Someone mentioned that you can pull people's balls off, but they left out the rest:
"Yet it's the wire cutters that win the prize here: If you perform a level-three execution ( just like in the last Manhunt, the longer you wait before attacking, the more grotesque the death blow) with this weapon, you'll reach underneath the enemy to grab on to his family jewels, rip 'em off, and then stick the wire cutters into his back and tear out the spinal cord."
This makes me wonder what will happen when No More Heroes is released...
Suda:
"I'll also try my best to make No More Heroes as violent, or even more violent than Manhunt 2!"
I think we need clarification about what is so different in the narrative context.
A lot of people didn't seem to know that the original WASN'T about Cash "hunting men" (hurk, double entendre) but that Cash was the man being hunted. It's possible that this game is more murder orientated and less "kill or be killed" orientated.
Cheers, knew I'd seen that somewhere before. Reiterates for me that most of the significant cases involve footage of real-life incidents- and I wonder if some of the lesser titles would be banned so readily in this day and age.
Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game’s unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game.
Alternative pleasures? Who words these things?
I look forward to them banning the next Half-Life because I have to shoot things and can't resort to diplomacy. Or a sneak-'em-up section. Or access RPG functionality.
If someone buys a game that consists of nothing but constant depraved violence... they've bought a game that consists of nothing but constant depraved violence. I really don't understand why they feel the need to protect the consumer from this.
If I start watching/playing a form of media that actually disturbs me, I will stop viewing it of my own accord. Jeez. What's the point of all the content warning labels?
They appear to back the BBFC's decision on this, although they have no real authorative power in the UK where sale of games is conserned. According to the BBFC Rockstar have the right to appeal the decision but it is a court process and can take upwards of two months. So the soonest it could come out in the UK after a succesful appeal, provided that Rockstar get right on this and lodge an appeal and that they don't have to go back and change any content would be around late august/early september.
I think we need clarification about what is so different in the narrative context.
A lot of people didn't seem to know that the original WASN'T about Cash "hunting men" (hurk, double entendre) but that Cash was the man being hunted. It's possible that this game is more murder orientated and less "kill or be killed" orientated.
Even so though really.
Minor beginning spoilers.
"An experiment at a secret research facility has gone catastrophically wrong. Daniel is sent to the Dixmor Asylum, where six years later a freakish storm of lightning hits the power, leaving it dark and haunting. Daniel Lamb and Leo Kasper are the only surviving subjects. The Pickman Project will stop at nothing to hunt them down and stop the truth from getting out.
Demented screams echo around the dank asylum that has caged you for the last six years. You open your eyes. A white-coated body slumps to the floor through your shaking hands. A bloody syringe slips from your arm. Waves of confusion and paranoia crash over you. You have no idea who you are or how you got here.
The door to your cell is open. One choice. One chance. They took your life. Time to take it back."
After breaking out of the asylum, Daniel Lamb goes on the run with psychotic inmate Leo Kasper, who is happy to coach Lamb in the brutal art of violence.
well, shoot, that's what i get for reading the Express (i hate it with a passion). The story i remembered reading was that it was the kid who did the killing who owned and played it obsessively. I will, indeed, check facts more in future.
It's not your fault, the reporting of the incident in newspapers was grossly inaccurate. Basically take anything you read in a newspaper here with a pinch of salt.
yeah, i try to, but i think shameless misreporting like that would need a massive salt-extraction operation from one of the major seas.
regarding the censorship, well yes, if it is that they're banning a game for its artistic or stylistic choices, then i am firmly opposed to such decisions. At the same time, as Xagarath said, they've generally been pretty good about what they let through, so i don't think a decision like this would be made lightly.
Speaking from the legal perspective (which I'm reasonably qualified to do so), possessing artistic merit is generally enough to prevent things from being censored in the UK. It's fairly likely the BBFC felt there was no such merit to Manhunt 2.
well, shoot, that's what i get for reading the Express (i hate it with a passion). The story i remembered reading was that it was the kid who did the killing who owned and played it obsessively. I will, indeed, check facts more in future.
It's not your fault, the reporting of the incident in newspapers was grossly inaccurate. Basically take anything you read in a newspaper here with a pinch of salt.
yeah, i try to, but i think shameless misreporting like that would need a massive salt-extraction operation from one of the major seas.
regarding the censorship, well yes, if it is that they're banning a game for its artistic or stylistic choices, then i am firmly opposed to such decisions. At the same time, as Xagarath said, they've generally been pretty good about what they let through, so i don't think a decision like this would be made lightly.
Speaking from the legal perspective (which I'm reasonably qualified to do so), possessing artistic merit is generally enough to prevent things from being censored in the UK. It's fairly likely the BBFC felt there was no such merit to Manhunt 2.
Any definition of "artistic merit" that does not include Manhunt 2 is insufficient.
And before you repeat "well, you haven't played it," that argument is irrelevant. I don't have to have played Manhunt 2 to deem it artistic in - at the very least - design. And I don't have to have played it to oppose censorship in this or any other form.
well, shoot, that's what i get for reading the Express (i hate it with a passion). The story i remembered reading was that it was the kid who did the killing who owned and played it obsessively. I will, indeed, check facts more in future.
It's not your fault, the reporting of the incident in newspapers was grossly inaccurate. Basically take anything you read in a newspaper here with a pinch of salt.
yeah, i try to, but i think shameless misreporting like that would need a massive salt-extraction operation from one of the major seas.
regarding the censorship, well yes, if it is that they're banning a game for its artistic or stylistic choices, then i am firmly opposed to such decisions. At the same time, as Xagarath said, they've generally been pretty good about what they let through, so i don't think a decision like this would be made lightly.
Speaking from the legal perspective (which I'm reasonably qualified to do so), possessing artistic merit is generally enough to prevent things from being censored in the UK. It's fairly likely the BBFC felt there was no such merit to Manhunt 2.
Any definition of "artistic merit" that does not include Manhunt 2 is insufficient.
And before you repeat "well, you haven't played it," that argument is irrelevant. I don't have to have played Manhunt 2 to deem it artistic in - at the very least - design. And I don't have to have played it to oppose censorship in this or any other form.
well, shoot, that's what i get for reading the Express (i hate it with a passion). The story i remembered reading was that it was the kid who did the killing who owned and played it obsessively. I will, indeed, check facts more in future.
It's not your fault, the reporting of the incident in newspapers was grossly inaccurate. Basically take anything you read in a newspaper here with a pinch of salt.
yeah, i try to, but i think shameless misreporting like that would need a massive salt-extraction operation from one of the major seas.
regarding the censorship, well yes, if it is that they're banning a game for its artistic or stylistic choices, then i am firmly opposed to such decisions. At the same time, as Xagarath said, they've generally been pretty good about what they let through, so i don't think a decision like this would be made lightly.
Speaking from the legal perspective (which I'm reasonably qualified to do so), possessing artistic merit is generally enough to prevent things from being censored in the UK. It's fairly likely the BBFC felt there was no such merit to Manhunt 2.
Any definition of "artistic merit" that does not include Manhunt 2 is insufficient.
And before you repeat "well, you haven't played it," that argument is irrelevant. I don't have to have played Manhunt 2 to deem it artistic in - at the very least - design. And I don't have to have played it to oppose censorship in this or any other form.
Just out of curiosity, do you oppose all censorship, regardless of circumstances?
It's worth noting, for contrast, the BBFC also just passed Bioshock with an 18 rating.
Anyway, quotation from the Irish film censorship body:
"A prohibition order has been made by IFCO in relation to the video game Manhunt 2. The Order was made on 18th June 2007 under Sec 7 (1) (b) of the Video Recordings Act 1989 which refers to ‘acts of gross violence or cruelty (including mutilation and torture)’.
IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context, and the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence is unacceptable. "
well, shoot, that's what i get for reading the Express (i hate it with a passion). The story i remembered reading was that it was the kid who did the killing who owned and played it obsessively. I will, indeed, check facts more in future.
It's not your fault, the reporting of the incident in newspapers was grossly inaccurate. Basically take anything you read in a newspaper here with a pinch of salt.
yeah, i try to, but i think shameless misreporting like that would need a massive salt-extraction operation from one of the major seas.
regarding the censorship, well yes, if it is that they're banning a game for its artistic or stylistic choices, then i am firmly opposed to such decisions. At the same time, as Xagarath said, they've generally been pretty good about what they let through, so i don't think a decision like this would be made lightly.
Speaking from the legal perspective (which I'm reasonably qualified to do so), possessing artistic merit is generally enough to prevent things from being censored in the UK. It's fairly likely the BBFC felt there was no such merit to Manhunt 2.
Any definition of "artistic merit" that does not include Manhunt 2 is insufficient.
And before you repeat "well, you haven't played it," that argument is irrelevant. I don't have to have played Manhunt 2 to deem it artistic in - at the very least - design. And I don't have to have played it to oppose censorship in this or any other form.
But what I'm trying to stress here is that the argument that I have to know anything about Manhunt 2 to oppose its censorship is deflective nonsense. I don't. I don't really give a shit about Manhunt 2 or what's in it, to be perfectly honest.
I oppose all censorship outside the boundaries of law. And whether or not Manhunt 2 is morally objectionable, I'm not sure it could be classified as illegal material (until it actually gets banned, of course).
Fact of the matter is that I won't object to books/films/etc. that educate viewers in regard to carrying out illegal acts (drug cultivating guides) or actual snuff films (self-explanatory) being restricted from classification/sale. What really concerns me is that it appears this game, pointlessly depraved as it may or may not be, appears to have found itself in a brand new first-time category.
IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context, and the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence is unacceptable. "
But there is a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. The brutal nature is an important part of the context of the game.
IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context, and the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence is unacceptable. "
But there is a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. The brutal nature is an important part of the context of the game.
Becuase the context of the game is brutally murdering people?
That's a flawed argument.
Anyway, copies of the PAL release can be found all over Ebay, so it's not as if this is unobtainable.
It's not really an 'American game'. Development was started by Rockstar Vienna in Austria although it has been handed over to various dev houses in the UK for ports and Toronto for the PSP version, I think. It's first release is scheduled for the US though.
well, shoot, that's what i get for reading the Express (i hate it with a passion). The story i remembered reading was that it was the kid who did the killing who owned and played it obsessively. I will, indeed, check facts more in future.
It's not your fault, the reporting of the incident in newspapers was grossly inaccurate. Basically take anything you read in a newspaper here with a pinch of salt.
yeah, i try to, but i think shameless misreporting like that would need a massive salt-extraction operation from one of the major seas.
regarding the censorship, well yes, if it is that they're banning a game for its artistic or stylistic choices, then i am firmly opposed to such decisions. At the same time, as Xagarath said, they've generally been pretty good about what they let through, so i don't think a decision like this would be made lightly.
Speaking from the legal perspective (which I'm reasonably qualified to do so), possessing artistic merit is generally enough to prevent things from being censored in the UK. It's fairly likely the BBFC felt there was no such merit to Manhunt 2.
Any definition of "artistic merit" that does not include Manhunt 2 is insufficient.
And before you repeat "well, you haven't played it," that argument is irrelevant. I don't have to have played Manhunt 2 to deem it artistic in - at the very least - design. And I don't have to have played it to oppose censorship in this or any other form.
Just out of curiosity, do you oppose all censorship, regardless of circumstances?
It's worth noting, for contrast, the BBFC also just passed Bioshock with an 18 rating.
Anyway, quotation from the Irish film censorship body:
"A prohibition order has been made by IFCO in relation to the video game Manhunt 2. The Order was made on 18th June 2007 under Sec 7 (1) (b) of the Video Recordings Act 1989 which refers to ‘acts of gross violence or cruelty (including mutilation and torture)’.
IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context, and the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence is unacceptable. "
It depends on how you define "censorship." I think speech can and should be censored in some situations. When, for instance, the revelation of something poses a clear and present danger to any nation's security. Or something like shouting "fire" or "bomb" in a theater, or on a plane. Or, on private property.
But none of those situations are artistic or even economic pursuits. Those circumstances would just be someone being a dick. Rockstar and Take-Two have, in my eyes, a human right to construct whatever they want, and we as consumers have a human right to either support it or ignore it. That's how society should and usually does work. I don't have any real desire to own Manhunt 2. I'm not opposed to it. But I support its right to exist and exist on the marketplace, and so should all of you.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not up to anyone to validify or quantify the artistic merit of something except as literary or academic discourse, and even if almost everyone in society agrees that something is of low or even zero artistic merit, if the pursuit was artistic in any way, which the creation of a video game - even the most commercial and awful of them - always is, then it has enough "artistic merit" to exist unfettered on the market.
It's not really an 'American game'. Development was started by Rockstar Vienna in Austria although it has been handed over to various dev houses in the UK for ports and Toronto for the PSP version, I think. It's first release is scheduled for the US though.
Well thats kinda what I meant.
I mean, its an American game in that it is likely to be released in the US first and has a US publisher, doesnt it?
Regardless, I would have assumed the US version would have been rated first for a lot of games.
It depends on how you define "censorship." I think speech can and should be censored in some situations. When, for instance, the revelation of something poses a clear and present danger to any nation's security. Or something like shouting "fire" or "bomb" in a theater, or on a plane. Or, on private property.
But none of those situations are artistic or even economic pursuits. Those circumstances would just be someone being a dick. Rockstar and Take-Two have, in my eyes, a human right to construct whatever they want, and we as consumers have a human right to either support it or ignore it. That's how society should and usually does work. I don't have any real desire to own Manhunt 2. I'm not opposed to it. But I support its right to exist and exist on the marketplace, and so should all of you.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not up to anyone to validify or quantify the artistic merit of something except as literary or academic discourse, and even if almost everyone in society agrees that something is of low or even zero artistic merit, if the pursuit was artistic in any way, which the creation of a video game - even the most commercial and awful of them - always is, then it has enough "artistic merit" to exist unfettered on the market.
I know this is the classic counter-example, but what about child pornography?
(I'm not necessarily disgreeing with you- just playing devil's advocate)
IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context, and the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence is unacceptable. "
But there is a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. The brutal nature is an important part of the context of the game.
Becuase the context of the game is brutally murdering people?
That's a flawed argument.
Anyway, copies of the PAL release can be found all over Ebay, so it's not as if this is unobtainable.
The game is about an escaped inmate trying to find out about himself while avoiding getting killed. In order to show how messed up the place is, the brutal shit helps a lot in context.
You could make a Clockwork Orange without anybody getting raped in the movie, but that doesn't mean nobody should get raped in the movie.
IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context, and the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence is unacceptable. "
But there is a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. The brutal nature is an important part of the context of the game.
Becuase the context of the game is brutally murdering people?
That's a flawed argument.
Anyway, copies of the PAL release can be found all over Ebay, so it's not as if this is unobtainable.
The game is about an escaped inmate trying to find out about himself while avoiding getting killed. In order to show how messed up the place is, the brutal shit helps a lot in context.
You could make a Clockwork Orange without anybody getting raped in the movie, but that doesn't mean nobody should get raped in the movie.
From what I've heard, that's not an accurate description of the game at all.
It depends on how you define "censorship." I think speech can and should be censored in some situations. When, for instance, the revelation of something poses a clear and present danger to any nation's security. Or something like shouting "fire" or "bomb" in a theater, or on a plane. Or, on private property.
But none of those situations are artistic or even economic pursuits. Those circumstances would just be someone being a dick. Rockstar and Take-Two have, in my eyes, a human right to construct whatever they want, and we as consumers have a human right to either support it or ignore it. That's how society should and usually does work. I don't have any real desire to own Manhunt 2. I'm not opposed to it. But I support its right to exist and exist on the marketplace, and so should all of you.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not up to anyone to validify or quantify the artistic merit of something except as literary or academic discourse, and even if almost everyone in society agrees that something is of low or even zero artistic merit, if the pursuit was artistic in any way, which the creation of a video game - even the most commercial and awful of them - always is, then it has enough "artistic merit" to exist unfettered on the market.
I know this is the classic counter-example, but what about child pornography?
(I'm not necessarily disgreeing with you- just playing devil's advocate)
Anything that actively puts a minor at risk or in harm's way should be censored. If there were a way to create child pornography that did not involve filming, photographing, or fucking children, then I do not think it should be censored. Since that is usually not the case, though, then I am opposed to it.
Either way, I'm just interested to see what the reaction is to this game being on Nintendo's 'everybody' system. I'm hoping press doesn't go from "Wii want to play" to "Wii want to teach you to kill", but I imagine that will be nigh unavoidable, with the media the way it is these days. In any case, pending anything like this happening in a more wide-spread sense, Nintendo's showing some balls in letting this out, really. As long as they don't cave to the pressure, anyway.
I think society will be better served when people realize that we make our own decisions, ans stop trying to blame entertainment for their actions. The entertainment sector has enough money and power as it is, we don't need to give them complete control over our lives. A movie or videogame isn't going turn an average person into a psycho, just as it wouldn't do the opposite. And if they do, then we have a much bigger problem on our hands, because people are now retarded. (now? God, Idiocracy wasn't that good of a movie, but it was chilling.)
How do they measure exactly how much violence it would take to turn a normal kid into a killer, anyway? Like, say 300, it's a violent film, but somewhere someone drew the line to say "this much violence won't brainwash anyone, but the violence in the Manhunt game, that'd make killing machines"? Where and how are the lines drawn, or is this just a blatant case of double standards?
I don't even want to get into the sex vs violence debate, since my Country (America, woo) has decided that sex is vulgar and should be hidden away, but violence is OK, as long as it's not too much.
This actually does make me kind of hesitant about how thematically interesting Manhunt 2 will be. The original is interesting because the character you play as is already a scumbag who was sentenced to death for his crimes. Yet the foes you confront are willing constant participants in all manner of life ending depravity. As the game goes on you still feel disturbed at the basic gameplay but almost obligated to dispose of the more and more twisted enemies in increasingly more brutal ways. The excellent Brian Cox urging you on and almost getting off on your exploits only makes it more interesting.
With Manhunt 2, we don't know a whole lot about the other "patients" yet. It's possible they made a big conceptual mistake and have you butchering people who are just trapped, or security guards who's only crime is being told to guard some floor and have no knowledge of what's going on. This combined with even more visceral violence than the original would turn the proceedings into a more conventional sadistic blood bath than the examination of cathartic violence the original attempts.
Maybe I hold up the original Manhunt a little too highly, but I think its intended purpose was not lost on BBFC which is why it got through while this one has not.
Either way I'm still very optimistic about the game itself. I'm going to assume for now that this can be chalked up to political pressure (heh, especially after that on que denial BBFC issued) and that Rockstar as a whole hasn't lost its touch.
Neo Rasa on
"You know how Batman hangs people over the edge of buildings and gets them to spill information. That's Neo Rasa's way of it, but instead of information, he just likes to see people suffer." ~Senor Fish
It's not really an 'American game'. Development was started by Rockstar Vienna in Austria although it has been handed over to various dev houses in the UK for ports and Toronto for the PSP version, I think. It's first release is scheduled for the US though.
Well thats kinda what I meant.
I mean, its an American game in that it is likely to be released in the US first and has a US publisher, doesnt it?
Regardless, I would have assumed the US version would have been rated first for a lot of games.
It looks like it is still awaiting a rating from the ESRB.
It depends on how you define "censorship." I think speech can and should be censored in some situations. When, for instance, the revelation of something poses a clear and present danger to any nation's security. Or something like shouting "fire" or "bomb" in a theater, or on a plane. Or, on private property.
But none of those situations are artistic or even economic pursuits. Those circumstances would just be someone being a dick. Rockstar and Take-Two have, in my eyes, a human right to construct whatever they want, and we as consumers have a human right to either support it or ignore it. That's how society should and usually does work. I don't have any real desire to own Manhunt 2. I'm not opposed to it. But I support its right to exist and exist on the marketplace, and so should all of you.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not up to anyone to validify or quantify the artistic merit of something except as literary or academic discourse, and even if almost everyone in society agrees that something is of low or even zero artistic merit, if the pursuit was artistic in any way, which the creation of a video game - even the most commercial and awful of them - always is, then it has enough "artistic merit" to exist unfettered on the market.
I know this is the classic counter-example, but what about child pornography?
(I'm not necessarily disgreeing with you- just playing devil's advocate)
Anything that actively puts a minor at risk or in harm's way should be censored. If there were a way to create child pornography that did not involve filming, photographing, or fucking children, then I do not think it should be censored. Since that is usually not the case, though, then I am opposed to it.
UK law, and pretty much all academic studies, disagree with you, although US law doesn't.
Virtual obscene images of children are still banned here, at least.
Frankly, there's a hell of a lot of evidence in favour of the fact that some kinds of media do corrupt and harm people; and given my experiences with the majority of people, I'm not sure I'd trust them to know their own minds at all.
From what I've heard, that's not an accurate description of the game at all.
Seeing as every piece of pre released material, trailer and the promotional website says that's exactly what the game is about, I'm wondering what your incredible inside information is.
IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context, and the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence is unacceptable. "
But there is a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. The brutal nature is an important part of the context of the game.
Becuase the context of the game is brutally murdering people?
That's a flawed argument.
Anyway, copies of the PAL release can be found all over Ebay, so it's not as if this is unobtainable.
The game is about an escaped inmate trying to find out about himself while avoiding getting killed. In order to show how messed up the place is, the brutal shit helps a lot in context.
You could make a Clockwork Orange without anybody getting raped in the movie, but that doesn't mean nobody should get raped in the movie.
From what I've heard, that's not an accurate description of the game at all.
IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context, and the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence is unacceptable. "
But there is a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. The brutal nature is an important part of the context of the game.
Becuase the context of the game is brutally murdering people?
That's a flawed argument.
Anyway, copies of the PAL release can be found all over Ebay, so it's not as if this is unobtainable.
The game is about an escaped inmate trying to find out about himself while avoiding getting killed. In order to show how messed up the place is, the brutal shit helps a lot in context.
You could make a Clockwork Orange without anybody getting raped in the movie, but that doesn't mean nobody should get raped in the movie.
From what I've heard, that's not an accurate description of the game at all.
This actually does make me kind of hesitant about how thematically interesting Manhunt 2 will be. The original is interesting because the character you play as is already a scumbag who was sentenced to death for his crimes. Yet the foes you confront are willing constant participants in all manner of life ending depravity. As the game goes on you still feel disturbed at the basic gameplay but almost obligated to dispose of the more and more twisted enemies in increasingly more brutal ways. The excellent Brian Cox urging you on and almost getting off on your exploits only makes it more interesting.
With Manhunt 2, we don't know a whole lot about the other "patients" yet. It's possible they made a big conceptual mistake and have you butchering people who are just trapped, or security guards who's only crime is being told to guard some floor and have no knowledge of what's going on. This combined with even more visceral violence than the original would turn the proceedings into a more conventional sadistic blood bath than the examination of cathartic violence the original attempts.
Maybe I hold up the original Manhunt a little too highly, but I think its intended purpose was not lost on BBFC which is why it got through while this one has not.
Either way I'm still very optimistic about the game itself. I'm going to assume for now that this can be chalked up to political pressure (heh, especially after that on que denial BBFC issued) and that Rockstar as a whole hasn't lost its touch.
From what I've seen and read of the game, this does sound fairly likely.
From what I've heard, that's not an accurate description of the game at all.
Seeing as every piece of pre released material, trailer and the promotional website says that's exactly what the game is about, I'm wondering what your incredible inside information is.
The desciption he gives fails to explain satisfactorily why the player has to perform sadistic killings. The original game did have an explanation for this (snuff film).
I was calling it an inadequate description, not an incorrect one.
Anything that actively puts a minor at risk or in harm's way should be censored. If there were a way to create child pornography that did not involve filming, photographing, or fucking children, then I do not think it should be censored. Since that is usually not the case, though, then I am opposed to it.
UK law, and pretty much all academic studies, disagree with you, although US law doesn't.
Virtual obscene images of children are still banned here, at least.
You didn't ask me what the law was, you asked me what I personally thought about censoring child pornography.
Frankly, there's a hell of a lot of evidence in favour of the fact that some kinds of media do corrupt and harm people; and given my experiences with the majority of people, I'm not sure I'd trust them to know their own minds at all.
1) Really? Show it.
2) I don't really care whether you or anyone else trusts individuals or society-at-large. It is exactly that "mistrust" that I find so abhorrent in everyone's opinion! Your mistrust, and the UK government's mistrust, and the BBFC's mistrust is, for all time and space, i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. Irrelevant.
Any of you learned gentleman have any idea which films are/used to be banned from sale in the UK? Because I personally think any arguements about interactivity are quashed by the fact we're yet to produce a game you could mistake for live-action footage.
Or, for that matter, real life.
Clockwork Orange springs most immediately to mind. Yeah, that was a good first date.
Clockwork Orange was actually passed uncut by the BBFC. It was withdrawn by Kubrick.
Wait, we still have that? I figured they would have abolished that in a rider attached to yet another proposed congressional pay raise. :P
EDIT: F'ING top of the page.
erm. what I said last page. blah blah, double standards, blah blah, people should take responsibility for their own actions, and not blame entertainment, blah blah.
Posts
"Yet it's the wire cutters that win the prize here: If you perform a level-three execution ( just like in the last Manhunt, the longer you wait before attacking, the more grotesque the death blow) with this weapon, you'll reach underneath the enemy to grab on to his family jewels, rip 'em off, and then stick the wire cutters into his back and tear out the spinal cord."
This makes me wonder what will happen when No More Heroes is released...
Suda:
"I'll also try my best to make No More Heroes as violent, or even more violent than Manhunt 2!"
A lot of people didn't seem to know that the original WASN'T about Cash "hunting men" (hurk, double entendre) but that Cash was the man being hunted. It's possible that this game is more murder orientated and less "kill or be killed" orientated.
Even so though really.
EDIT: Yep, the sickle medium kill
Cheers, knew I'd seen that somewhere before. Reiterates for me that most of the significant cases involve footage of real-life incidents- and I wonder if some of the lesser titles would be banned so readily in this day and age.
Alternative pleasures? Who words these things?
I look forward to them banning the next Half-Life because I have to shoot things and can't resort to diplomacy. Or a sneak-'em-up section. Or access RPG functionality.
If someone buys a game that consists of nothing but constant depraved violence... they've bought a game that consists of nothing but constant depraved violence. I really don't understand why they feel the need to protect the consumer from this.
If I start watching/playing a form of media that actually disturbs me, I will stop viewing it of my own accord. Jeez. What's the point of all the content warning labels?
They appear to back the BBFC's decision on this, although they have no real authorative power in the UK where sale of games is conserned. According to the BBFC Rockstar have the right to appeal the decision but it is a court process and can take upwards of two months. So the soonest it could come out in the UK after a succesful appeal, provided that Rockstar get right on this and lodge an appeal and that they don't have to go back and change any content would be around late august/early september.
Demented screams echo around the dank asylum that has caged you for the last six years. You open your eyes. A white-coated body slumps to the floor through your shaking hands. A bloody syringe slips from your arm. Waves of confusion and paranoia crash over you. You have no idea who you are or how you got here.
The door to your cell is open. One choice. One chance. They took your life. Time to take it back."
After breaking out of the asylum, Daniel Lamb goes on the run with psychotic inmate Leo Kasper, who is happy to coach Lamb in the brutal art of violence.
Speaking from the legal perspective (which I'm reasonably qualified to do so), possessing artistic merit is generally enough to prevent things from being censored in the UK. It's fairly likely the BBFC felt there was no such merit to Manhunt 2.
Any definition of "artistic merit" that does not include Manhunt 2 is insufficient.
And before you repeat "well, you haven't played it," that argument is irrelevant. I don't have to have played Manhunt 2 to deem it artistic in - at the very least - design. And I don't have to have played it to oppose censorship in this or any other form.
http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/manhunt2/media.html
It looks like it has a decent plot about an insane guy.
It's worth noting, for contrast, the BBFC also just passed Bioshock with an 18 rating.
Anyway, quotation from the Irish film censorship body:
"A prohibition order has been made by IFCO in relation to the video game Manhunt 2. The Order was made on 18th June 2007 under Sec 7 (1) (b) of the Video Recordings Act 1989 which refers to ‘acts of gross violence or cruelty (including mutilation and torture)’.
IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context, and the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence is unacceptable. "
But what I'm trying to stress here is that the argument that I have to know anything about Manhunt 2 to oppose its censorship is deflective nonsense. I don't. I don't really give a shit about Manhunt 2 or what's in it, to be perfectly honest.
I assume it was being an American game.
Actually it was developed right there in jolly old England by Rockstar London.
Fact of the matter is that I won't object to books/films/etc. that educate viewers in regard to carrying out illegal acts (drug cultivating guides) or actual snuff films (self-explanatory) being restricted from classification/sale. What really concerns me is that it appears this game, pointlessly depraved as it may or may not be, appears to have found itself in a brand new first-time category.
A game so dark and callous that 18 year olds cannot play it.
These 18 year olds are however allowed to join an army and kill people for real.
I mean what the fuck.
Becuase the context of the game is brutally murdering people?
That's a flawed argument.
Anyway, copies of the PAL release can be found all over Ebay, so it's not as if this is unobtainable.
It's not really an 'American game'. Development was started by Rockstar Vienna in Austria although it has been handed over to various dev houses in the UK for ports and Toronto for the PSP version, I think. It's first release is scheduled for the US though.
It depends on how you define "censorship." I think speech can and should be censored in some situations. When, for instance, the revelation of something poses a clear and present danger to any nation's security. Or something like shouting "fire" or "bomb" in a theater, or on a plane. Or, on private property.
But none of those situations are artistic or even economic pursuits. Those circumstances would just be someone being a dick. Rockstar and Take-Two have, in my eyes, a human right to construct whatever they want, and we as consumers have a human right to either support it or ignore it. That's how society should and usually does work. I don't have any real desire to own Manhunt 2. I'm not opposed to it. But I support its right to exist and exist on the marketplace, and so should all of you.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not up to anyone to validify or quantify the artistic merit of something except as literary or academic discourse, and even if almost everyone in society agrees that something is of low or even zero artistic merit, if the pursuit was artistic in any way, which the creation of a video game - even the most commercial and awful of them - always is, then it has enough "artistic merit" to exist unfettered on the market.
(Psst! Tube! Rockstar has US developers and Take Two themselves are an American publisher. It's cool buddy, I've got you covered).
Well thats kinda what I meant.
I mean, its an American game in that it is likely to be released in the US first and has a US publisher, doesnt it?
Regardless, I would have assumed the US version would have been rated first for a lot of games.
(I'm not necessarily disgreeing with you- just playing devil's advocate)
The game is about an escaped inmate trying to find out about himself while avoiding getting killed. In order to show how messed up the place is, the brutal shit helps a lot in context.
You could make a Clockwork Orange without anybody getting raped in the movie, but that doesn't mean nobody should get raped in the movie.
Anything that actively puts a minor at risk or in harm's way should be censored. If there were a way to create child pornography that did not involve filming, photographing, or fucking children, then I do not think it should be censored. Since that is usually not the case, though, then I am opposed to it.
It's not a classic counter-example at all because it's ludicrously easy to refute. Child pornography requires an illegal act to create.
I think society will be better served when people realize that we make our own decisions, ans stop trying to blame entertainment for their actions. The entertainment sector has enough money and power as it is, we don't need to give them complete control over our lives. A movie or videogame isn't going turn an average person into a psycho, just as it wouldn't do the opposite. And if they do, then we have a much bigger problem on our hands, because people are now retarded. (now? God, Idiocracy wasn't that good of a movie, but it was chilling.)
How do they measure exactly how much violence it would take to turn a normal kid into a killer, anyway? Like, say 300, it's a violent film, but somewhere someone drew the line to say "this much violence won't brainwash anyone, but the violence in the Manhunt game, that'd make killing machines"? Where and how are the lines drawn, or is this just a blatant case of double standards?
I don't even want to get into the sex vs violence debate, since my Country (America, woo) has decided that sex is vulgar and should be hidden away, but violence is OK, as long as it's not too much.
With Manhunt 2, we don't know a whole lot about the other "patients" yet. It's possible they made a big conceptual mistake and have you butchering people who are just trapped, or security guards who's only crime is being told to guard some floor and have no knowledge of what's going on. This combined with even more visceral violence than the original would turn the proceedings into a more conventional sadistic blood bath than the examination of cathartic violence the original attempts.
Maybe I hold up the original Manhunt a little too highly, but I think its intended purpose was not lost on BBFC which is why it got through while this one has not.
Either way I'm still very optimistic about the game itself. I'm going to assume for now that this can be chalked up to political pressure (heh, especially after that on que denial BBFC issued) and that Rockstar as a whole hasn't lost its touch.
It looks like it is still awaiting a rating from the ESRB.
Virtual obscene images of children are still banned here, at least.
Frankly, there's a hell of a lot of evidence in favour of the fact that some kinds of media do corrupt and harm people; and given my experiences with the majority of people, I'm not sure I'd trust them to know their own minds at all.
Seeing as every piece of pre released material, trailer and the promotional website says that's exactly what the game is about, I'm wondering what your incredible inside information is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nakvxo4k_ns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-QakkA46GY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm6HlM_r_dk&mode=related&search=
He is an inmate at an insane asylum. He is being hunted by the project.
What have you heard? Because that seems pretty accurate based on what Gamespot said about it. http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/manhunt2/news.html?sid=6169798
From what I've seen and read of the game, this does sound fairly likely.
First amendment much?
The desciption he gives fails to explain satisfactorily why the player has to perform sadistic killings. The original game did have an explanation for this (snuff film).
I was calling it an inadequate description, not an incorrect one.
You didn't ask me what the law was, you asked me what I personally thought about censoring child pornography.
1) Really? Show it.
2) I don't really care whether you or anyone else trusts individuals or society-at-large. It is exactly that "mistrust" that I find so abhorrent in everyone's opinion! Your mistrust, and the UK government's mistrust, and the BBFC's mistrust is, for all time and space, i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. Irrelevant.
Clockwork Orange was actually passed uncut by the BBFC. It was withdrawn by Kubrick.
Wait, we still have that? I figured they would have abolished that in a rider attached to yet another proposed congressional pay raise. :P
EDIT: F'ING top of the page.
erm. what I said last page. blah blah, double standards, blah blah, people should take responsibility for their own actions, and not blame entertainment, blah blah.