The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The friggin' game mechanics reward people for the messiest kills, after all.
No they don't. There's one, short section of the game where you're required to use the yellow and red kills at least once each. That's it.
I didn't say required, I said rewarded. Messier kills give you a better rating.
And if you don't think people aren't motivated by getting more points, you haven't seen people actively buying crappy 360 games they never would have played just to rack up achievement points.
Again Ginger, why does this option exist? Yes, I can appreciate the stealth mechanics, but you gotta admit the game encourages mucho gore.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
KnobTURN THE BEAT BACKInternetModeratorMod Emeritus
See all the posts from the fans of this game make me want to give it a try, but I pretty much hate stealth games. I can't play Splinter Cell, and despite liking Theif I never beat it. All the sneaking around just goes against my natural tendencies as a gamer.
I do like gritty atmospheric games though, but my backlog is so huge as it is.
stay away from manhunt, then
it has a great plot and great ambiance and a lot of good things going for it
but the actual gameplay is pretty bland and repetitive
Man I couldn't even remember that the game had a rating system. Shows how important it is. I'm pretty sure achievements weren't around when it came out either, but I could be wrong. I played it on PS2
Well, if people would show there is more than just killing people violently (Which apparently people seem unable to, being too busy crying about unable to see more violence or jumping on people who don't agree with them), then maybe I would.
But if you'd rather spend your time slinging around pointless insults, feel free.
If your stupid fucking ass is too lazy to do it's own research, I don't think it's anyone else's responsibility to go out of their way to convince you that your ill-informed jabberings are predicated on ignorance and small-minded horseshit.
Ordinarily your point would stand, but I'm not the one defending the snuff game, they are.
If you go up to a politician and ask him to defend his point on abortion, he doesn't go "Fuck you. Go read the bible.".
So until someone actually comes out and defends the game based on its merits as an entertaining game and not just "lols, violence" or "freedomz of speach!", my point still fucking stands. Though it doesn't surprise me that you of all people couldn't see that either.
Except that it isnt' a snuff simulator, and even the most rudimentary knowledge of the game reveals that. You're just an ignorant prick who has no idea what he's talking about but feels the need to spout off anyway.
Dude, you should calm down a bit. You seem to be taking this kinda personally.
I mean, this whole thread is becoming kinda angry. You should all calm down, rather than all gang up and fight and flame each other.
PenguinSeph on
0
KnobTURN THE BEAT BACKInternetModeratorMod Emeritus
The friggin' game mechanics reward people for the messiest kills, after all.
No they don't. There's one, short section of the game where you're required to use the yellow and red kills at least once each. That's it.
I didn't say required, I said rewarded. Messier kills give you a better rating.
And if you don't think people aren't motivated by getting more points, you haven't seen people actively buying crappy 360 games they never would have played just to rack up achievement points.
Again Ginger, why does this option exist? Yes, I can appreciate the stealth mechanics, but you gotta admit the game encourages mucho gore.
So? There are other games that offer just as much gore, doesn't make them snuff games.
I find it strange you would shoot them, but are adverse to killing them in some other fashion. You know if you suffocate someone with a plastic bag, there is no mess.
The friggin' game mechanics reward people for the messiest kills, after all.
No they don't. There's one, short section of the game where you're required to use the yellow and red kills at least once each. That's it.
I didn't say required, I said rewarded. Messier kills give you a better rating.
And if you don't think people aren't motivated by getting more points, you haven't seen people actively buying crappy 360 games they never would have played just to rack up achievement points.
Again Ginger, why does this option exist? Yes, I can appreciate the stealth mechanics, but you gotta admit the game encourages mucho gore.
So? There are other games that offer just as much gore, doesn't make them snuff games.
I find it strange you would shoot them, but are adverse to killing them in some other fashion. You know if you suffocate someone with a plastic bag, there is no mess.
I always found all gory games adverse, but this is the only game that seems to give a reward (even if it isn't important) for it.
Also, there could easily be achivements in MH2, which would reward players for violent actions.
PenguinSeph on
0
Ginger MijangoDon't you open thatTrap Door!Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
There is no reward, there is a rating, reward suggests you get something for it, you don't, you get sweet fuck all.
As per achievements in Manhunt 2, I'm not allowed to use my powers of precognition and wild stabs in the dark for my own forum gains.
The shooting remark was directed at CloudEagle btw.
There is no reward, there is a rating, reward suggests you get something for it, you don't, you get sweet fuck all.
As per achievements in Manhunt 2, I'm not allowed to use my powers of precognition and wild stabs in the dark for my own forum gains.
The shooting remark was directed at CloudEagle btw.
That's a really sketch differentiation there. Rating points are a reward. High rating is a reward. Just because the game doesn't drop a gun in your hand if you kill someone by nailing their legs to a chair, and then castrating them with some pliers, it doesn't mean there's no reward. You can't honestly say that a high rating has absolutely no effect on a majority of people who will be playing the game.
The friggin' game mechanics reward people for the messiest kills, after all.
No they don't. There's one, short section of the game where you're required to use the yellow and red kills at least once each. That's it.
I didn't say required, I said rewarded. Messier kills give you a better rating.
And if you don't think people aren't motivated by getting more points, you haven't seen people actively buying crappy 360 games they never would have played just to rack up achievement points.
Again Ginger, why does this option exist? Yes, I can appreciate the stealth mechanics, but you gotta admit the game encourages mucho gore.
It provides a small game mechanic? You might as well excoriate fighting games. "Those combos! just encouraging the longest, most bloody beating you can give a man!"
I think the fact that most people who played it here seem to not actually remember that so much as the atmosphere and the sneaking shows how much of the game was actually dedicated to "testicle ripping! 12 points!".
You seem to think that the only thing that makes the violence in this game wrong is making it part of some rating system. So something like Bioshock is okay, because all you do is set people on fire and kill little girls, but the addition of a "least->most messy" mechanic makes it oooooh soooo twisted.
For that matter, who's to say it doesn't score like golf?
edit: Doesn't every game with any sort of violence at all reward you for being violent? I've yet to see a WW2 game that rewards you for being a conscientious objector.
durandal4532 on
We're all in this together
0
KnobTURN THE BEAT BACKInternetModeratorMod Emeritus
edited September 2007
The rating system exists because you aren't playing you.
You're playing an extraordinarily disturbed psychopath, and are rewarded for acting as such.
The friggin' game mechanics reward people for the messiest kills, after all.
No they don't. There's one, short section of the game where you're required to use the yellow and red kills at least once each. That's it.
I didn't say required, I said rewarded. Messier kills give you a better rating.
And if you don't think people aren't motivated by getting more points, you haven't seen people actively buying crappy 360 games they never would have played just to rack up achievement points.
Again Ginger, why does this option exist? Yes, I can appreciate the stealth mechanics, but you gotta admit the game encourages mucho gore.
It provides a small game mechanic? You might as well excoriate fighting games. "Those combos! just encouraging the longest, most bloody beating you can give a man!"
I think the fact that most people who played it here seem to not actually remember that so much as the atmosphere and the sneaking shows how much of the game was actually dedicated to "testicle ripping! 12 points!".
You seem to think that the only thing that makes the violence in this game wrong is making it part of some rating system. So something like Bioshock is okay, because all you do is set people on fire and kill little girls, but the addition of a "least->most messy" mechanic makes it oooooh soooo twisted.
For that matter, who's to say it doesn't score like golf?
edit: Doesn't every game with any sort of violence at all reward you for being violent? I've yet to see a WW2 game that rewards you for being a conscientious objector.
There are unlockables in the PC version (never played it on a console) that require you to complete the level quickly and with a certain number of Gruesome (most messy) kills. That said, I've never really been interested in unlockables and didn't even notice them until I was nearly finished with the game the first time around.
Look, I think both cloudeagle and Ginger have some valid points but they go too far with them. Yes, Manhunt is a game that portrays and almost certainly encourages killing enemies in particularly disturbing ways. Yes, Manhunt has goddamn excellent atmosphere, great voice acting, a decent plot and is overall an extremely well-made, polished game that Rockstar should be proud of.
There's no reason to gloss over one or the other.
SithDrummer on
0
Ginger MijangoDon't you open thatTrap Door!Registered Userregular
There is no reward, there is a rating, reward suggests you get something for it, you don't, you get sweet fuck all.
As per achievements in Manhunt 2, I'm not allowed to use my powers of precognition and wild stabs in the dark for my own forum gains.
The shooting remark was directed at CloudEagle btw.
That's a really sketch differentiation there. Rating points are a reward. High rating is a reward. Just because the game doesn't drop a gun in your hand if you kill someone by nailing their legs to a chair, and then castrating them with some pliers, it doesn't mean there's no reward. You can't honestly say that a high rating has absolutely no effect on a majority of people who will be playing the game.
Except it's not, you get an A+ in cookery or buggery or whatever, you're happy, you got an A+ that's your rating for that, you go home and get £5 from your parents, that's your reward.
You get an F that's your rating, you're all like fuck them man, I'm gonna race cars and win the superbowl what the fuck do those teachers know? Nothing!
Then you end up bagging my groceries at the supermarket, that's your reward.
t Sith: Those unlockables require certain tasks to be performed, you don't get them based on your rating. I also was never interested in them, but unlocked a few by chance. Disturbing or not, my point is that it's not a snuff game and has a lot of merits and features beyond the kills making it a good game.
When (not if, when) it comes out, you're going to have people in government denouncing it as being overly violent and all that fun stuff there...
Just like whats gonna happen with GTA IV, I'm sure some kid will kill someone somewhere and then they'll find out he was obsessed with Manhunt 2 or some crap.
Then we're gonna have another shit storm on our hands as people openly reevaluate the ESRB.
Will it blow over or will it overhaul the current rating system?
If the game was able to remain AO and was somehow able to be purchased online, then Manhunt likely would have sold quite a few less although "artistic vision" would remain intact. Then the people who are really craving a game like this would be able to get it if they knew how to. Perhaps then the coming political storm would've been at least delayed until GTA IV.
As it stands however, even this M rated version, is going to cause a ruckus and ironically, may lead to calls for censorship.
Honestly I have zero desire to play this game and in the end its really nothing more than a unique better than average Tenchu or Splinter Cell kind of game that has more freedom of choice in how to dispatch enemies. If thats your type of thing then you should be able to play it.
I'm just not looking forward to the fallout thats going to come from its release.
Wienke on
PSN: TheWienke
0
Ginger MijangoDon't you open thatTrap Door!Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
We've already had all that crap with the original.
A 14 year old was killed in the UK by his friend apparently "Manhunt Crazed"
The media went: MAARGH!
The country went: MAARGH!
The shops went: Get it off the shelves quick!
The demand for the game went: UP!
I remember seeing the mother of the victim on the news calling for the game to be banned.
Turns out the victim owned the game and the murderer never played it.
I promise you, if this had been a game by any other studio than Rockstar, and released under any other title than Manhunt, it would have gotten an M-rating to begin with. (and Jack Thompson would have ignored it; he never said a word about the Hitman series).
But the ESRB is so tired of the crap they've been receiving because of Rockstar, they censored a franchise that has already created controversy. I want to say I don't blame them, but I do. Censorship is wrong. Period.
Although, personally, I think Rockstar has had a serious lack of creativity in their games. I don't mind violent games, but that's all they ever put out. Why? To "fight for the 1rst amendment" before their rights were really getting trod upon. Now they're feeling the heat.
Bully proved you don't need guns and gore to make an awesome game, so where is Bully 2? The GTA series has gone nowhere since San Andreas (LCS and VCS were repeats), so I don't hold a lot of hope for GTA 4. Rockstar needs to open up some new venues.
I promise you, if this had been a game by any other studio than Rockstar, and released under any other title than Manhunt, it would have gotten an M-rating to begin with.
But the ESRB is so tired of the crap they've been receiving because of Rockstar, they censored a franchise that has already created controversy. I want to say I don't blame them, but I do. Censorship is wrong. Period.
Although, personally, I think Rockstar has had a serious lack of creativity in their games. I don't mind violent games, but that's all they ever put out. Why? To "fight for the 1rst amendment" before their rights were really getting trod upon. Now they're feeling the heat.
Bully proved you don't need guns and gore to make an awesome game, so where is Bully 2? The GTA series has gone nowhere since San Andreas (LCS and VCS were repeats), so I don't hold a lot of hope for GTA 4. Rockstar needs to open up some new venues.
While Rockstar are remaining hardcore, I've heard that Take Two are opening a new wing, called T2 Play, focusing on casual games.
Although, personally, I think Rockstar has had a serious lack of creativity in their games. I don't mind violent games, but that's all they ever put out. Why? To "fight for the 1rst amendment" before their rights were really getting trod upon. Now they're feeling the heat.
Although, personally, I think Rockstar has had a serious lack of creativity in their games. I don't mind violent games, but that's all they ever put out. Why? To "fight for the 1rst amendment" before their rights were really getting trod upon. Now they're feeling the heat.
I agree that rockstar lack creativity though. Last generation the only created two genres. Lazy faggots.
Being me, I was ready to chew you out till I read the entire sentence
I wouldn't particulary say they create violent games as much as they create action games for adults. Even then, they've supported some titles that a lot of other developers and publishers wouldn't have like a game based on a 30 year old movie or a table tennis sim. And as much as they could have churned out another San Andreas and sold a few million, they've put some distinctive effort into the new gta from whats been shown so far and with Manhunt 2, they went all out on creating atmosphere and story to prove it isn't just a game about damaging polygons and acting as a scapegoat for reactionary families and asshole politicians.
But the ESRB is so tired of the crap they've been receiving because of Rockstar, they censored a franchise that has already created controversy. I want to say I don't blame them, but I do. Censorship is wrong. Period.
I'm going to write a book - a big-ass book, and I will call it "The Difference Between Ratings and Censorship: Why Only Rockstar is Censoring Rockstar". It will detail how the ESRB is not a censoring body, how Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft don't have the power to censor games, and how the government has not put in its hand so no actual censorship has occurred yet.
And then I'm going to find people who see this situation and go "o noes censorship".
Then I'm going to beat them with it, one at a time, until the message gets across.
The Warriors (also by Rockstar, although Rockstar Toronto) was an 18 in the UK, mature in North America, it's filled with violence, swearing and drugs. It was based on a film that came out in 1979. There was no fuss made by mainstream media when it was released, hell 40+ year old adults that I know who hate GTA showed interest in the game.
The entire issue of censorship in this context has alot of ignorance surrounding it. Politicians want a scapegoat; (some) bad parents want an excuse for being bad parents; good parents want their kids to not be able to access inapropriate material outside of the home - there is only so much they can do; Some gamers want their games' artistic vision to not be tampered with; some gamers want their hobby to receive the same credibility that other mediums get; some gamers just want to kill npc's as violently and groutesquly as possible, just for kicks; media want a shock story; developers want acclaim; developers want artistic freedom; publishers want profit; retailers want profit.
I'm not even sure where I stand on the whole issue anymore.
The friggin' game mechanics reward people for the messiest kills, after all.
No they don't. There's one, short section of the game where you're required to use the yellow and red kills at least once each. That's it.
I didn't say required, I said rewarded. Messier kills give you a better rating.
And if you don't think people aren't motivated by getting more points, you haven't seen people actively buying crappy 360 games they never would have played just to rack up achievement points.
Again Ginger, why does this option exist? Yes, I can appreciate the stealth mechanics, but you gotta admit the game encourages mucho gore.
So? There are other games that offer just as much gore, doesn't make them snuff games.
I find it strange you would shoot them, but are adverse to killing them in some other fashion. You know if you suffocate someone with a plastic bag, there is no mess.
You really don't get it. It's not the death, it's that you're inflicting as much intentional suffering on them as possible.
Like the plastic bag. With one move you kill them swiftly, with another you watch them as they slowly thrash around in pure agony.
And if the game doesn't encourage you to be as violent as possible, then why does the damned Director tell you flat-out multiple that he wants as much blood as possible? And that if you kill people with the least amount of flair, there is no change/consequence in the story?
A beta, slightly buggy version was leaked. Uncut etc by all accounts but for those interested (and pick up the original), it'd be interesting to see the differences between this and retail.
Of course it's illegal and places to get it shall not be discussed here. However with that in mind, has anyone played it and can anyone comment on what it's like?
You really don't get it. It's not the death, it's that you're inflicting as much intentional suffering on them as possible.
Like the plastic bag. With one move you kill them swiftly, with another you watch them as they slowly thrash around in pure agony.
And if the game doesn't encourage you to be as violent as possible, then why does the damned Director tell you flat-out multiple that he wants as much blood as possible? And that if you kill people with the least amount of flair, there is no change/consequence in the story?
Isn't the director a madman?
And seriously, how is this worse than Bioshock? In that you were rewarded with sweet, sweet ADAM for killing little girls. In Manhunt, you're rewarded with nothing much besides an arbitrary score for killing psychopaths.
You really don't get it. It's not the death, it's that you're inflicting as much intentional suffering on them as possible.
Like the plastic bag. With one move you kill them swiftly, with another you watch them as they slowly thrash around in pure agony.
And if the game doesn't encourage you to be as violent as possible, then why does the damned Director tell you flat-out multiple that he wants as much blood as possible? And that if you kill people with the least amount of flair, there is no change/consequence in the story?
Isn't the director a madman?
And seriously, how is this worse than Bioshock? In that you were rewarded with sweet, sweet ADAM for killing little girls. In Manhunt, you're rewarded with nothing much besides an arbitrary score for killing psychopaths.
Well, with Bioshock the choices you make with the girls affects the outcome of the storyline, and the game really makes you think about what kind of moral choices you'll make. In Manhunt, inflicting the least amount of pain possible does squat besides give you a crappy score.
Now if Manhunt were like Bioshock and really made you think about the violence you were inflicting rather than reveling in it, that would be different.
Mind you, I'm not slamming the game. I'm just saying people should call a spade a spade. Saying that ultraviolence isn't the point of Manhunt is like saying nudie pictures of sluts isn't the point of Hustler.
You really don't get it. It's not the death, it's that you're inflicting as much intentional suffering on them as possible.
Like the plastic bag. With one move you kill them swiftly, with another you watch them as they slowly thrash around in pure agony.
And if the game doesn't encourage you to be as violent as possible, then why does the damned Director tell you flat-out multiple that he wants as much blood as possible? And that if you kill people with the least amount of flair, there is no change/consequence in the story?
Isn't the director a madman?
And seriously, how is this worse than Bioshock? In that you were rewarded with sweet, sweet ADAM for killing little girls. In Manhunt, you're rewarded with nothing much besides an arbitrary score for killing psychopaths.
Well, with Bioshock the choices you make with the girls affects the outcome of the storyline, and the game really makes you think about what kind of moral choices you'll make. In Manhunt, inflicting the least amount of pain possible does squat besides give you a crappy score.
Now if Manhunt were like Bioshock and really made you think about the violence you were inflicting rather than reveling in it, that would be different.
Mind you, I'm not slamming the game. I'm just saying people should call a spade a spade. Saying that ultraviolence isn't the point of Manhunt is like saying nudie pictures of sluts isn't the point of Hustler.
Thats total bull. Bioshock doesn't make you think about the violence. It took that part out. It only matters if you're going for a particular ending. Any 'violence' occurs off screen and the only immediate reward is more or less ADAM.
You really don't get it. It's not the death, it's that you're inflicting as much intentional suffering on them as possible.
Like the plastic bag. With one move you kill them swiftly, with another you watch them as they slowly thrash around in pure agony.
And if the game doesn't encourage you to be as violent as possible, then why does the damned Director tell you flat-out multiple that he wants as much blood as possible? And that if you kill people with the least amount of flair, there is no change/consequence in the story?
Isn't the director a madman?
And seriously, how is this worse than Bioshock? In that you were rewarded with sweet, sweet ADAM for killing little girls. In Manhunt, you're rewarded with nothing much besides an arbitrary score for killing psychopaths.
Well, with Bioshock the choices you make with the girls affects the outcome of the storyline, and the game really makes you think about what kind of moral choices you'll make. In Manhunt, inflicting the least amount of pain possible does squat besides give you a crappy score.
Now if Manhunt were like Bioshock and really made you think about the violence you were inflicting rather than reveling in it, that would be different.
Mind you, I'm not slamming the game. I'm just saying people should call a spade a spade. Saying that ultraviolence isn't the point of Manhunt is like saying nudie pictures of sluts isn't the point of Hustler.
Thats total bull. Bioshock doesn't make you think about the violence. It took that part out. It only matters if you're going for a particular ending. Any 'violence' occurs off screen and the only immediate reward is more or less ADAM.
You haven't seen the way the Little Sisters whimper and cringe, then.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Ginger MijangoDon't you open thatTrap Door!Registered Userregular
The friggin' game mechanics reward people for the messiest kills, after all.
No they don't. There's one, short section of the game where you're required to use the yellow and red kills at least once each. That's it.
I didn't say required, I said rewarded. Messier kills give you a better rating.
And if you don't think people aren't motivated by getting more points, you haven't seen people actively buying crappy 360 games they never would have played just to rack up achievement points.
Again Ginger, why does this option exist? Yes, I can appreciate the stealth mechanics, but you gotta admit the game encourages mucho gore.
So? There are other games that offer just as much gore, doesn't make them snuff games.
I find it strange you would shoot them, but are adverse to killing them in some other fashion. You know if you suffocate someone with a plastic bag, there is no mess.
You really don't get it. It's not the death, it's that you're inflicting as much intentional suffering on them as possible.
Like the plastic bag. With one move you kill them swiftly, with another you watch them as they slowly thrash around in pure agony.
And if the game doesn't encourage you to be as violent as possible, then why does the damned Director tell you flat-out multiple that he wants as much blood as possible? And that if you kill people with the least amount of flair, there is no change/consequence in the story?
It's about choice, you don't have to kill them in an excruciating fashion, you probably could sneak past them.
In MGS3 I could hold up a guard shoot his radio, the gun out of his hand, his other hand, but a bullet in both of his legs then throw a poisonous snake at his face, that's fairly gruesome or I could sneak past him.
The director tells you to do lots of things, you don't have to do it. I mean he doesn't want you to come after him and try to kill him, but you'd do it anyway. He's an irrelevance, you choose how to play the game.
I really don't see how the story could change, your killing of people has little to no consequence to the story in the 1st place.
It's about choice, you don't have to kill them in an excruciating fashion, you probably could sneak past them.
In MGS3 I could hold up a guard shoot his radio, the gun out of his hand, his other hand, but a bullet in both of his legs then throw a poisonous snake at his face, that's fairly gruesome or I could sneak past him.
The director tells you to do lots of things, you don't have to do it. I mean he doesn't want you to come after him and try to kill him, but you'd do it anyway. He's an irrelevance, you choose how to play the game.
I really don't see how the story could change, your killing of people has little to no consequence to the story in the 1st place.
Maybe because the story is all about killing people as messily as possible? :P
Yes, MGS3 does give you all sorts of choices. And you can go through the entire game without killing anyone. But I still wouldn't recommend it to a pacifist or deny that it's hard-boiled military stealth action, because the options are all over the game.
Likewise, despite the fact that you can play it for stealth if you ignore all of the constant temptations, I wouldn't recommend Manhunt to anyone who doesn't like gore.
Edit: I preserve your ninja edit for posterity! Muahahaha.
So, I dunno if I'm allowed to mention this (if not, give me a slapping and I'll edit the post) but I played the beta last night. I was too curious not to. I can confirm it's uncut and doesn't contain the edits in the OP. It does however contain a number of bugs, at one part I fell off an overhead platform and floated in the air, just doing the falling action, after twiddling the analogue stick I eventually fell. Sometimes sound effects don't play and some appear to be completely missing.
The game itself? It's pretty fucking fun. I got thoroughly bored of the original Manhunt and was pretty sickened by the game. Up to now this one hasn't had quite the same effect on me, the story thus far is pretty decent (Not just you've-been-put-here-now-kill).
You wake up in a cell, kind of dizzy. Some guy comes over and starts offering you help, he's basically your tutorial. From what I've played up to now (which is only just over the first stage and slightly in to the second) I've got a pretty strong feeling he's not real and you're just imagining him.
Anyway tutorial is sneaking by three people locked in a cell. If you don't get by the first guy he leaps at his cell bars and tries to pull the door open to get to you (he can't), if you fail to get by the second then he pees on you, fail the third and he throws shit at you. Charming. Each of the three is progressively more difficult (First just involves you staying in darkness, the others involve moving when their back is turned).
You fight your way through the mental ward, stabbing people with syringes, glass shards and attacking them with the old carrier bag. There are some nice set pieces as you walk the wards such as orderlies beating up patients, patients ganging up on the orderlies and what not.
The AI is a bit suspect, but this could be because of the beta. Sometimes it's spot on whereas othertimes you can tell it's very very scripted. One part I enjoyed was where I took out a guard and heard someone downstairs, so I dropped his corpse off the top of the balcony and it alerted the guy below, he looked up and yelled he was coming to get me. I ducked in to the dark of one of the rooms and when he stood looking confused, pounced and stabbed him in the neck with a syringe.
After the first stage you escape in a dump truck and have to make your way to your old house to get medication. You don't really remember much but the dude helping you seems to think it'll help. When you get to the house you keep seeing ghostly flashes (think of the vision thingies in Bioshock) of past events. Pretty spooky really.
The house is incredibly well designed and looks like something right out of a horror film.
And that's as far as I've got up to now. Most grizzly death was probably the barbed wire, whereby you put it between the guys legs, saw back and forth in to this scrotum, rip it out and pull it round his neck and then decapitate him.
I'm finding it quite interesting though how the main character voices his dissaproval at doing any killing at all, whereas the guy helping you (or, as I think, the guy you're imagining) goads you in to doing it.
So they're my impressions up to now. Despite the cuts, I'll definitely be picking this up for the Wii when it's released. Graphically (PS2 anyway) it's nothing special, it looks like the first Manhunt really and I actually had to switch off the static effect this time around as it's dreadful, but I'm really quite enjoying the game.
I really like what you just described, Mr Grinch.
This one might easily have a better story than the first if they take it in the right direction.
I'll be waiting for impressions/reviews to decide between Wii and PS2, or hell I'll just go Wii so I have something to play on it besides Metroid which I should get around to.
You really don't get it. It's not the death, it's that you're inflicting as much intentional suffering on them as possible.
Like the plastic bag. With one move you kill them swiftly, with another you watch them as they slowly thrash around in pure agony.
And if the game doesn't encourage you to be as violent as possible, then why does the damned Director tell you flat-out multiple that he wants as much blood as possible? And that if you kill people with the least amount of flair, there is no change/consequence in the story?
Isn't the director a madman?
And seriously, how is this worse than Bioshock? In that you were rewarded with sweet, sweet ADAM for killing little girls. In Manhunt, you're rewarded with nothing much besides an arbitrary score for killing psychopaths.
Well, with Bioshock the choices you make with the girls affects the outcome of the storyline, and the game really makes you think about what kind of moral choices you'll make. In Manhunt, inflicting the least amount of pain possible does squat besides give you a crappy score.
Now if Manhunt were like Bioshock and really made you think about the violence you were inflicting rather than reveling in it, that would be different.
Mind you, I'm not slamming the game. I'm just saying people should call a spade a spade. Saying that ultraviolence isn't the point of Manhunt is like saying nudie pictures of sluts isn't the point of Hustler.
Thats total bull. Bioshock doesn't make you think about the violence. It took that part out. It only matters if you're going for a particular ending. Any 'violence' occurs off screen and the only immediate reward is more or less ADAM.
You haven't seen the way the Little Sisters whimper and cringe, then.
Uh, maybe I missed something but are you talking about how you pick them up and they squirm around until they cover the screen with that green shit? Wow
first off, I can't even believe people would somehow be disturbed by that little animation, which happens in the exact same way every damn time and isn't even that graphic. There isn't even a corpse left behind!
I call bullshit, man. You are too over-sensitive if stuff like that gets to you. You must be one of those who faints at the sight of blood.
From what I've played it -is- pretty brutal but up to now nothing worse than what Manhunt had to offer (although I'm sure that'll pick up further in the game). I like the setup to this one much more, it seems to give more of a reason towards the violence, the character starting out as a bit of a wimp helps too.
Didn't mention the controls before either, which may or may not have changed.
L1 targets your opponent
you no longer autoblock and, whilst targetting, need to tap Triangle to do it.
R1 or Square both perform a punch, with heavier punches being performed by holding down the button for longer. You hold down the button when behind the character as in the first game for the different level of kills.
X still runs.
Triangle puts your back to the wall etc.
Circle does context sensitive actions, pushing buttons, diving over walls, crawling under barriers, picks up dead guards. That kind of thing.
In the beta the controls are a bit iffy, I hope they tighten them up a tad for the final release. I can't remember, but in the first one could you move the camera angle with the right analogue? You can't in this one, which works a bit better, when coming to corners you can pretty much only see what your character would see (Ok, a little bit more, but not too much).
Posts
I didn't say required, I said rewarded. Messier kills give you a better rating.
And if you don't think people aren't motivated by getting more points, you haven't seen people actively buying crappy 360 games they never would have played just to rack up achievement points.
Again Ginger, why does this option exist? Yes, I can appreciate the stealth mechanics, but you gotta admit the game encourages mucho gore.
stay away from manhunt, then
it has a great plot and great ambiance and a lot of good things going for it
but the actual gameplay is pretty bland and repetitive
I mean, this whole thread is becoming kinda angry. You should all calm down, rather than all gang up and fight and flame each other.
also smart
and extremely well endowed
So not really the thread for me.
For real thou, what seem to be the differeces in MH1 and MH2? Because from what I've heard, there are some.
So? There are other games that offer just as much gore, doesn't make them snuff games.
I find it strange you would shoot them, but are adverse to killing them in some other fashion. You know if you suffocate someone with a plastic bag, there is no mess.
Also, there could easily be achivements in MH2, which would reward players for violent actions.
As per achievements in Manhunt 2, I'm not allowed to use my powers of precognition and wild stabs in the dark for my own forum gains.
The shooting remark was directed at CloudEagle btw.
That's a really sketch differentiation there. Rating points are a reward. High rating is a reward. Just because the game doesn't drop a gun in your hand if you kill someone by nailing their legs to a chair, and then castrating them with some pliers, it doesn't mean there's no reward. You can't honestly say that a high rating has absolutely no effect on a majority of people who will be playing the game.
It provides a small game mechanic? You might as well excoriate fighting games. "Those combos! just encouraging the longest, most bloody beating you can give a man!"
I think the fact that most people who played it here seem to not actually remember that so much as the atmosphere and the sneaking shows how much of the game was actually dedicated to "testicle ripping! 12 points!".
You seem to think that the only thing that makes the violence in this game wrong is making it part of some rating system. So something like Bioshock is okay, because all you do is set people on fire and kill little girls, but the addition of a "least->most messy" mechanic makes it oooooh soooo twisted.
For that matter, who's to say it doesn't score like golf?
edit: Doesn't every game with any sort of violence at all reward you for being violent? I've yet to see a WW2 game that rewards you for being a conscientious objector.
You're playing an extraordinarily disturbed psychopath, and are rewarded for acting as such.
You didn't play Tiananmen Square 2006?
Look, I think both cloudeagle and Ginger have some valid points but they go too far with them. Yes, Manhunt is a game that portrays and almost certainly encourages killing enemies in particularly disturbing ways. Yes, Manhunt has goddamn excellent atmosphere, great voice acting, a decent plot and is overall an extremely well-made, polished game that Rockstar should be proud of.
There's no reason to gloss over one or the other.
Except it's not, you get an A+ in cookery or buggery or whatever, you're happy, you got an A+ that's your rating for that, you go home and get £5 from your parents, that's your reward.
You get an F that's your rating, you're all like fuck them man, I'm gonna race cars and win the superbowl what the fuck do those teachers know? Nothing!
Then you end up bagging my groceries at the supermarket, that's your reward.
t Sith: Those unlockables require certain tasks to be performed, you don't get them based on your rating. I also was never interested in them, but unlocked a few by chance. Disturbing or not, my point is that it's not a snuff game and has a lot of merits and features beyond the kills making it a good game.
When (not if, when) it comes out, you're going to have people in government denouncing it as being overly violent and all that fun stuff there...
Just like whats gonna happen with GTA IV, I'm sure some kid will kill someone somewhere and then they'll find out he was obsessed with Manhunt 2 or some crap.
Then we're gonna have another shit storm on our hands as people openly reevaluate the ESRB.
Will it blow over or will it overhaul the current rating system?
If the game was able to remain AO and was somehow able to be purchased online, then Manhunt likely would have sold quite a few less although "artistic vision" would remain intact. Then the people who are really craving a game like this would be able to get it if they knew how to. Perhaps then the coming political storm would've been at least delayed until GTA IV.
As it stands however, even this M rated version, is going to cause a ruckus and ironically, may lead to calls for censorship.
Honestly I have zero desire to play this game and in the end its really nothing more than a unique better than average Tenchu or Splinter Cell kind of game that has more freedom of choice in how to dispatch enemies. If thats your type of thing then you should be able to play it.
I'm just not looking forward to the fallout thats going to come from its release.
A 14 year old was killed in the UK by his friend apparently "Manhunt Crazed"
The media went: MAARGH!
The country went: MAARGH!
The shops went: Get it off the shelves quick!
The demand for the game went: UP!
I remember seeing the mother of the victim on the news calling for the game to be banned.
Turns out the victim owned the game and the murderer never played it.
But the ESRB is so tired of the crap they've been receiving because of Rockstar, they censored a franchise that has already created controversy. I want to say I don't blame them, but I do. Censorship is wrong. Period.
Although, personally, I think Rockstar has had a serious lack of creativity in their games. I don't mind violent games, but that's all they ever put out. Why? To "fight for the 1rst amendment" before their rights were really getting trod upon. Now they're feeling the heat.
Bully proved you don't need guns and gore to make an awesome game, so where is Bully 2? The GTA series has gone nowhere since San Andreas (LCS and VCS were repeats), so I don't hold a lot of hope for GTA 4. Rockstar needs to open up some new venues.
Yeah that table tennis game was some rough shit
I actually broke down and cried at one point.
Being me, I was ready to chew you out till I read the entire sentence
I wouldn't particulary say they create violent games as much as they create action games for adults. Even then, they've supported some titles that a lot of other developers and publishers wouldn't have like a game based on a 30 year old movie or a table tennis sim. And as much as they could have churned out another San Andreas and sold a few million, they've put some distinctive effort into the new gta from whats been shown so far and with Manhunt 2, they went all out on creating atmosphere and story to prove it isn't just a game about damaging polygons and acting as a scapegoat for reactionary families and asshole politicians.
I'm going to write a book - a big-ass book, and I will call it "The Difference Between Ratings and Censorship: Why Only Rockstar is Censoring Rockstar". It will detail how the ESRB is not a censoring body, how Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft don't have the power to censor games, and how the government has not put in its hand so no actual censorship has occurred yet.
And then I'm going to find people who see this situation and go "o noes censorship".
Then I'm going to beat them with it, one at a time, until the message gets across.
The entire issue of censorship in this context has alot of ignorance surrounding it. Politicians want a scapegoat; (some) bad parents want an excuse for being bad parents; good parents want their kids to not be able to access inapropriate material outside of the home - there is only so much they can do; Some gamers want their games' artistic vision to not be tampered with; some gamers want their hobby to receive the same credibility that other mediums get; some gamers just want to kill npc's as violently and groutesquly as possible, just for kicks; media want a shock story; developers want acclaim; developers want artistic freedom; publishers want profit; retailers want profit.
I'm not even sure where I stand on the whole issue anymore.
You really don't get it. It's not the death, it's that you're inflicting as much intentional suffering on them as possible.
Like the plastic bag. With one move you kill them swiftly, with another you watch them as they slowly thrash around in pure agony.
And if the game doesn't encourage you to be as violent as possible, then why does the damned Director tell you flat-out multiple that he wants as much blood as possible? And that if you kill people with the least amount of flair, there is no change/consequence in the story?
A beta, slightly buggy version was leaked. Uncut etc by all accounts but for those interested (and pick up the original), it'd be interesting to see the differences between this and retail.
Of course it's illegal and places to get it shall not be discussed here. However with that in mind, has anyone played it and can anyone comment on what it's like?
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
And seriously, how is this worse than Bioshock? In that you were rewarded with sweet, sweet ADAM for killing little girls. In Manhunt, you're rewarded with nothing much besides an arbitrary score for killing psychopaths.
Well, with Bioshock the choices you make with the girls affects the outcome of the storyline, and the game really makes you think about what kind of moral choices you'll make. In Manhunt, inflicting the least amount of pain possible does squat besides give you a crappy score.
Now if Manhunt were like Bioshock and really made you think about the violence you were inflicting rather than reveling in it, that would be different.
Mind you, I'm not slamming the game. I'm just saying people should call a spade a spade. Saying that ultraviolence isn't the point of Manhunt is like saying nudie pictures of sluts isn't the point of Hustler.
Thats total bull. Bioshock doesn't make you think about the violence. It took that part out. It only matters if you're going for a particular ending. Any 'violence' occurs off screen and the only immediate reward is more or less ADAM.
You haven't seen the way the Little Sisters whimper and cringe, then.
It's about choice, you don't have to kill them in an excruciating fashion, you probably could sneak past them.
In MGS3 I could hold up a guard shoot his radio, the gun out of his hand, his other hand, but a bullet in both of his legs then throw a poisonous snake at his face, that's fairly gruesome or I could sneak past him.
The director tells you to do lots of things, you don't have to do it. I mean he doesn't want you to come after him and try to kill him, but you'd do it anyway. He's an irrelevance, you choose how to play the game.
I really don't see how the story could change, your killing of people has little to no consequence to the story in the 1st place.
I edited nothing
Maybe because the story is all about killing people as messily as possible? :P
Yes, MGS3 does give you all sorts of choices. And you can go through the entire game without killing anyone. But I still wouldn't recommend it to a pacifist or deny that it's hard-boiled military stealth action, because the options are all over the game.
Likewise, despite the fact that you can play it for stealth if you ignore all of the constant temptations, I wouldn't recommend Manhunt to anyone who doesn't like gore.
Edit: I preserve your ninja edit for posterity! Muahahaha.
The game itself? It's pretty fucking fun. I got thoroughly bored of the original Manhunt and was pretty sickened by the game. Up to now this one hasn't had quite the same effect on me, the story thus far is pretty decent (Not just you've-been-put-here-now-kill).
Anyway tutorial is sneaking by three people locked in a cell. If you don't get by the first guy he leaps at his cell bars and tries to pull the door open to get to you (he can't), if you fail to get by the second then he pees on you, fail the third and he throws shit at you. Charming. Each of the three is progressively more difficult (First just involves you staying in darkness, the others involve moving when their back is turned).
You fight your way through the mental ward, stabbing people with syringes, glass shards and attacking them with the old carrier bag. There are some nice set pieces as you walk the wards such as orderlies beating up patients, patients ganging up on the orderlies and what not.
The AI is a bit suspect, but this could be because of the beta. Sometimes it's spot on whereas othertimes you can tell it's very very scripted. One part I enjoyed was where I took out a guard and heard someone downstairs, so I dropped his corpse off the top of the balcony and it alerted the guy below, he looked up and yelled he was coming to get me. I ducked in to the dark of one of the rooms and when he stood looking confused, pounced and stabbed him in the neck with a syringe.
After the first stage you escape in a dump truck and have to make your way to your old house to get medication. You don't really remember much but the dude helping you seems to think it'll help. When you get to the house you keep seeing ghostly flashes (think of the vision thingies in Bioshock) of past events. Pretty spooky really.
The house is incredibly well designed and looks like something right out of a horror film.
And that's as far as I've got up to now. Most grizzly death was probably the barbed wire, whereby you put it between the guys legs, saw back and forth in to this scrotum, rip it out and pull it round his neck and then decapitate him.
I'm finding it quite interesting though how the main character voices his dissaproval at doing any killing at all, whereas the guy helping you (or, as I think, the guy you're imagining) goads you in to doing it.
So they're my impressions up to now. Despite the cuts, I'll definitely be picking this up for the Wii when it's released. Graphically (PS2 anyway) it's nothing special, it looks like the first Manhunt really and I actually had to switch off the static effect this time around as it's dreadful, but I'm really quite enjoying the game.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
This one might easily have a better story than the first if they take it in the right direction.
I'll be waiting for impressions/reviews to decide between Wii and PS2, or hell I'll just go Wii so I have something to play on it besides Metroid which I should get around to.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
Uh, maybe I missed something but are you talking about how you pick them up and they squirm around until they cover the screen with that green shit? Wow
first off, I can't even believe people would somehow be disturbed by that little animation, which happens in the exact same way every damn time and isn't even that graphic. There isn't even a corpse left behind!
I call bullshit, man. You are too over-sensitive if stuff like that gets to you. You must be one of those who faints at the sight of blood.
Didn't mention the controls before either, which may or may not have changed.
L1 targets your opponent
you no longer autoblock and, whilst targetting, need to tap Triangle to do it.
R1 or Square both perform a punch, with heavier punches being performed by holding down the button for longer. You hold down the button when behind the character as in the first game for the different level of kills.
X still runs.
Triangle puts your back to the wall etc.
Circle does context sensitive actions, pushing buttons, diving over walls, crawling under barriers, picks up dead guards. That kind of thing.
In the beta the controls are a bit iffy, I hope they tighten them up a tad for the final release. I can't remember, but in the first one could you move the camera angle with the right analogue? You can't in this one, which works a bit better, when coming to corners you can pretty much only see what your character would see (Ok, a little bit more, but not too much).
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch