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 It was withdrawn by Kubrick.
Straw Dogs was banned in the UK. Which is sad, because it's an excellent, excellent film.
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.
You perform sadistic killings because you are batshit insane and are being influenced by an insane guy who escaped with you.
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.
This reminds me of the Death Star contractor thing that states that the rebels are evil because of the contractors who would have been working on the Death Star. The general answer is that they knew that the Empire was bad but continued to work on it so it was OK to kill them. This is the same thing with this game. Unless the place is staffed with idiots, they should know something wrong is going on.
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.
So you're ignoring the official information about the game and are judging it by a random forum post.
This is not a good week for Britain and games. First Resistance and Manchester Catherdral, then Manhunt 2 and the BBFC now BBC Radio Merseyside here in Liverpool is broacasting that CCTV footage from the Jamie Bulger murder has been used in Law& Order II: Double or Nothing. Although it's a small game compared to the others it's being roped in with the furor to give games and gaming a bit of a kicking.
So you're ignoring the official information about the game and are judging it by a random forum post.
Awesome.
My posts carry that much weight. I didn't ask for this.
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
Kudos to your they came for post Tube I was planning on writing my own as I read the topic. I think people should always bristle at censorship of anything even if it is practiced rarely.
I wasn't that interested in the game originally but I have to admit this intrigues me more then before.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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.
Rubbish.
How, exactly, is it any more irrelevant than your feelings of righteous indignation about censorship?
In fact, saying it's irrelevant is entirely nonsensical, since it is, according to your statement, that mistrust that creates censorship in the first place.
Links'll take me a while to find, as I was mainly introduced to it by offline media; but pretty much every UK case on obscenity law, which is an area I've studied in some detail, and am doing my dissertation on. Can you claim any such knowledge?
I wasn't that interested in the game originally but I have to admit this intrigues me more then before.
If it goes ahead unchallenged, I'll probably import one or two copies just for the hell of it. I wonder what the law says about selling banned games on ebay?
Although I bet this is all a rockstar stunt. They probably made one version of the game that was unbelievable fucked up that they knew would get banned but have the proper version all pressed and ready to go that they'll run by the BBFC without a hitch in a day or three.
I wasn't that interested in the game originally but I have to admit this intrigues me more then before.
If it goes ahead unchallenged, I'll probably import one or two copies just for the hell of it. I wonder what the law says about selling banned games on ebay?
I'm pretty certain ebay would stop the sale. Plus you can get into trouble for supplying unrated material inside the uk.
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.
You perform sadistic killings because you are batshit insane and are being influenced by an insane guy who escaped with you.
Which feeds exactly back to what I said about the context being murdering people, and your original argument being flawed.
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.
Yet you trust an organization made up of the same people to make the choice for you?
Breyker4711 on
I don't have to take this abuse from you, I have hundreds of people dying to abuse me
I wonder if Rockstar will release pal versions of the game in the US so that people can purchase them in the uk? Or perhaps sell them from their website? Doesn't the UK have to approve an import (I know my friend used to work for amazon and some dvds got rejected at customs), so even if you try and import could it get rejected?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I wonder if Rockstar will release pal versions of the game in the US so that people can purchase them in the uk? Or perhaps sell them from their website? Doesn't the UK have to approve an import (I know my friend used to work for amazon and some dvds got rejected at customs), so even if you try and import could it get rejected?
That is a possibility. I have heard if you order with a bunch of other stuff that is legal, the it most likely to pass through.
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.
You perform sadistic killings because you are batshit insane and are being influenced by an insane guy who escaped with you.
Which feeds exactly back to what I said about the context being murdering people, and your original argument being flawed.
That's the context for alot of games, just most of them don't let you see the results so clearly, and provide little consequence. You should play the original Manhunt, or even SotC, to understand what I'm saying. The orginal game was essentially 'about killing people', but alot of those who complained about it completely missed the point. Yes, you kill people to progress through the game, but they didn't glorify it. In fact, quite the opposite.
I can agree to a point that idiots are growing in number everyday, people that see things on TV, or in games or movies, and think they should do them, because they can't think for themselves. Very few, I might add, but if we give in to these types of people, we'll only breed more ignorance, and validate the herd mentality. It's a case of people who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, and find the nearest scapegoat. No movie or game will EVER take away anybody's ability to reason, no matter what it shows. If you do something, it's because you DECIDED to do it, not just because you saw it in a movie, once.
When does it stop, exactly? When they ban showing people eating on television, for fear of obesity spreading? When they have to cancel the news, because they're afraid people will get 'ideas'? If a game puts you into the shoes of a killer, and shows you the ramifications of your actions, even making you feel disgusted with yourself (ala Manhunt), then is it really promoting violence, just because it features it?
When does it stop, exactly? When they ban showing people eating on television, for fear of obesity spreading? When they have to cancel the news, because they're afraid people will get 'ideas'? If a game puts you into the shoes of a killer, and shows you the ramifications of your actions, even making you feel disgusted with yourself (ala Manhunt), then is it really promoting violence, just because it features it?
It seems it stops when you're manhunt 2, and starts again when you're manhunt 1.
Rubbish.
How, exactly, is it any more irrelevant than your feelings of righteous indignation about censorship?
In fact, saying it's irrelevant is entirely nonsensical, since it is, according to your statement, that mistrust that creates censorship in the first place.
Links'll take me a while to find, as I was mainly introduced to it by offline media; but pretty much every UK case on obscenity law, which is an area I've studied in some detail, and am doing my dissertation on. Can you claim any such knowledge?
Your mistrust is irrelevant because I deem it irrelevant. I don't really care how god-awful and untrustworthy and puerile and irresponsible human beings are. I don't care if they have the least sense of any living creature to ever evolve from primordial soup. I find your mistrust obnoxious especially if you think it somehow excuses censorship. You are free to consider my "righteous indignation" irrelevant, too.
And, again, you are talking about law and case history, which is irrelevant. Obscenity law is not equivalent to research indicating that "obscene" things cause harm to individuals. That requires scientific research. Of which there is scant. Can I claim any such knowledge? I can claim knowledge of the fact that there is little relevant or conclusive research in this field, yep. Case history is irrelevant.
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.
You perform sadistic killings because you are batshit insane and are being influenced by an insane guy who escaped with you.
Which feeds exactly back to what I said about the context being murdering people, and your original argument being flawed.
That is like saying that the context in a Clockwork Orange is about rape and murder. The rape and murder is used to show something.
When does it stop, exactly? When they ban showing people eating on television, for fear of obesity spreading? When they have to cancel the news, because they're afraid people will get 'ideas'? If a game puts you into the shoes of a killer, and shows you the ramifications of your actions, even making you feel disgusted with yourself (ala Manhunt), then is it really promoting violence, just because it features it?
It seems it stops when you're manhunt 2, and starts again when you're manhunt 1.
Oh, you've played it? How was it? The early buzz is that it's good.
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.
Yet you trust an organization made up of the same people to make the choice for you?
I have more inclination to think an independent organisation that have made a detailed study of the entire problem know what they're are talking about than knee-jerk reactions on a messageboard do.
This does not mean I agree with the ban, merely that I'm inclined to stop and think about the whole thing rather than rushing in head-first.
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.
Yet you trust an organization made up of the same people to make the choice for you?
I have more inclination to think an independent organisation that have made a detailed study of the entire problem know what they're are talking about than knee-jerk reactions on a messageboard do.
This does not mean I agree with the ban, merely that I'm inclined to stop and think about the whole thing rather than rushing in head-first.
Most studies on the influences of media are either done on children or just suck due to counting rough play as violence. Got a link to the study?
It would seem unwise to press and ship thousands of copy of a controversial game that hasn't been rated yet. If I order one of these things, how likely would I be to receive it?
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.
You perform sadistic killings because you are batshit insane and are being influenced by an insane guy who escaped with you.
Which feeds exactly back to what I said about the context being murdering people, and your original argument being flawed.
That is like saying that the context in a Clockwork Orange is about rape and murder. The rape and murder is used to show something.
Except that the plot and pupose in Clockwork Orange do not revolve around rape and murder for its own sake, whereas anyone with half a brain can tell that is the main purpose of Manhunt 2, whatever plto they dress it up in.
I'm not saying this condemns Manhunt 2, just pointing out the flaws in your argument.
Your mistrust is irrelevant because I deem it irrelevant. I don't really care how god-awful and untrustworthy and puerile and irresponsible human beings are. I don't care if they have the least sense of any living creature to ever evolve from primordial soup. I find your mistrust obnoxious especially if you think it somehow excuses censorship. You are free to consider my "righteous indignation" irrelevant, too.
But if something that subjective is the best argument you can put forward, you're failing to prove your point in any way, shape or form.
And did you miss what I said about playing devil's advocate? I don't have an opinion on this issue yet, because I don't feel there's enough to base one on.
And, again, you are talking about law and case history, which is irrelevant. Obscenity law is not equivalent to research indicating that "obscene" things cause harm to individuals. That requires scientific research. Of which there is scant. Can I claim any such knowledge? I can claim knowledge of the fact that there is little relevant or conclusive research in this field, yep. Case history is irrelevant.
Except that the cases in question reference what research there was.
The underlying issue here is the whole "human beings lose the ability to reason for themselves, when presented with engaging entertainment". Which I just think is fucking ludicrous. It's an excuse for those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions, or for victims who want someone or something to blame in the face of a senseless tragedy.
No one ever killed soley because of a movie they watched, or a game they played. They made that final decision in their own head. Chemically imbalanced people aside, each person controls his or her own actions. Just don't release Manhunt 2 at a mental hospital.
Things like this go unabated, and we'll have murderers and rapists getting off of their charges because 'Law & Order made me do it".
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.
Yet you trust an organization made up of the same people to make the choice for you?
I have more inclination to think an independent organisation that have made a detailed study of the entire problem know what they're are talking about than knee-jerk reactions on a messageboard do.
This does not mean I agree with the ban, merely that I'm inclined to stop and think about the whole thing rather than rushing in head-first.
Most studies on the influences of media are either done on children or just suck due to counting rough play as violence. Got a link to the study?
Except that the plot and pupose in Clockwork Orange do not revolve around rape and murder for its own sake, whereas anyone with half a brain can tell that is the main purpose of Manhunt 2, whatever plto they dress it up in.
Cardboard Tube, you don't have half a brain.
What proof do you have that Manhunt 2 is about murder for its own sake?
Also, Devil's advocate is generally just another word for asshat on online forums.
Except that the plot and pupose in Clockwork Orange do not revolve around rape and murder for its own sake, whereas anyone with half a brain can tell that is the main purpose of Manhunt 2, whatever plto they dress it up in.
I dunno, speaking as someone with at least half a brain, I'm pretty sure I haven't played the game -- nor have you -- and aren't in a position to judge its content, story and themes from a handful of previews.
It would seem unwise to press and ship thousands of copy of a controversial game that hasn't been rated yet. If I order one of these things, how likely would I be to receive it?
All the stuff on question are preorders claiming they'll have the game despite it being banned, although from sellers with good feedback.
Draw your own conclusions.
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.
Yet you trust an organization made up of the same people to make the choice for you?
I have more inclination to think an independent organisation that have made a detailed study of the entire problem know what they're are talking about than knee-jerk reactions on a messageboard do.
This does not mean I agree with the ban, merely that I'm inclined to stop and think about the whole thing rather than rushing in head-first.
Most studies on the influences of media are either done on children or just suck due to counting rough play as violence. Got a link to the study?
Except that the plot and pupose in Clockwork Orange do not revolve around rape and murder for its own sake, whereas anyone with half a brain can tell that is the main purpose of Manhunt 2, whatever plto they dress it up in.
Cardboard Tube, you don't have half a brain.
What proof do you have that Manhunt 2 is about murder for its own sake?
Also, Devil's advocate is generally just another word for asshat on online forums.
Thats not Tube's quote. He's not even on this page.
Except that the plot and pupose in Clockwork Orange do not revolve around rape and murder for its own sake, whereas anyone with half a brain can tell that is the main purpose of Manhunt 2, whatever plto they dress it up in.
Cardboard Tube, you don't have half a brain.
What proof do you have that Manhunt 2 is about murder for its own sake?
The entire content of the gameplay, is, according to all sceenshots, reviews etc, availible, killing people. Granted, this means that Serious Sam is also about murder for its own sake. Which it is.
It would seem unwise to press and ship thousands of copy of a controversial game that hasn't been rated yet. If I order one of these things, how likely would I be to receive it?
All the stuff on question are preorders claiming they'll have the game despite it being banned, although from sellers with good feedback.
Draw your own conclusions.
Hmm. No point in risking it. If they can get hold of it, so can I, though at this rate I'm wondering if it'll even get a PAL release.
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.
Yet you trust an organization made up of the same people to make the choice for you?
I have more inclination to think an independent organisation that have made a detailed study of the entire problem know what they're are talking about than knee-jerk reactions on a messageboard do.
This does not mean I agree with the ban, merely that I'm inclined to stop and think about the whole thing rather than rushing in head-first.
Is there a chance the committee was pressured by a politician or political interests? How is corruption in British politics these days?
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.
Yet you trust an organization made up of the same people to make the choice for you?
I have more inclination to think an independent organisation that have made a detailed study of the entire problem know what they're are talking about than knee-jerk reactions on a messageboard do.
This does not mean I agree with the ban, merely that I'm inclined to stop and think about the whole thing rather than rushing in head-first.
Most studies on the influences of media are either done on children or just suck due to counting rough play as violence. Got a link to the study?
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.
Yet you trust an organization made up of the same people to make the choice for you?
I have more inclination to think an independent organisation that have made a detailed study of the entire problem know what they're are talking about than knee-jerk reactions on a messageboard do.
This does not mean I agree with the ban, merely that I'm inclined to stop and think about the whole thing rather than rushing in head-first.
Most studies on the influences of media are either done on children or just suck due to counting rough play as violence. Got a link to the study?
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.
Yet you trust an organization made up of the same people to make the choice for you?
I have more inclination to think an independent organisation that have made a detailed study of the entire problem know what they're are talking about than knee-jerk reactions on a messageboard do.
This does not mean I agree with the ban, merely that I'm inclined to stop and think about the whole thing rather than rushing in head-first.
Is there a chance the committee was pressured by a politician or political interests? How is corruption in British politics these days?
Looking at Canis Canem Edit and the fuss over that, it's extremely unlikely the BBFC were influenced sucessfully on this occasion. They have a recent history of entirely the opposite.
Posts
Congress can only rider us to a certain degree before we get tired
(of it).
Straw Dogs was banned in the UK. Which is sad, because it's an excellent, excellent film.
You perform sadistic killings because you are batshit insane and are being influenced by an insane guy who escaped with you.
This reminds me of the Death Star contractor thing that states that the rebels are evil because of the contractors who would have been working on the Death Star. The general answer is that they knew that the Empire was bad but continued to work on it so it was OK to kill them. This is the same thing with this game. Unless the place is staffed with idiots, they should know something wrong is going on.
So you're ignoring the official information about the game and are judging it by a random forum post.
Awesome.
My posts carry that much weight. I didn't ask for this.
I wasn't that interested in the game originally but I have to admit this intrigues me more then before.
pleasepaypreacher.net
How, exactly, is it any more irrelevant than your feelings of righteous indignation about censorship?
In fact, saying it's irrelevant is entirely nonsensical, since it is, according to your statement, that mistrust that creates censorship in the first place.
Links'll take me a while to find, as I was mainly introduced to it by offline media; but pretty much every UK case on obscenity law, which is an area I've studied in some detail, and am doing my dissertation on. Can you claim any such knowledge?
If it goes ahead unchallenged, I'll probably import one or two copies just for the hell of it. I wonder what the law says about selling banned games on ebay?
Although I bet this is all a rockstar stunt. They probably made one version of the game that was unbelievable fucked up that they knew would get banned but have the proper version all pressed and ready to go that they'll run by the BBFC without a hitch in a day or three.
I'm pretty certain ebay would stop the sale. Plus you can get into trouble for supplying unrated material inside the uk.
Where Madness and the Fantasical Come to Play
Yet you trust an organization made up of the same people to make the choice for you?
Curiousy, I'm pretty sure there are films banned in America that are avalible over here.
Also, compare the Hot Coffee furore.
You really want a country with a liberal attitude to freedom of speech, look at Sweden or Denmark.
But they didn't ban GTA over it. They just demanded it get a higher rating by the ESRB. Kinda different.
States tried to ban it individually, but then the courts said STFU and now it's back on shelves pretty much everywhere.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
pleasepaypreacher.net
That is a possibility. I have heard if you order with a bunch of other stuff that is legal, the it most likely to pass through.
Where Madness and the Fantasical Come to Play
That's the context for alot of games, just most of them don't let you see the results so clearly, and provide little consequence. You should play the original Manhunt, or even SotC, to understand what I'm saying. The orginal game was essentially 'about killing people', but alot of those who complained about it completely missed the point. Yes, you kill people to progress through the game, but they didn't glorify it. In fact, quite the opposite.
I can agree to a point that idiots are growing in number everyday, people that see things on TV, or in games or movies, and think they should do them, because they can't think for themselves. Very few, I might add, but if we give in to these types of people, we'll only breed more ignorance, and validate the herd mentality. It's a case of people who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, and find the nearest scapegoat. No movie or game will EVER take away anybody's ability to reason, no matter what it shows. If you do something, it's because you DECIDED to do it, not just because you saw it in a movie, once.
When does it stop, exactly? When they ban showing people eating on television, for fear of obesity spreading? When they have to cancel the news, because they're afraid people will get 'ideas'? If a game puts you into the shoes of a killer, and shows you the ramifications of your actions, even making you feel disgusted with yourself (ala Manhunt), then is it really promoting violence, just because it features it?
It seems it stops when you're manhunt 2, and starts again when you're manhunt 1.
Your mistrust is irrelevant because I deem it irrelevant. I don't really care how god-awful and untrustworthy and puerile and irresponsible human beings are. I don't care if they have the least sense of any living creature to ever evolve from primordial soup. I find your mistrust obnoxious especially if you think it somehow excuses censorship. You are free to consider my "righteous indignation" irrelevant, too.
And, again, you are talking about law and case history, which is irrelevant. Obscenity law is not equivalent to research indicating that "obscene" things cause harm to individuals. That requires scientific research. Of which there is scant. Can I claim any such knowledge? I can claim knowledge of the fact that there is little relevant or conclusive research in this field, yep. Case history is irrelevant.
That is like saying that the context in a Clockwork Orange is about rape and murder. The rape and murder is used to show something.
Oh, you've played it? How was it? The early buzz is that it's good.
I have more inclination to think an independent organisation that have made a detailed study of the entire problem know what they're are talking about than knee-jerk reactions on a messageboard do.
This does not mean I agree with the ban, merely that I'm inclined to stop and think about the whole thing rather than rushing in head-first.
Most studies on the influences of media are either done on children or just suck due to counting rough play as violence. Got a link to the study?
Has the game already been shipped?
It would seem unwise to press and ship thousands of copy of a controversial game that hasn't been rated yet. If I order one of these things, how likely would I be to receive it?
I'm not saying this condemns Manhunt 2, just pointing out the flaws in your argument.
But if something that subjective is the best argument you can put forward, you're failing to prove your point in any way, shape or form.
And did you miss what I said about playing devil's advocate? I don't have an opinion on this issue yet, because I don't feel there's enough to base one on.
Except that the cases in question reference what research there was.
No one ever killed soley because of a movie they watched, or a game they played. They made that final decision in their own head. Chemically imbalanced people aside, each person controls his or her own actions. Just don't release Manhunt 2 at a mental hospital.
Things like this go unabated, and we'll have murderers and rapists getting off of their charges because 'Law & Order made me do it".
Click on the link for April 17th.
What proof do you have that Manhunt 2 is about murder for its own sake?
Also, Devil's advocate is generally just another word for asshat on online forums.
I dunno, speaking as someone with at least half a brain, I'm pretty sure I haven't played the game -- nor have you -- and aren't in a position to judge its content, story and themes from a handful of previews.
All the stuff on question are preorders claiming they'll have the game despite it being banned, although from sellers with good feedback.
Draw your own conclusions.
Thats not Tube's quote. He's not even on this page.
Hmm. No point in risking it. If they can get hold of it, so can I, though at this rate I'm wondering if it'll even get a PAL release.
Is there a chance the committee was pressured by a politician or political interests? How is corruption in British politics these days?
Read my posts.