to belong to. And from what I could tell, even when someone was up on Leigh's face, the moderators still remained fairly balanced. For the most part, the rules are simple.

1. Do not advocate piracy. Lots of members and even community leaders make their bread through the sales of software and media. You don't exactly announce to the greeter at Wal-mart that you intend to steal from them and expect to still be allowed to hang out in the store, do you?

2. Do not flame fellow members or troll. Once again, fairly easy to understand. You can disagree without insulting and an open debate is often very refreshing. I don't agree with many opinions in this thread, but I will not call them ignorant because of that.

And those are it. Every moderated offense can be summed up to those two. And people can CHOOSE whether they agree to the rules of this forum or move along to another.

[grrinc]

And residents in the UK don't get a chance to vote in the BBFC.


Tis' true. They are independent. They also have my respect. They have a difficult job in a country that nurtures and prizes its creativity - especially since controversy sells.

I imagine, regardless of thier duty to look at each item objectively and on a case by case basis, they took into consideration Rockstars continuing decline in moral standards, and the fact that the rating system is a complete failure in the UK.

[Ordibble-Plop]

And residents in the UK don't get a chance to vote in the BBFC.

They are an independent body, which is good as it limits political medling.

However, as their website says, "Statutory powers on film remain with the local councils, which may overrule any of the Board's decisions, passing films we reject, banning films we have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction."

So if anyone dislikes the decisions they make, they should write to their local councillor.

[tuna]

If you are against banning a game, you should probably also stop banning certain posts in threads on CGsociety, because you are deciding for the entire 'cg society' that the topic is not appropriate for this society.


I guess the best way to explain it to you is to put it in terms of personal property. You can kick someone out of your own house for any reason you want. A server is a piece of personal property. You can deny or allow access to anyone you want for whatever reasons. It isn't the same thing as an entire country.

[edit] Also the ramifications of both differ in extremes. Banning all political debate in cgtalk isn't exactly like banning all political debate in the UK, you really can't seriously compare the two.

[siouxfire]

They are an independent body, which is good as it limits political medling.

However, as their website says, "Statutory powers on film remain with the local councils, which may overrule any of the Board's decisions, passing films we reject, banning films we have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction."

So if anyone dislikes the decisions they make, they should write to their local councillor.
That used to happen quite a lot, but it's getting rarer and rarer. Also the restriction to a single council doesn't mean much as the product itself will just be a few bus stops away. Even with the full ban on this game, it's freely available in the rest of Europe which essentially means it's going to be on the streets on London in no time.

[NME-Se7eN]

I really got to do this. Which is more cruel and violent?

Mortal Kombat Armegeddon
Ripping off the arms, ripping out the pelvis, ripping out the heart, stabbing with a sword, headbutting, roundhousing, double axechop, kicking to the face, punching to the face, punching to the face once more, twisting around and breaking the neck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrU7Wkfb1S4

Manhunt 2
A violent punching the the genetalia, and a ripping out of the spine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHO529esQ5U

[kees]

And from what I could tell, even when someone was up on Leigh's face, the moderators still remained fairly balanced.

I never meant to say anything else. Leigh and other cgtalk staff are awesome.
By your reply it feels a bit like you are suggesting I meant to say they are unfair, and that's not what I intended at all. I also have no problem with the rules set by cgSociety I think it is working well.

I think your point of saying I joined cgtalked and you don't join society are valid.

But that would mean there really shouldn't be ANY rules or restrictions in society because I was 'forced' to join society. That is (luckily) not the way it works.

The members of a society determine its rules, whether it is voluntairy or not. It is just something you have to accept and the only way to influence it is by voting.
(at least in this part of the world)

The people in the UK have choosen their government, the government has choosen this system to determine what items should enter their society. Vote differently if you disagree.

And in that sense society is actually more fair then CGSociety.
I know of no way to really vote for different rules in cgSociety, but I do know how I can vote for different rules in human society.

Anyway... its getting a bit of topic. My point was meerly to point out that people are often quick to determine they don't want any of such restrictions on society, but often forget the restrictions they induce themselves.

[Big_E.D.]

Tis' true. They are independent. They also have my respect. They have a difficult job in a country that nurtures and prizes its creativity - especially since controversy sells.

I imagine, regardless of thier duty to look at each item objectively and on a case by case basis, they took into consideration Rockstars continuing decline in moral standards, and the fact that the rating system is a complete failure in the UK.

The same was said about Steven King's use of language and his unending fixation on horror, gore, and macabre. The same could be said about certain director's continued preferrence to make slasher and gore films.

Its entertainment, and entertainment that people really enjoy at that.

Rockstar makes games that are extremely popular because they are extremently entertaining. The content is negligible unless you focus on many other forms of media entertainment as well. You cannot blame one aspect and leave the others unchecked.

[kees]

I guess the best way to explain it to you is to put it in terms of personal property. You can kick someone out of your own house for any reason you want. A server is a piece of personal property. You can deny or allow access to anyone you want for whatever reasons. It isn't the same thing as an entire country.

[edit] Also the ramifications of both differ in extremes. Banning all political debate in cgtalk isn't exactly like banning all political debate in the UK, you really can't seriously compare the two.

That example is just as flawed as me comparing CGSociety with human society.

I cannot just kick anybody out of my house for any reason I want.
I.e. If a police officer enters my house (i.e. with a search warrant) I cannot kick him/her out either. And there are various other examples.

If you think your own personal home and property is a place where you can to whatever you want, you are mistaken. The government still owns the land, you just have partial ownership while you pay land tax.

Anyway, it wasn't my point at all because this type of discussion can go on forever.
My point was to provide a simplified example of how banning happens everywhere, even by the people here who claim to be against banning items and let people decide everything for themselves. It is just not the way it works, anywhere.

[Lyr]

I know of no way to really vote for different rules in cgSociety, but I do know how I can vote for different rules in human society.



You can buy cgsociety out and change the rules to your liking. Or start up your own "cgsociety". Property rights rock:buttrock:

Anyway... its getting a bit of topic. My point was meerly to point out that people are often quick to determine they don't want any of such restrictions on society, but often forget the restrictions they induce themselves.

They aren't saying they don't want restrictions, but rather they want the choice on what to restrict left up to them individually.


Power is usurped from the people, first by implementing fear, then it is maintained by slandering as 'unpatriotic' those who refuse submission. – Ramman Kenoun

[P_T]

The same was said about Steven King's use of language and his unending fixation on horror, gore, and macabre. The same could be said about certain director's continued preferrence to make slasher and gore films.

Its entertainment, and entertainment that people really enjoy at that.

Rockstar makes games that are extremely popular because they are extremently entertaining. The content is negligible unless you focus on many other forms of media entertainment as well. You cannot blame one aspect and leave the others unchecked.One thing different is that the slashing and killing of the innocent in the film is done by the antagonist while in GTA it's done by the protagonist.

It's like this. In Castle Wolfenstein game, you play as the enemy of Nazi but do you want someone making a Nazi game that glorify white supremacists and genocide?

[Lyr]

One thing different is that the slashing and killing of the innocent in the film is done by the antagonist while in GTA it's done by the protagonist.

It's like this. In Castle Wolfenstein game, you play as the enemy of Nazi but do you want someone making a Nazi game that glorify white supremacists and genocide?

No, not many people want that kind of material fortunately. Since there is no market for that kind of material nobody is going to waste thier time and resources producing that kind of stuff.

[UrbanFuturistic]

do you want someone making a Nazi game that glorify white supremacists and genocide?Not really, but it's already been done anyway. I believe Ariel Sharon is the end of game boss.

Edit: Link to story @ Anti-Defamation League (http://www.adl.org/videogames/default.asp)

Oh, and for those still going on about the so called Manhunt killer, the victim, repeat, the victim had the game and he was killed for drug money.

Yes, the killer was unbalanced. No, the killer didn't even have a console. This has already been pointed out in this discussion.

[NME-Se7eN]

Sorry, kees. Didn't mean to sound insinuating in any way whatsoever. What I pretty much meant is you have to go pretty far to get the banhammer around these parts. Even when you break TOS. The banning of comments and topics on these boards do seem a tad unfair from the perspective of all speech is free, but it's best to consider this a private club. When you join, to agree to certain rules. When you disobey these rules, you're punished.

If someone is on your property, you have the right to kick them off. Search warrants are, of course, the exception, not the rule. Just as a store can ban you from coming in, they have rules, you broke such rules, you're not allowed there amymore. These servers and indeed this community hold rules you must abide by. You always have the choice to leave this society.

However, in reference to the banning of media or games, the only truly region free systems are handhelds and PS3. If you want to play Manhunt, you no longer HAVE that choice. You could import an entirely new console, deal with paying heavy taxes, and you'd ultimately have to ask yourself if Manhunt 2 is WORTH $500+ US dollars when all is said and done. And even if you deem it so, you've already broken the terms of service BY importing the game.

So in essence, UK players interested in Manhunt now have a very interesting question put forth. Do they want to violate EULA by importing the game, purchasing an entirely new console or even going further and buying a modchip to remove region coding. And all because some organization said NOBODY is mature enough to handle the game.

[ndat]

I don't condone with the content of the game by any means but when you start censoring things where do you draw the line and who gets to draw the line. It's kind of scary if you ask me.

[frogspasm]

One thing different is that the slashing and killing of the innocent in the film is done by the antagonist while in GTA it's done by the protagonist.

It's like this. In Castle Wolfenstein game, you play as the enemy of Nazi but do you want someone making a Nazi game that glorify white supremacists and genocide?

I guess you've never heard of the game "Ethnic Cleansing" sold by a white supremacist web site. I'm not going to link to it, you can Google it if you want.

Some sick stuff, but it still should not be censored. Even more so, I think it should be out in the open so people can see what kind of hatred goes on. Makes it easier to fight when you know it's there.

[Big_E.D.]

One thing different is that the slashing and killing of the innocent in the film is done by the antagonist while in GTA it's done by the protagonist.

It's like this. In Castle Wolfenstein game, you play as the enemy of Nazi but do you want someone making a Nazi game that glorify white supremacists and genocide?

I also failed to recognize movies like Scarface, Hannibal, Catch me if you Can, etc. In those films the bad guy is focused on. No matter the standpoint, no evil is greater or lesser than another.

And I suppose Company of Heroes should be marked as a horrible game since it allows you to play as the Axis (Nazis)? What about Day of Defeat?

I understand the 'glorifying' part, but the game is hardly glorifying killing and murder in the same way you would recognize nazi propaganda. In fact, the protagonist in Manhunt 2, a normal guy, is struggling for survival in an environment he has been thrown into and hunted down to cover up a dark secret.

[Big_E.D.]

Just to add, has everybody forgotten The Darkness? How in the hell is that game less violent or disturbing?!

[Lyr]

When the state ceases bieng the largest perpetrator of violent acts, maybe then they will have some moral ground to stand on to tell us what is "acceptable" and what isn't for society.

[Titus]

When the state ceases bieng the largest perpetrator of violent acts, maybe then they will have some moral ground to stand on to tell us what is "acceptable" and what isn't for society.

State has the legal monopoly of violence.

[P_T]

Just to add, has everybody forgotten The Darkness? How in the hell is that game less violent or disturbing?!It's no less violent to be sure, it's just harder to emulate demonic power in real life whereas any kids can find a hammer at daddy's garage to smash someone's head or a plastic bag to suffocate someone.

[NME-Se7eN]

It's no less violent to be sure, it's just harder to emulate demonic power in real life whereas any kids can find a hammer at daddy's garage to smash someone's head or a plastic bag to suffocate someone.

That's it... let's ban Tom & Jerry.

[P_T]

That's it... let's ban Tom & Jerry.Save the sarcasm. Tom & Jerry doesn't have a snuff sequence.

[Spater]

Save the sarcasm. Tom & Jerry doesn't have a snuff sequence.

a funny link for an otherwise serious discussion

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=208

[NME-Se7eN]

Save the sarcasm. Tom & Jerry doesn't have a snuff sequence.

It doesn't? Nobody ever left their bodies with angel wings and had to "be nice" to keep from going to hell? I recall a few episodes like that, actually. And unlike Manhunt, Tom & Jerry WAS actively thrown at children.

Well regardless... guess I gotta plug this. A petition encouraging Rockstar to support two SKUs.

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/manhunt2

[Apoclypse]

It doesn't? Nobody ever left their bodies with angel wings and had to "be nice" to keep from going to hell? I recall a few episodes like that, actually. And unlike Manhunt, Tom & Jerry WAS actively thrown at children.

Well regardless... guess I gotta plug this. A petition encouraging Rockstar to support two SKUs.

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/manhunt2

True, but it wasn't originally made for them. It was later pushed onto children since they like the pretty pictures. Tom and Jerry was actually shown in theaters for adults as interludes or before the main movie as most animation was done back then. Tex Avery's stuff was always aimed at adults, that should be obvious just by the content alone. If you look at early Tom and Jerry you will see that there were no gun gags, all that came later to reflect the times, later on when the show actually became for children the violence was toned down drastically. Tom and Jerry happens to be my favorite cartoon series of all time, the Tex Avery influenced ones in particular, which is why I love Droopy too. WB's stuff was also pretty racy, and that's definately not for children.

[leigh]

If you are against banning a game, you should probably also stop banning certain posts in threads on CGsociety, because you are deciding for the entire 'cg society' that the topic is not appropriate for this society.

Banning a game in the UK is not all that different.


They're two very different things.

This is a private site. You willingly joined it, and upon joining, you were presented with a list of rules that you agreed to abide by. You knew what you were getting into - much like when you enroll in a school, you agree to wear a uniform and agree to abide by their rules.

On the other hand, when you are born, you are not given the choice as to whether or not you willingly agree to have certain information/media/whatever taken away from you at the government's whim.

Censorship hurts people because it breeds ignorance. You can hardly compare this to a website with rules.

[DrBalthar]

As a video game cannot be a threat, they have nothing to say about it.

As video games become an integrating part of our live and longterm effects of video games to society are unclear yet since they just started to become more mainstream less than 10 years ago so are the effects they will have on the next generation especially it is quite unclear how the constant exposure and glorifiying of violence will have on people I am not sure if this isn't an issue for the state anymore!


What makes you think you do need one? But that is off topic, eh?
Good question in our days state's become more or less ineffective and even couterproductive to the world's problem. However I still find a global state split into cultural and regional sub states quite appealing. The other solution would be anarchy I don't think anyone can serious want that!

[DrBalthar]

They're two very different things.

This is a private site. You willingly joined it, and upon joining, you were presented with a list of rules that you agreed to abide by. You knew what you were getting into - much like when you enroll in a school, you agree to wear a uniform and agree to abide by their rules.


Aha you fooled yourself since you want to see difference where there are no difference. When you open a company in a certain state and try to shuffle your product into the countries market you sign a contract with that state as well to apply to the national laws of that country. It's the same!

[MrPositive]

Leigh (and other forum staff),

I hope not to mass insult all forum staff here as I mean this comment in the good spirit of friendly exchange of opinions ;) , but:

If you are against banning a game, you should probably also stop banning certain posts in threads on CGsociety, because you are deciding for the entire 'cg society' that the topic is not appropriate for this society.

Banning a game in the UK is not all that different.
The law makers determine it is not an item they want in their society and they have been given the power by the people to make those decisions.

They simply feel that the game in question reduces the quality of their society, just like you may feel certain posts reduce the experience people may have at cgSociety.

All you can do is vote for somebody in government who shares your view as closely as possible I guess.

Dude, come on, I was totally joking when I said that. A private webpage can run their own forum however they like. If you don't like it try another less strict site, that basically has: almost no intelligent conversations, political flamethrowing, name calling, every other thread starting with "whose the hottest cg girl", and my all time favorite "hi im new threads" followed by the first post being "go to hell". I personally like this site because frankly it gets more cerebral discussions accomplished because of stricter mod regulations.

[DrBalthar]

Brainwashing through propaganda and playing a video game are apples and oranges. You simply cannot compare these two.

Most people naively believe what they see on TV, because it's being presented to them as fact. When you buy a video game, you know it's fiction. Just like you know that the violent acts in the game are against the law.

I'm sorry but your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Not in the long run soon games will no longer be distinguishable from TV. In terms of emersion they already surpassed TV by a mile. Also your argumentation goes in circle here and your weaken themself each time round. First you say censorship of any media is bad by saying it has no effect on the people. Suddenly you argree okay TV as a media actually has an effect on people but video games do not.

[leigh]

Also your argumentation goes in circle here and your weaken themself each time round. First you say censorship of any media is bad by saying it has no effect on the people. Suddenly you argree okay TV as a media actually has an effect on people but video games do not.


Games are NEVER PRESENTED AS FACT. When I was talking about TV, I was talking about the news, and other programming that is presented to the masses as fact. I think I made this very clear in my post. Games are fiction.

Your entire argument is flawed. Stop and actually READ THE FACTS before making senseless, unfounded posts like this. Honestly, you're nitpicking little points from people out of context, and using them as a base for an utterly unfounded stance. It's getting irritating.

[leigh]

Aha you fooled yourself since you want to see difference where there are no difference. When you open a company in a certain state and try to shuffle your product into the countries market you sign a contract with that state as well to apply to the national laws of that country. It's the same!

Now you're just not making any sense at all. Again, I'm asking you to stop nitpicking and actually sit down, read what this thread is about, and actually contribute something sensible instead of this pointless, non-sensical, confrontational waffle.

[edit]
I'm also more than aware that you've been banned from this website before for bizarre, confrontational political ranting. Don't go down that route again.

[siouxfire]

Not in the long run soon games will no longer be distinguishable from TV. In terms of emersion they already surpassed TV by a mile.
That really depends what you're watching. Other existing media can be a lot more immersive if compelling. For example, I still haven't found anything nearly as immersive as a book.

As for influences, the billboard by the road can be influential, racist leaflets can be influential, a political party's manifesto can be influential, seeing roadkill can be influential, watching a documentary on serial killers can be influential... people are influenced to some degree by a lot of things, some more than others but as adults we have the freedom to choose. You take one of these away and it pulls a lot of other things into firing range of the censors.

And the laws of a country that intrude upon what you do in your home is not the same as monitoring this forum or a restaurant telling you to wear a shirt. And what laws exactly have RockStar broken? Is there a law against being tasteless or crass?

[Mu]

Hey Leigh, something I was thinking when I read your repeated "no censorship" posts...:


The whole censorship argument comes off as a bit hypocritical.

Uncensored content is not a value as such. It is also not a sign of taking responsibility of a society's set of values, in general. All you do is give priority to one value, i.e. freedom.


I think I could easily create a list of gameplay keywords where each of us would feel it's too revolting for allowing this to be sold.
At least I hope so.


So, it's just a matter of where you draw your lines and others draw their lines.

Laws are the result of any society's moral lines. You can say you don't have any of those moral lines, let anyone enjoy what they enjoy, but that is where hypocrisy sets in, imo:

You have your moral lines, too.
Yours is drawn where you say freedom!
Other people's lines are drawn where they say: responsibility!

So, society as a whole weighs the multitude and majorities of moral lines up and accordingly creates laws.
And according to these laws there's always content which crosses lines of groups of people.

In Germany, society as a whole did for obvious reasons decide that it crosses their line when anyone denies the reality of the holocaust, for example. There is really a law against that - you will be punished if you say so.
So, the freedom of speach has been weighed against the responsibility and acceptance of a whole people for their history. There's other examples.

After all, there is some truth about the violence in society being related to violence in games. It's not a causal thing. It's basically a mirror.

So, some people ask What does it say about us if we enjoy being disturbed by gameplay like that?
You ask, What does it say about us, if we can not accept the existence of any kind of gameplay or content?

What I fail to see is why you think your question is in anyway morally superior to the other one.

You can always say freedom, but that does not make your point per se superior to the ones who say responsibility.

That's what I think.

[siouxfire]

Uncensored content is not a value as such. It is also not a sign of taking responsibility of a society's set of values, in general. All you do is give priority to one value, i.e. freedom.
There is a responsibility in ensuring freedoms across society regarless of how unpalatable they may. Once you start, where do you stop? I find most advertising highly influential and detrimental to society as a whole. There are a lot of media and political practices I find detrimental to society which have actually been proven detrimental.

What do you think is more detrimental to society as a whole: alchohol or a single game by RockStar?

This kind of argument has been brought up for a long time and whenever this position has prevailed it has over time been reversed. Look at the history of censorship and compare it with levels of violent crime--would you like to explain the non-correlation between the two?

Again, I think it's irresponsible to follow a knee jerk reaction and follow the route of censorship.

[siouxfire]

Laws are the result of any society's moral lines.
I think that's rather naive. Lobbying groups, special interests, and big business have an inordinate sway over laws--do you really want those kind of influences guiding a society's moral compass?

[deli-rium]

Hmm, once again a grim power of media won again. It's unforgivable how media infuences certain events.
It is always a human responsible for killing someone. If there were no games, the blame would go on music. If there were no music, it would go on movies, etc.
Parents and people responsible, always find guilt elsewhere instead looking at themselves. If a person is weak and has some issues, then he/she doesn't need a game or music, or movie to go and kill someone.
I don't feel ANYONE but me is more equiped to decide what's right for me. I don't like to leave a choice like this in hands of people seeking general applause (conservatists, radicals, etc.). This always leads to public discussion censorship. Sooner or later "licencing" covers everything.
Democracy and freedom of speach must accept extremes but whether you participate or not is up to you and you alone. This choice should never be left to someone else.

[DrBalthar]

Now you're just not making any sense at all. Again, I'm asking you to stop nitpicking and actually sit down, read what this thread is about, and actually contribute something sensible instead of this pointless, non-sensical, confrontational waffle.

Read MU's response that's exactly the point I am and (I think) Cresshead is going if you do not want to understand its your choice but don't blatantly say you just don't get the point. There is always a balance between freedom and responsibilites you have by expressing that freedom. If you are okay with the first one but don't care about the second one in my book that's not okay! It would be if you live alone in this world but as long as you live in a society it plain is not.

[mushroomgod]

I think I could easily create a list of gameplay keywords where each of us would feel it's too revolting for allowing this to be sold.
At least I hope so.

I think thats a good post and a very good point. For example, would we find it exeptable to have a computer game based around phedophilia, or phisical child abuse...afterall, (I would think most agree) that both of those topics are as distastfull as killing somone.

In regard to the comment about computer games are totaly fictitious ..I would disagree with this on the simple concept that as games like this become more realistic, the actions that can take place inside those fictitious games can seem very very real

[Mu]

siouxfire,


I am talking about freedom not being the only value of any society.

Lobbying groups, special interests, and big business are a part of society, too. I always find it a bit naive to separate society into them and us.

Try to think more in us, only, and you'll arrive at different conclusions.

[siouxfire]

I think thats a good post and a very good point. For example, would we find it exeptable to have a computer game based around phedophilia, or phisical child abuse...afterall, (I would think most agree) that both of those topics are as distastfull as killing somone.
But the thing is that "killing someone" has been a part of gameplay for a long time be it good or bad. Is it okay if you're a hitman in a game strangling a maid in the mansion of a druglord while she breathes her last? By precedent, that's okay.

[siouxfire]

I am talking about freedom not being the only value of any society.

Lobbying groups, special interests, and big business are a part of society, too. I always find it a bit naive to separate society into them and us.
Yes, but commercial interests are not always moral. That is my point. Yes, a company like Halliburton is a part of society but they also have a vested, commercial interest in war. They also have a disproportionate of say in how laws are forged and public policy in general.

Try to think more in us, only, and you'll arrive at different conclusions.
That is naive beyond words. In what way will a person arrive at different conclusions? And how can a person ignore the commercial and sometimes amoral aspect of these political influences?

Freedom is not the only value of society, but it is the foundation.

[Mu]

ok, let me express it in a kind of boiled down version:


Since when is it news that freedom is not total in any society?

Freedom is the foundation, but it has always been limited according to the following "layers" of values.

How much limitation, by whom, and when and for whom: that is always a necessary discussion.

What I find bluntly unconsiderate is to just cut off any discussion about those limitations by shouting frrreedom all over the square like braveheart, pretending it's the only value that counts.

It never was.

[siouxfire]

Pulling it back on the topic, specifically how will banning this game improve the values of British society?

In practical terms, it will promote the game which will be imported anyhow and give RockStar a marketing ploy for other territories. It's self-defeating.

[leigh]

if you do not want to understand its your choice but don't blatantly say you just don't get the point. There is always a balance between freedom and responsibilites you have by expressing that freedom. If you are okay with the first one but don't care about the second one in my book that's not okay! It would be if you live alone in this world but as long as you live in a society it plain is not.

You know very well that my response was a direct reply to your rattling about corporations "signing contracts with states" that you used as a response to my explanation as to why the rules on this forum are not the same as censorship from the government. Your reply had absolutely no relevance whatsoever to my post. You're being intentionally obtuse and off topic, and it's not constructive to this debate whatsoever. You've got a history of doing this on this forum and it's really starting to aggravate me. Either post on topic, or go find another thread to post in, because you're contributing nothing of value here by posting irrelevant fluff.

Mu, I get what you're saying, but this is a game. It's entertainment. Whether you find it distasteful or not, no laws are being broken by playing it. The point is not whether a game is distasteful or not (as I said earlier, Manhunt is certainly not a game I have any interest in playing), but that we should have the right to entertain ourselves however we wish, provided it doesn't infringe upon other people's quality of life. Siouxfire has already made many excellent points already in response to your posts, and since I'm at work I can't really spare any more time this morning discussing this (suffice to say it's been a fascinating debate and I look forward to returning to it this evening).

[Mu]

well, I am trying not to think too much in terms of improvement or how things are going downhill.

From a non-judgemental point of view you can say that the people in the UK have made a decision about who they are by drawing a line somewhere, because that is how to define yourself: you have a set of "OKs" and "not OKs".

In this particular case, your "not OKs" happens to contradict british society's "not OKs" and that's where the discussion should be setting in.

Only thing that makes me think, things are going downhill is when at this point of time one side is sitting on the high horse of superior moral values, pretending that the other side is merely driven by Angst, or a will to suppress or similar things.

I am promoting an open debate, that's all.
You find freedom rules all? Well, there's people out there who feel differently´- what now? Are they all mindless wanting-to-be-ruled-with-an-iron-fist 1984 zombies?

What now? You start to consider what they have to say? You take into account that there's only us in any society?

Or you go and dictate total freedom on all of them? I smell a slight irony in that mindset.

Finally, I would like to add that my arguing is not to be mistaken as a pro or con for any side. I just don't like the air of no-shades-of-grey-for-me-please which occurs, here.

:)

EDIT: ARGH, leigh, posts overlapped... yes, it's been fascinating indeed and I will have to quit it, now, too. I will read up tonight, siouxfire and all the others.

[mushroomgod]

But the thing is that "killing someone" has been a part of gameplay for a long time be it good or bad. Is it okay if you're a hitman in a game strangling a maid in the mansion of a druglord while she breathes her last? By precedent, that's okay.

I know what youre saying, and I agree...But as time goes on, and these things become more acceptable, games, movies, and books will find new, more intresting and horrific ways to kill/damage people. Lets take Grand Theft Auto for example (btw, a game I love!) now before that came out im not sure there where many examples of being able to run over/kill innocents ...be them old people or prostitutes....or even old prostitutes (cant remember if there are any kids in it).

The point im trying to make, campanys will push it and push it untill they get away with it, or untill we all find it aceptable...and as time goes on, I would not be suprised to one day see kids being abused in a game, or game titled "School shoot out 2020" or whatever... And regardless of the fact that there are no laws being broken in a game titles say "School shoot out 2020", im not sure I would ever want to see a game like that on the shelfs, and I think when somthing goes that far (and I belive it will) it degrades our society, and its societys responsability (be that government, BBFC, or us ) to manage it.

[francomanko]

For example, would we find it exeptable to have a computer game based around phedophilia, or phisical child abuse...afterall, (I would think most agree) that both of those topics are as distastfull as killing somone.



Excellent point.

So what do people think, if a game was based on phedophillia, and according to the tabloids there seems to be a growing market for it (crass statement I know, but thats all I believe these companies care about), so what do we do? Ban it, give it an 18 certificate...what?

It seems to me that all we can do to avoid censorship is to rely on peoples/ companies personal boundaries of taste and morality and unfortunately these days in so many walks of life,they seem to be more and more unreliable.

I am against censorship but I feel that more often than not certain companies subvert and hide behind that banner.

I personally don't understand why they felt the need to go to this level, so I would like to hear the thoughts of the titles creators on their motivations behind the game, their aspirations, why they felt the need to produce such a title? Do they feel they can gleem any positive aspects other that making a profit, about having produced it?

( Maybe CGsociety could give em a call )

[Steve Green]

It's a bit of a moot point - no mainstream company would touch it, and I would think that it would be denied a certifcate automatically under the Protection of Children Act, or the subsequent amendments to that Act in the UK.

- Steve

[switchblade327]

Some of the sentences that have been used to justify this ban have been used in similar form to justify actions much, much worse then any virtual, heneous act.

I think thats a good post and a very good point. For example, would we find it exeptable to have a computer game based around phedophilia, or phisical child abuse...afterall, (I would think most agree) that both of those topics are as distastfull as killing somone.

In regard to the comment about computer games are totaly fictitious ..I would disagree with this on the simple concept that as games like this become more realistic, the actions that can take place inside those fictitious games can seem very very real

I'm going to play devil's advocate against some of my own beliefs here and suggest in the coldest, most impersonal way that in this case, capitalism does self-regulate. There is no profit in making a child-abuse or pedophilia game because such a thin slice of the population would buy it. Sawing peoples' heads off with a wiimote might fall under the same catagory if the 18+ label were strictly upheld and this ban hadn't sensationalied the whole thing. Sales data shows that M rated/18+ games are the smallest slice of the game sales pie anyway, and most of those are games rated as such for far less objectionable content. I honestly believe that most gamers don't *want* to be virtual serial killers.

I think the idea behind Manhunt 2 is sick and repulsive, personally and I think people who want to play this kind of game are probably not quite right in the head to begin with. But lets not forget that contrary to popular belief, the games industry didn't invent murderers and psychopaths. And I have no evidence to back this up, but I'm fairly certain no would-be murderer or sadist has not crossed that line simply for lack of inspiration.

I think it's an irresponsible title and it will ride it's sensationalism into the charts but I think it's almost as irresponsible for the British government to give it all this free press. I keep up with the gaming press fairly well and I had no idea this game was in the works til I read about the ban. And there's no such thing as bad publicity. Does anyone remember "Night Trap"? Would anyone have even bought that POS if it wasn't for all the controversy?

[Ordibble-Plop]

It's a bit of a moot point - no mainstream company would touch it, and I would think that it would be denied a certifcate automatically under the Protection of Children Act, or the subsequent amendments to that Act in the UK.

It's not a moot point because the question was not whether or not the authorities would allow such a product, but whether each of us as individuals would uphold the rights of others to produce a CG game or film depicting paedophilia and whether we think such a product should be allowed to be released free of censorship.

I think this is a good litmus test of just where one stands with regard to censorship. After all, no real children would have been harmed in its making and it would be classed as entertainment by some. If you decide that you think it should not be allowed to be released, then you will also have to let go of the idea that all censorship is bad and then figure out where you personally draw the line.

This is what the BBFC does, only they have to balance their decisions to try to appease the majority of people the majority of the time. They do not make their decisions in a vacuum and they are not arbitrary. They also appear to be quite transparent about what they do and the guidelines they operate by, which are put together with public consultation.

An easy way to define where one's rights end is when they impinge on another's rights. Assuming that the BBFC have got their guidelines correct, you might say then that the rights of a few people to buy Manhunt in a UK shop are trumped by the majority of people who would prefer that it was not available.

Censorship in this context is the enactment of democratic will (as close to absolute freedom as we might get?), not the Man trying to deprive us of our exotic adult fantasies.

[switchblade327]

An easy way to define where one's rights end is when they impinge on another's rights. Assuming that the BBFC have got their guidelines correct, you might say then that the rights of a few people to buy Manhunt in a UK shop are trumped by the majority of people who would prefer that it was not available.


Your definition of one's rights which I completely agree with, doesn't really apply here as no one will be forced to play Manhunt 2. It's very existance only impedes and offends others' "right not to tolerate it" to the same extent that disagreeable religions, races and sexual orientations might.

If this is the will of the people and not the will of the government, a boycott would be the appropriate reaction.

[mushroomgod]

If this is the will of the people and not the will of the government, a boycott would be the appropriate reaction.

but, in a democracy the governments (or the BBFC) purpose is to represent the will of the "people"

[NME-Se7eN]

I personally don't understand why they felt the need to go to this level, so I would like to hear the thoughts of the titles creators on their motivations behind the game, their aspirations, why they felt the need to produce such a title? Do they feel they can gleem any positive aspects other that making a profit, about having produced it?

Forgive my ignorance but what positive aspects come from Madden year after year, or Halo 3, or even GTAIV? These are video games, entertainment. We ask, in this medium, only to be entertained, not preached to, not enlightened to the plights of other people, not informed of social ills. Looking for a positive aspect from a game like manhunt is roughly the same as looking for a stance on global political policy from Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo. Unless you feel defeating urban renewal is as simple as dancing in front of bulldozers, in which case, try it and put it up on Youtube. I want to see that.

And frankly, I don't see why this is such an extreme level compared to what we've already done. I remember Die By The Sword, Mortal Kombat, and even Soldier of Fortune. I remember the deeply disturbing imagery in Sanitarium, Silent Hill, and Rule of the Rose(another game that was banned, if I recall correctly). And let's not forget we already have interactive violence in the way of Godfather: Blackhand Edition and Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. So while you wonder why the developer had to go this far, I wonder why this game was the breaking point. I simply do not see the sudden line that has been crossed.

And denying the few to save the many, that's dangerous thinking, right there. Remember when the police stole Lennon's artwork? What if Maplethorp had been censored in this way? And yet so many people are suddenly cool with this, from a field that once defended a statue of Jesus sunken in a vat of human urine. Why are the lines so easy to draw on video games?

[francomanko]

i just thought it would be good to hear what they thought.

[P_T]

Why are the lines so easy to draw on video games?Because unlike your examples, kids are actually interested in video games and since most parents are clueless about video games and internet, it's also way too easy for them to acquire these games.

It's also not about crossing the line, it's about Rockstar pushing that line further. In Manhunt, if you executed a particularly gruesome murder, you're presented with a cutscene that shows the sequence in great detail. What's the point in that? It's a case of "just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should".

Like I said before, Manhunt will only give people like Jack Thompson stronger position in their arguement.

[switchblade327]

but, in a democracy the governments (or the BBFC) purpose is to represent the will of the "people"

There is no way to reply to this statement without turning this thread entirely political. So I won't but it's certainly not for any shortage of potential rebuttals.

In other related news, here is the ESRB (American rating system) reaction to the game:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=14396

AO rating, which is much harsher then M (the 18+ equivalent) is the XXX of games; on par with pornography which limits its accessability dramatically. Many major American retail chains refuse to stock AO games which is going to hit Rockstar in the pocketbook *hard*. But it's still not a ban.

I'm inclined to think this is the appropriate reaction.

[kees]

They're two very different things.

[...]

Censorship hurts people because it breeds ignorance. You can hardly compare this to a website with rules.


Of course the 2 are different.
I did not mean to compare them on such a fundamental level.

My point was that you participate in censorship yourself.
You do it by following the rules set out by CGSociety and you do it what you think is in the best interest of this community. (And you do a good job imo)

The government has the same motivation.
The law makers are doing it in what they think is the best interest of their community and by voting the people in the UK have some influence of what they want to see in their community.

It is just a fact of life in any society (joined voluntairy or not).

[edit]

I do believe myself that an 'Adult Only' approach that ESRB has done is better for games / books / movies etc then completely banning the item though.
But I also believe that you simply can't get passed the fact that somethings things are banned for the good of the society.

[NME-Se7eN]

Because unlike your examples, kids are actually interested in video games and since most parents are clueless about video games and internet, it's also way too easy for them to acquire these games.

So consumer ignorance should equal banning. As an adult, I'm responsible for my actions. As a parent (should I ever become one), I'm responsible for the media my child consumes. And it's not like the content in a game is a big secret. Hell, it's more advertised and even more prominant on packaging than any other media. Frankly, I'm tired of all the sanctions idiots are getting nowadays. The ESRB, as it stands, works.

It's also not about crossing the line, it's about Rockstar pushing that line further. In Manhunt, if you executed a particularly gruesome murder, you're presented with a cutscene that shows the sequence in great detail. What's the point in that? It's a case of "just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should."

I'd like to further point to movies like Saw or Stephen King novels. Or even games like Mortal Kombat (see a post I made earlier in this thread). It's not Rockstar pushing the line, the line has been pushed. And yes, you're presented with an excessively gruesome cutscene. In Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth, the viewers got to witness Pinhead ripping the skin off a girl, watching her scream, before he finally finished the job. This content isn't something we're unaccustomed to seeing. And people can argue about the realism of the violence until the cows come home but no one can reasonably argue that the removal of a spinal column is as easy as jabbing pliers into the back and pulling.

Like I said before, Manhunt will only give people like Jack Thompson stronger position in their arguement.

Is that the real fear people are having? That this game will somehow validate the opinions of a man who blamed Virginia Tech on Counterstrike before even the killer was known? If so, we're back to David Grossman's Killology nonsense. In this industry, we NEED people to push this line. We also need to treat the Adults Only rating as something other than "Where the porn games are" and make it viable for sale.

So allow me to make yet another push for my previous stance, maybe Rockstar should make a cut and uncut version? We certainly see it in the following games that have obtained Adults Only rating.

Playboy The Manion: Private Party
Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy Director's Cut
Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut and Uncensored

[francomanko]

In this industry, we NEED people to push this line.

Why? With respect to this type of game what do we have to gain?

[Steve Green]

Ordibble P Lop -


A tricky one, but I think outright bans on any subject have the opposite effect to some degree. To be honest, I don't know.

Like I said, there's no way that it would happen in the UK anyway, so it's not something I've really had to consider what my position would be.

I think the argument here is that such a simulation either CG or as a game would be distinctly aimed towards someone who is more likely to act on it.

For some reason, murder in games is so commonplace that it is not considered so dangerous, except in rare circumstances such as Manhunt 2.

In the instance of pseudo-imagery, I can't help but think of the Brass Eye special, where an ex-detective is asked to judge whether something would be classed as obscene/illegal or not, purely by swapping bits of pictures over.

- Steve

[Mu]

. In Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth, the viewers got to witness Pinhead ripping the skin off a girl, watching her scream, before he finally finished the job. This content isn't something we're unaccustomed to seeing.

Holy shit, man, that is definitely not something I am accustomed to seeing...:scream:



Point of some of us is:

"No Censorship no way never!" is a killer argument which serves to stop a debate when we all know that there are several fields where we're all okay with censorship.

like Ordibble said about pedophile contents as an extreme example...:

If you decide that you think it should not be allowed to be released, then you will also have to let go of the idea that all censorship is bad and then figure out where you personally draw the line.

which also means that you will have to go deeper than a mere NO CENSORSHIP shout, disregarding an actual debate about lines that get drawn and how to cope with the fact that people draw them on different subjects.

Because this latter question is the actual debate, not the one where everyone is either Braveheart or Big Brother... see?

[P_T]

So consumer ignorance should equal banning. As an adult, I'm responsible for my actions. As a parent (should I ever become one), I'm responsible for the media my child consumes. Easy for you to say, you're savvy in video gaming and internet, you know p2p, firewall, etc etc. There are a lot of parents with preteen or early teen kids who are still clueless about these stuff.

These days a lot of parents also don't have the time to monitor their kids. Whatever their circumstances are, not all of them are to be blamed for not having the time. This is the real world where parents get divorce, where single parents exists, where parents have to work 10+ hours to support their families.

Sure banning will probably have very little effect but my point is that Manhunt shouldn't even be made in the first place. If there's no Manhunt, there's nothing for the kids to download.

You know, even porn has limitation. There are certain sexual acts that are forbidden from being commercialised.

If you want something to be pushed, why not push innovations in gameplay rather than pushing the cheap shock factor to market the game. It doesn't help make horror movies any scarier, Hitchcock style of horror was scarier that most of the horror produced these days and his films doesn't show much gore, so what makes you think it'll help make games any better?

[NME-Se7eN]

Easy for you to say, you're savvy in video gaming.... games any better?

Well let's put it this way. I've worked retail in the past. I was actually in a news article over Conker's Bad Fur Day as a woman purchased this for her child. This is the packaging for that game.

http://i19.ebayimg.com/04/c/05/ae/5f/41_8.JPG

Now despite my warning her, pointing out the obvious bad signs, she still insisted on buying the game and told me I was a horrible bastard for trying to raise her child (note, I was just informing her of the content). Two days later, she's in the store screaming, cussing, and talking about how she was issued no such warnings. She was denied a refund and ran to the papers, where my name was used in a villian style setting. Paper didn't do a followup, try to get facts behind the story, nope. Story went from us selling the copy to her to us selling the copy directly to her son. Now I would take this as an isolated incident if similar occurances were not happening two to seven times a month for the entire time I worked retail.

The ESRB has spent MILLIONS educating people about the system and there will still be people who believe games are for kids. Of all media forms, video games have the most readily available information, placing ratings on the front and back of packages and even detailing what got those ratings. A vast majority of stores card for M rated games. M rated games usually account for less than 15% of total game sales. So frankly, given the fact that the information is widely available and I was hit right below the eye by a thrown copy of Grand Theft Auto 2 for Playstation by somehow appauled by the violence in the content, I try not to side with the ignorant. Frankly speaking, in regards to game content and ratings, the only excuse is when games are purchased in their "generic" packaging at the likes of EB or Gamecrazy.

And I understand you object to the content in Manhunt. Meanwhile, and I'll try to keep this as clean as possible, I just finished a book that had a "suprise" scene were a morrigan is giving the protagonist a handjob while preparing to pierce his brain with a claw when he "finishes." There was no warning about anything like that in the packaging or even reviews of the book. Would I have known about that scene, I would not have bought it. This is a book I bought at Wal-Mart. Meanwhile, with Manhunt, nothing is hidden, everything is out in the open. You have the choice to buy or not buy the material.

I wish I could explain how this pushes gameplay forward. But you've apparently never played the first and had to witness the razors edge between life and death that the original game forced upon players. You've never felt how the game built up tension and switched dramatically from a survival horror/ stealth game to a frantic and frenzied shooter as stakes were raised. If Manhunt 2 succeeds as a sequel, then it's merely the second of a suprisingly deep gameplay experience which just "happens" to have a gory outer shell.

[P_T]

Well let's put it this way. I've worked retail in the past. I was actually in a news article over Conker's Bad Fur Day as a woman purchased this for her child. This is the packaging for that game.How often did this happen to you though? if this was the only time, heck even a few times, I'd still say it's more like an exception to the rule.

I have played the first game, I just didn't bother to play it till the end. I thought it was a repetitive game. :shrug:

It's not about being hidden or out in the open, it's about what the developer chose to use as the main selling point of the game, which is the ingame snuff. I think the game could still work without those ingame cinematics "reward" for executing gruesome kills.

[switchblade327]

Sure banning will probably have very little effect but my point is that Manhunt shouldn't even be made in the first place. If there's no Manhunt, there's nothing for the kids to download.

You know, even porn has limitation. There are certain sexual acts that are forbidden from being commercialised.

If you want something to be pushed, why not push innovations in gameplay rather than pushing the cheap shock factor to market the game. It doesn't help make horror movies any scarier, Hitchcock style of horror was scarier that most of the horror produced these days and his films doesn't show much gore, so what makes you think it'll help make games any better?

It's important for people outside of games to realize that Manhunt 2 is very much an exception to the rule. As I mentioned above, adult-rated games are a small portion of the market, and would probably be half as small were it not for Grand Theft Auto (which never forces you into sadism and the point is not, contrary to sensationalist media, ethnic cleansing or hooker killing). No recent game comes close to Manhunt in sadistic premise and from the sounds of it, graphically detailed violence.

We are talking about one exception to the norm of games. Publishers are not rushing to copy this game and if this was a gem of a genre, *somebody* would. It's pure sensationalism and banning the game is only fueling the fire. Like all things attention hungry, ignore them and they will go away.

Maybe it shouldn't have ever been made. But just like single parents and latchkey kids, this is the reality of the world we live in.

[ParamountCell]

Am I the only person who isnt surprised about this? I am sure even the developers and publishers aint surprised. I have my own theories on this, I do I do.

[P_T]

We are talking about one exception to the norm of games. Publishers are not rushing to copy this game and if this was a gem of a genre, *somebody* would. It's pure sensationalism and banning the game is only fueling the fire. Like all things attention hungry, ignore them and they will go away.

Maybe it shouldn't have ever been made. But just like single parents and latchkey kids, this is the reality of the world we live in.You're right, but unlike single parents, this is something the government can prevent.

I like playing games like Soldier of Fortune and GTA. I'm also looking forward to Fallout 3 and The Darkness. I just think the ingame snuff in Manhunt is unnecessary.

If I was the one calling the shots for BBFC, I'd tell Rockstar to cut all the ingame snuff cinematics if they want to sell the game or at the very least, implement a gore lock like in SoF. If the game really is as good as NME made it out to be, it should still be able to stand on its own without those cinematics. Many other games have done so without using similar cheap sensationalism tactic.

[siouxfire]

Given the history of the BBFC, the very likely result will be that RockStar will appeal, the game will be released as an 18-certificate, and RockStar will have garnered free publicity both in the UK and abroad.

[JCAddy]

The British Board of Film Classification doesn't have anything to do with gun laws in the UK or the USA.

It was a simple comparison to how extreme certain situations can be made out to be, but yet with all the shootings in America, they won't change the age limit to purchase a weapon.

....but hey thanks anyway captain obvious.

[JCAddy]

I've got a question though. How will one play this on the wii? Will the person have to make a stabbing motion, choking motion or shooting simulation to fire / hit within the game?

[NME-Se7eN]

I like playing games like Soldier of Fortune and GTA. I'm also looking forward to Fallout 3 and The Darkness. I just think the ingame snuff in Manhunt is unnecessary.

Wait... WHAT?!?! With Soldier of fortune, you can blown peoples limbs off and watch them writh in agony on the floor, screaming in pain. In GTA, you can kill INNOCENT PEOPLE! In The Darkness, one of your dark powers is to reach out and rip out the hearts of your enemies for consumption. And Manhunt 2 is your line drawn?

I could understand if you were like me, rarely delving into M ratings, preferring platformers like Ratchet & Clank but frankly, The Darkness looks WORSE to me than Manhunt. And yes, I saw that video you linked earlier and frankly, if it wasn't for the narrator talking about "he just attacked the genetils," I would not have guessed that happened. In Manhunt, the violence is excessive, yes, but it's over so quickly. Hell, MK kills, on average, take longer.

And yes, as stated earlier, incidents like I mentioned were commonplace. For the 5 years I spent in retail, the smallest amount of incidents was two in a month.

[P_T]

Wait... WHAT?!?! With Soldier of fortune, you can blown peoples limbs off and watch them writh in agony on the floor, screaming in pain. In GTA, you can kill INNOCENT PEOPLE! In The Darkness, one of your dark powers is to reach out and rip out the hearts of your enemies for consumption. And Manhunt 2 is your line drawn?I gotta draw the line for myself somewhere. In those other games, you don't get "instant replay" glorifying your most gruesome kills. And like I said earlier, how many kids can get themselves a pair of demon snakes to rip people's hearts out hmm?

Making violent and gory games is one thing, making it excessively violent and gory just for the sake of the sensation it created and the marketing hype is totally different.

I personally find the ingame snuff to be disturbing and unnecessary. If you enjoy it, that's your own business and should I say, problem? But answer my question, Do you think Manhunt can stand on its story and gameplay alone without the ingame snuff cinematics to hype it up? Personally, I really don't think so.

[UrbanFuturistic]

And yes, as stated earlier, incidents like I mentioned were commonplace. For the 5 years I spent in retail, the smallest amount of incidents was two in a month.Damn. They should be made to sign a disclaimer including the words "I have been fully advised of the adult content of this game and understand that claiming otherwise will get me sued under defamation laws"... or words to that effect. If that doesn't can them, nothing will.

[cresshead]

please add salt to taste:-

:welcome to rockstar's marketing team, feel free to post and chat about our proposed release of manhunt 2 and our endevours to get it banned so we can cut the budget of the promotion near zero, be aware that for all your efforts there will be no commission or redeemable vouchers:

thank you

:

[NME-Se7eN]

If you enjoy it, that's your own business and should I say, problem? But answer my question, Do you think Manhunt can stand on its story and gameplay alone without the ingame snuff cinematics to hype it up?

Wow, condescending much? I gotta be careful, I almost typed a flame at that.

Okay, I will answer your question. Yes, I do think Manhunt could stand on it's own without the gory and violent "snuff cinematics." The sequel, haven't gotten a chance to play yet but I thought the story for the original Manhunt was well done, capitalizing on our society's tendecies to pursue sicker and sicker variants of reality TV in conjunction with previous FICTIONAL concepts already shown in such movies like The Running Man or in books like The Program. The kill or be killed theme isn't exactly new in fiction and that's all video games are.

[tuna]

It was a simple comparison to how extreme certain situations can be made out to be, but yet with all the shootings in America, they won't change the age limit to purchase a weapon.

....but hey thanks anyway captain obvious.

I was being obvious because what you had previously said was a non sequiter. Now that you've expanded a bit on it and explained what point it was you were trying to make, I understand.

Love,
Captain Obvious
xx

[Apoclypse]

Now you're just not making any sense at all. Again, I'm asking you to stop nitpicking and actually sit down, read what this thread is about, and actually contribute something sensible instead of this pointless, non-sensical, confrontational waffle.

[edit]
I'm also more than aware that you've been banned from this website before for bizarre, confrontational political ranting. Don't go down that route again.

I actually agree with him to a point. If you are a company that decides to make money in a country, that country has all the rights in the world to stop or allow whatever they want in said country. You, as the company are trying to make a profit have agreed to the rules by moving there. Example, Yahoo having to hand over emails to china so that they can find political advisaries, is it right, no, but china has that right and it was yahoo who decided to do business there not the other way around. People think of censorship as affecting everyone, and it does. However the state has laws, and a company has to follow those laws, just like we have to follow rules on this site. If the rules are broken, the company can be held liable. Rules are rules, saying that rules should be followed here, but that a company doesn't have to follow them is wrong. Censorship, is censorship. Think of it like this, every person here is a game company and you are the country everyone wants to showcase their stuff on. When they joined you gave specific rules stating what was allowed and not allowed on this site, in-order to protect others form harmful content. If those rules aren't followed you get the boot or banned, or censored. No one else on this forum has a say about what is acceptable or not. That is your right not ours.

[Apoclypse]

Wow. this post moves quick. I love these. it's far more engaging than arguing about why Megatron doesn't look like a gun. Not to say that I didn't post one or two on the merits of transformer design, pre-Bay.

[Per-Anders]

So... ...how 'bout that CG stuff last weekend eh?

[switchblade327]

You're right, but unlike single parents, this is something the government can prevent.

And my earlier point was that the government can "prevent" (outlaw) a lot of different things from the status quo's beliefs (games, rock n'roll, gays, Jews, Islam, etc) but at what point are a bunch of out-of-touch, old white men forcing their version of morality on you? These witch trials are incredibly dangerous terrritory to lose an inch of ground on because they WILL take a mile.

It was a simple comparison to how extreme certain situations can be made out to be, but yet with all the shootings in America, they won't change the age limit to purchase a weapon.


The connection between American gun violence with age restrictions and video games and sadistic killings are about as tangible. Meaning: there is no tangible connection. But reactionary people will always think a simple law or ruling will cure a society's ailments.

From what I've heard, the Wii version does have some disturbingly interactive, visceral sequences involving the Wiimote but unlike Politicians, I won't pretend to be an expert on the game. This DOES bother me. A lot. But I still don't think it should be banned. I don't think there are enough sick bastards out there who want to pretend that their Wiimote is a shank and stab someone 3000 polygon virtual person with it for Rockstar to be able to recover the multi-million dollar production and marketing (oh wait, they don't need marketing anymore! Way to go BBFC!) costs of a next-gen game. And if they don't make any money, they won't make any more.

What games did Jack the Ripper play anyway? I mean, that guy was pre-Atari 2600 and all but surely the guy wasn't just f'n nuts to begin with!

[Bonedaddy]

Well, all the arguing is getting to be a bit moot. The game got an AO rating by the ESRB, so it won't be allowed on Wii or PS3 (http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/adults-only-manhunt-2-homeless-270768.php) by Nintendo or Sony.

Looks like Manhunt 2 is screwed no matter what.

[Lyr]

Well, all the arguing is getting to be a bit moot. The game got an AO rating by the ESRB, so it won't be allowed on Wii or PS3 (http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/adults-only-manhunt-2-homeless-270768.php) by Nintendo or Sony.

Looks like Manhunt 2 is screwed no matter what.

Further proof there is absolutely no place for state sponsored censorship, it's just too expensive in liberties and resources.

[pluckylump]

Let's just say we all agree that Manhunt 2 is "too violent" to be allowed. (A conceit that is far from the truth. Certainly for me.) What can be done to it to make it acceptable? Do we go the Kill Bill route and remove color from the image because the real offense is that blood is red? Do we make the blood look like sweat like in the SNES Mortal Kombat? Do we hide the violence like when a player kills the Little Sisters in Bioshock? Do we go the G.I. Joe route and pretend no one was hurt? "It's okay! Duke was just in a coma, but he's fine now!"

In other words, is violence safer when you remove the horror of its consequences?

1. Please read the following scenarios:

a) A player has apprehended an opponent and now holds him at gun point. Up until this point the opponent has been attempting to kill the player. The player shoots the opponent in the head. The now victim falls into a puddle of his own blood and brains, his face no longer recognizable as such. The entire execution is visible to the player.

b) A player stands in the parking lot of an office building, a detonator in his hand. Upon activating the detonator the building is demolished. There is no blood or burning bodies visible. The office's parking lot the player is standing in contains no less than 20 cars.

Which act is more inappropriate?

2. Please read the following scenarios:

a) Little Billy's favorite game is Hunting Season. In the game, Billy is tasked with hunting other humans, the "most dangerous game," in a jungle. Billy has learned from playing the game that if he were to shoot his friend Tommy in the face with a gun, it would be the last time he ever sees his best friend's face, the last time he will ever talk with Tommy, the last time they will climb trees together, or the last time they will play "Monopoly" or "Shoot Tommy in the Face". He knows that Tommy will be afraid of being shot, because in the game, the people cry and beg for their lives when you catch them.

b) Little Billy's favorite game is Hunting Season. In the game, Billy is tasked with hunting various anthropomorphic animals with speech impediments. Billy has learned from playing the game that if he were to shoot his friend Tommy in the face with a gun, Tommy's face will be hilariously dirty and his hair will stand on end. On some occasions, Tommy's face may spin around to the back of his head. He knows that Tommy will be angry about being shot in the face and may even call him "dethpicable" because that is what happens in his game. He also knows that Tommy will be back to normal the next time he sees him, because the anthropomorphic animals always come back in level 2.

If a child is unable to disinguish between reality and fiction, which scenario is he most likely to emulate?

[NME-Se7eN]

Well, all the arguing is getting to be a bit moot. The game got an AO rating by the ESRB, so it won't be allowed on Wii or PS3 (http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/adults-only-manhunt-2-homeless-270768.php) by Nintendo or Sony.

Looks like Manhunt 2 is screwed no matter what.

Well, I just saved $50 then. I guess I'll give the industry another 5 years to grow up and buy Manhunt 4. Makes you wonder, though. Suda51 has pledged his new game will be more violent than Manhunt 2.... has his pledge officially doomed No More Heroes or will Capcom be judged differently because it's not Rockstar? Oh well...

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go harpoon random people and police officers to the side of my SUV that I intend to drive into a big pile explosive barrels so I can giggle maniacally as flaming bodies cling desperately to the charred ruins of my vehicle in the apparently much more socially acceptable Crackdown. Oh hypocrisy, how I love you.

[frogspasm]

And my earlier point was that the government can "prevent" (outlaw) a lot of different things from the status quo's beliefs (games, rock n'roll, gays, Jews, Islam, etc) but at what point are a bunch of out-of-touch, old white men forcing their version of morality on you?


Don't think this kind of behavior is limited to old WHITE men. There's plenty of censorship and discrimination happening in non-english speaking countries too. In some places, much worse than in the UK and US.

[P_T]

Wow, condescending much? I gotta be careful, I almost typed a flame at that.

Okay, I will answer your question. Yes, I do think Manhunt could stand on it's own without the gory and violent "snuff cinematics." One begets another. Maybe you should mind your own posts first, Remember Tom & Jerry? ;)

Maybe people will still play Manhunt, but it'll hardly be as widely known or popular without the controversial cinematics.

Eh, plenty of movies, and probably games too, have been banned in various countries. If Rockstar wasn't such a popular developer with their GTA, I doubt people here will care at all.

[mr_wowtrousers]

So censorship isn't censorship anymore when it's backed by law?
The question isn't whether there's a law or not, obviously there is, what's mostly discussed here is if it's a good thing to censor/ban games.

"good" implies a moral yardstick, which is half the argument ;)

Is there a limit? What's "good" for you might be "bad" for me, but at some point as part of the social contract and use of governments, lines must be drawn in the proverbial sand. People don't like the government or the law dictating what the watch, but they abide by other moral and legal laws.

That's one of the conundrums when you elect people to govern for you. You give up some rights and gain others.

[DK3D]

Since when do the actions or reactions of a few weak, immoral, unstable and non-differentiating people rule what a majority of fit, moral, mentally stable and fully differentiating people can or can't do or even have access to?

Thats out of whack with even the most basic principals in nature/society. I should not have to sacrifice certain freedoms/rights because others can't safely be granted those same freedoms/rights and especially when the majority of people are as capable and stable as myself to play such games safely, without violent reactions. Its like driving on the public roads, just cause some cant do it in a controlled and safe way, does not mean the majority who can should be deprived of owning and driving cars. Exert control on those who lack it!

It also does not count for people to say, i am offended by the mere fact that anyone would want to play such a game or that it even exists and that it therefore is justified reason to have it wiped from existence, thats is preferential - someone playing manhunt at 2 AM in their own home far away from you, may not be what you would consider NORMAL, but they don't directly impact on your existence negatively.

Its like being a NON-drinker, i personally don't drink alcohol and i have never been drunk in my life, but that does not mean i want alcohol banned because a few ABUSE and MISUSE alcohol and then harm others or themselves under its influence. I won't drink large quantities of alcohol containing fluids for any reason, to me it makes no sense and i don't find it normal, but i realize that some do, and i grant them that pleasure/right/freedom as long as they don't come and bother my peace when they are intoxicated or drive on the roads endangering my or other peoples lives. All that is necesary is RESPONSIBILITY, with that, you can do just about anything within safe limitations.

As a consenting adult and someone who is knowledgeable and well versed in the field of Computers and Gaming, Plus, with my 23 years of stable, sane and morally acceptable behavior (20 of which had gaming on a weekly and later almost daily basis) in the societal arena, i feel that i have more than proven myself fit and stable enough to safely explore the rich and diverse range of entertainment/experiences/stories that virtual gaming in the 21st century has to offer, WITHOUT resorting to morally unacceptable or criminal behaviour.

I personally know people who have had violent reactions (mostly focused towards their gaming hardware) or vocal outbursts, resulting of playing harmless "ALL AGES" titled games that got them riled because they kept dying at a certain spot and couldn't get past a certain level after trying time and time and time again. I know brothers who have verbally and even in rare cases, physically fought over who's turn it is to play the "then" hit Super Sonic 2 title on sega. Yet these same people after "growing up past 10 years old" played manhunt 1 without any agitated reaction. I know cause i had a LAN party between close friends, a short while after manhunt 1 came out, and one person brought the game with him and we all dropped the planned LAN and decided to rather play manhunt and try to see who could score the highest score as we tried to finish the game in 24 hours. Only my PC at the time was capable of running the game at full GFX and smoothly so we all sat around 1 pc and took turns (yes we were less than 3 feet from one another), if you died, someone else played, but the winner was decided on who scored the most POINTS for KILLS and died the least. Spilling as much Virtual blood as possible was the focus, and everyone including the so called "violent few of a childhood now outgrown" were capable of doing so and maintaining a mature and stable mental state. In fact, it was one of the more peaceful gaming sessions we as a group of friends have had.

I might play Manhunt 2 when it comes out, if its not much better in game play and overall end game goal than the first game then i really feel i've been there and done that and i probably wont play it, but thats not because i find the subject matter disturbing or sick. I can handle it safely and even look past it to see aspect of the game that may hold some value for me as a gamer.

What is REALLY sick and disturbing to me is when they show real life trauma and very graphical scenes because its part of a medical documentary, i have physically been sick at looking at some so called INFORMATIVE programs that show people who have suffered severe facial and bodily injuries from car crashes and other accidents, its sick - no matter if its done in the spirit of EDUCATION. I don't need to see a persons face hanging on their chest and see their seeping eyeball juice to realize that is what happens when you don't wear a seatbelt and go face first though a windscreen and into a tree at 60 miles an hour. Nor do have to see a bomb blast victim writhing and screaming in agony after suffering 1st 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 85% of their body.

Real violence and real Gore upsets me greatly and actually does make me very upset and angry cause there was REAL suffering, i can fully and vividly differentiate between harmless virtual violence and REAL violence, the price of which is human/animal suffering and even death. How some people can say if you are capable of killing a virtual victim who feels no pain or horror, is the same or takes the same kind of person who does it to a real life victim/s who can REALLY suffer and feel real horror, is beyond me.

PLEASE NOTE: This remark on people equating virtual violence to real violence is not made in reference to anything anyone said here in this thread, just that in previous topics like this on other sites, people have actually called "VIRTUAL murderers" equal and just as sick as real murderers, and i am sorry, that is just absolutely unacceptable to me (one who has killed THOUSANDS of virtual victims but who has not and would not harm any creature or being that is capable of real suffering and real death). And i just wanted to voice that concern.

Thats my interpretation and view on manhunt 2's ban and the subsequent concern of some - and i say that with about 2 decades worth of experience with games and pc's.

I fully understand and acnowledge that games can trigger unstable people to perform acts, and you can learn a lot about killing real people from realistic games. But you can also read about THOUSANDS of cases a year of innocent and guilty people being killed on the roads as a result of alcohol abuse and that is worrying to me. The people who go on rampages after playing games, sofar have numbered less than 2 dozen from the cases i have heard of that drew media attention and i am willing to bet that if proper and unbiased investigation was done into the events that led up to these gaming related/sparked murders, that the part which violent games played would be shown to be significanly lower than some expect. And i wont let 2 dozen unstable people from across the world and their sadistic actions, dictate to me what i can or cannot play if i chose to - i don't have the problem they have and neither do the very great majority of gamers.

I hold by what others said, no GAME, MOVIE, COMIC or SONG has ever killed anyone - unstable people who either are attracted to certain material or are so unstable that a wrong glance can set them off, have killed people and are however guilty.

Lets attack the head of the problem, not the tail.

[switchblade327]

Well, all the arguing is getting to be a bit moot. The game got an AO rating by the ESRB, so it won't be allowed on Wii or PS3 (http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/adults-only-manhunt-2-homeless-270768.php) by Nintendo or Sony.

I hadn't realized this, that the consoles won't allow AO games. That's kind of messed up but not remotely surprising thanks to this kind of controversy.

Don't think this kind of behavior is limited to old WHITE men. There's plenty of censorship and discrimination happening in non-english speaking countries too. In some places, much worse than in the UK and US.

I knew I was bound to get called for eurocentrism on this statement. No, I don't think that at all. You're of course totally right and I only said old WHITE men since we were specifically discussing England and the US's reaction to the game (and I've no doubt that Germany and Australia's old white men will also be banning it, among other countries). I'm well aware of the places in this world where the banning of a video game is the least of the people's concerns.

[MrPositive]

So what is this all going to mean for other games coming out later this year? For instance, one of the most highly anticipated games this year is Bioshock. Part of your job is to take out little girls (not sure yet, but the cinematic has you about to club a little girl with a wrench) and their protectors. I also saw the bloodiest cinematic I've ever seen from Bioshock where a drill is shoved through a characters stomach and blood spews out on the floor. http://www.gametrailers.com/player/13583.html?type=
And what about Assasin's Creed where you're only job is to well, assasinate people "by any means necessary". I must also note that people on the gaming forums are much more frightened by the implications of manhunt 2 being banned than those on here. I hear that Jack Thompson is ready to bring out the 'big guns' at not only games but also movies.
He also just went after Halo 3 and Microsoft http://news.softpedia.com/news/Jack-Thompson-Threatens-Bill-Gates-over-Halo-3-Beta-55380.shtmll (http://www.gamealmighty.com/story-individual/story/Jack_Thompson_Lays_His_Legal_Sites_on_Halo_3/)

[mr_wowtrousers]

@ Donovan.

Let's look at the alcohol example. It's true that banning the consumption of alcohol due to the inherent problems may not be the answer, given that a vast majority of adults enjoy it responsibly (as you point out). But what about alcohol sales to minors? That doesn't affect me directly. How about letting anyone sell alcohol to anyone they want? The sale of alcohol is regulated. So are computer games. So is shampoo. So are cars.

As for your credentials (and mine) about being stable enough to make your own decisions, what about my right to drive at 250km/hr? I believe that my driving record (no accidents, no tickets) should give me the right to do that. I am not hurting anyone . . . yet.

How about gun ownership? In Australia automatic weapons are illegal. I haven't ever hurt anyone with a weapon. Why should I as an upright citizen be stopped from having an arsenal of assault weapons? (let's not get into a gun debate, it's just an example).

How about rape videos? How about snuf films?

That's pushing it to its limits, and is usually qualified with that old chestnut "as long as no one gets hurt". Now let's define "hurt" . . .

I am not picking on you personally as you made many reasonable points, however it doesn't change the fact that when we live in a society that is governed, we have to accept the laws and rulings. When we pick and choose what laws we adhere to, well . . . things can go down pretty quickly. Relativism is a hard ism for a society to adhere to ;)

Of course, as a voting member of society I would like the right to say what I think is "acceptable" in terms of censorship and have my voice heard. If enough people move to action, then change is brought about.

To me the argument of "I am an adult and I should be able to decide for myself what I do" is not enough. If you want the benefits of something like a democracy you have to take the "good" (things that you agree with) with the bad (things that you are against).

[switchblade327]

So what is this all going to mean for other games coming out later this year? For instance, one of the most highly anticipated games this year is Bioshock. Part of your job is to take out little girls (not sure yet, but the cinematic has you about to club the girl with a wrench) and their protectors. I also saw the bloodiest cinematic I've ever seen from Bioshock where a drill is shoved through a characters stomach and blood spews out http://www.gametrailers.com/player/13583.html?type=
And what about Assasin's Creed where you're only job is to well, assasinate people "by any means necessary". I must also note that people on the gaming forums are much more frightened by the implications of manhunt 2 being banned than those on here.

It means we're screwed.

EDIT The BBFC also just banned a Law and Order game because it included an image of a real life murder victim. Right or wrong I wonder, 2 games banned in a month when I'd never heard of the BBFC banning a game before this month? Does anyone have an info on how often this happens?

[Steve Green]

I don't think the BBFC had any bearing on the Law and Order game, I thought it was being pulled by the distributor, or they were distributing a patch.

Although considering the game has been on sale for years, I wonder if they will bother with a re-issue.

(Edit)

I just saw that MH2 has been given an AO rating in the US, which means that Sony and Nintendo won't allow it to be published with that rating.

I guess this will force Rockstar's hand to re-edit/tone it down and go for re-submission, possibly in the UK as well.

I wonder whether it would have got an AO if there hadn't been the controversy and banning by the BBFC?

- Steve