PDA

View Full Version : BBFC ban Manhunt 2 from UK release




BoyBach
Jun 19, 2007, 10:27 AM
Censors ban 'brutal' video game

British censors have banned a violent video game from the UK for the first time in a decade.

The video game Manhunt 2 was banned for its "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying", the British Board of Film Classification said.

It means the Manhunt sequel cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6767623.stm


Only the importers will win.



2nyRiggz
Jun 19, 2007, 10:30 AM
Sounds like stalking fun....I'll be buying this for the PSP(portable stalking)



Bless

Sky Blue
Jun 19, 2007, 10:36 AM
Only the importers will win.

and with the Wii Freeloader being a sham, it's a bad week for UK Wii owners.

Importing a US Wii has always been the way to go.

Dagless
Jun 19, 2007, 10:40 AM
Wouldn't importing a copy from France, or better still, Jersey work? AFAIK all European PAL games are pretty much the same save for the initial language settings.

*I haven't imported a game from mainland Europe.

Anyways. I want Manhunt 2 on the Wii. I bet that game is awesome is motion control :eek:

MacRumorUser
Jun 19, 2007, 11:35 AM
Only the importers will win.

Not on the wii they wont, damn region locked machine ;) :D


In fairness the games sole purpose is to caused outrage, so it's done it. If rockstar want to keep pouring water down the hole - making gutter fodder gaming, then they are welcome to it.. but seeing as they aren't doing too well financially at the moment - they might want to actually start making 'games' rather than slasher crap.

Fearless Leader
Jun 19, 2007, 11:45 AM
If only this had happened 2 months ago, I would have had an excellent English final.

I dislike this banning business, any what so ever. Is this one much different from the first?

pcypert
Jun 19, 2007, 01:15 PM
I'll tell you guys if it's any good :)

They said they've developed specific wii mote kills...nasty, but sounds interesting. Plus I'll be covered if I really do kill anyone...can blame the lifelike Wiimote actions and the video game :D

Paul

Dagless
Jun 19, 2007, 02:08 PM
I don't understand how this can be banned, yet Jekyll can sit comfortably on BBC1 on a Saturday evening.

Are games marked higher because of their interactive nature?

greatdevourer
Jun 19, 2007, 02:57 PM
I don't understand how this can be banned, yet Jekyll can sit comfortably on BBC1 on a Saturday evening.

Are games marked higher because of their interactive nature? Yes. You mentioned the probable reason why this was banned yourself - the control scheme. While pressing buttons to kill people might annoy JT and friends, I can imagine a lot more people being distressed at a game where you actually hack and slash at people

kakkoiimac
Jun 19, 2007, 03:51 PM
i dont think the motion controls had anything to do with the banning of the game... if i am not mistaken, i believe that the the PS2 version is also banned.

I dont think that the games should be banned...i say let the marketplace decide and if people want to buy disgusting content let them do it. I mean, there are movies that are just as bad or worse that are shown in movie theaters...but that is just my two cents.

zap2
Jun 19, 2007, 05:32 PM
Oh Snap....AO for use in USA(Adults only, 18 or older to buy, for sure stores will ask for ID, and Walmart, Target, and other stores won't even sell the game!)


http://kotaku.com/gaming/breaking/manhunt-2-rated-adults-only-270337.php


Take-Two just confirmed with Kotaku that the Entertainment Software Ratings Board gave both the PS2 and Wii versions of Manhunt 2 a preliminary rating of Adults Only, which would essentially bar it from all of the Wal-Marts and Targets of the world.

Thats crazy, first game for console that ever got this rating, minus GTA San Andreas..but that was for the Hot Coffee Mod, and was redone to get rid of it.

Also this is for blood and guts, GTA was for sex.

Needless to say, I'm eager to play this game on the Wii!!:)

2nyRiggz
Jun 19, 2007, 05:41 PM
They are only making people want the game more....sky rocket sales. I enjoyed the first one..not for the violence but the story and from what I read this one is more brutal(maybe thats why they didnt bring it to x360mPS3)

I'm really not into the gore but I am into the story of the game. I'm not thrilled about the ripping of balls kill.



Bless

applekid
Jun 19, 2007, 06:21 PM
Must be pretty damn violent if it's getting AO in the US and a ban from the UK entertainment board. I think the rating boards are just slightly paranoid at the moment, granted I have never played the first Manhunt.

Anyways, a nice image change for Nintendo if we see a Wii release, dontchya think? :D

sikkinixx
Jun 19, 2007, 06:26 PM
I'm totally un-PC, and not much really bugs me, but Manhunt 2 is a little too much imho. The first one was kinda cool, created a lot of "AWWW DUDE!!! DID YOU SEE THAT ****?!?!?!" but the stuff i read you can do in the new one is a little over the top. Cutting off some guys balls with pliers using the wiimote? Maybe I'm *gasp* growing up?! :eek: *nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooo*

I know Nintendo wants to shed the 'kidz-only' image but hosting Hostel:The Game, is a weird way of doing it.

zap2
Jun 19, 2007, 06:31 PM
Cutting off some guys balls with pliers using the wiimote? Maybe I'm *gasp* growing up?! :eek: *nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooo*


They've finally gotten to you man!

sikkinixx
Jun 19, 2007, 06:54 PM
They've finally gotten to you man!

next thing you know im standing around the water cooler talking about those 'damn kids and their loud music' *ahhhh*

steamboat26
Jun 19, 2007, 07:35 PM
I don't wanna generalize, but it seems like the UK has always been less offended by things of this nature compared to the U.S.
but now- banning manhunt 2, and earlier, the church being offended by a level in a video game. What's going on? :confused:

Dagless
Jun 19, 2007, 07:57 PM
Best I can make of it-

Manchester Cathedral wasn't too keen (why o' why do folk keep forgetting the location of that, it's key to the whole dispute) on R:FoM because it's an FPS with a level based in the highest gun crime city in the UK.

As for Manhunt. I guess it's because of the number of violent murders that are rising in the cities. The numbers of stabbings, shootings or just plain old "a body was found" are really on the increase. Especially London with stabbings.

Coded-Dude
Jun 19, 2007, 08:12 PM
The game was rated AO due to the Wii version's motion control.
Using a stabbing motion in-game is apparently more violent than pressing a button....
However, the rating is apparetnly going to cross over to the other versions as well.(PSP/DS)

steamboat26
Jun 19, 2007, 08:51 PM
Best I can make of it-

Manchester Cathedral wasn't too keen (why o' why do folk keep forgetting the location of that, it's key to the whole dispute) on R:FoM because it's an FPS with a level based in the highest gun crime city in the UK.

As for Manhunt. I guess it's because of the number of violent murders that are rising in the cities. The numbers of stabbings, shootings or just plain old "a body was found" are really on the increase. Especially London with stabbings.

I get the point that you are making, but the U.S has the highest crime rate in almost every category- kinda sad, either shows we don't care, or we have been desensitized to violence and crime.

takao
Jun 20, 2007, 03:17 AM
in germany Bioshock got a 18+ rating already (which means more difficult to buy) and manhunt very likely won't make it into the stores at all (getting confiscated and all

luckily i'm in austria where we always can pick up the games

MacRumorUser
Jun 20, 2007, 07:37 AM
Rockstar Respond... by rubbing their hands in glee ;)


Rockstar Responds to Manhunt 2 Furore in UK
Developer "disappointed" with BBFC's decision to reject Manhunt 2 for classification.
by Rob Burman, IGN UK

UK, June 20, 2007 - Rockstar Games has responded to the BBFC's rejection of Manhunt 2 for certification in the UK, making sale of the game at retail illegal in this country. Rockstar states that it "emphatically disagrees" with the decision, arguing the Board failed to consider Manhunt 2's intended target adult audience.

"While we respect the authority of the classification board and will abide by the rules", a spokesperson for Rockstar Games stated, "we emphatically disagree with this particular decision. Manhunt 2 is an entertainment experience for fans of psychological thrillers and horror. The subject matter of this game is in line with other mainstream entertainment choices for adult consumers.

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

Both PlayStation 2 and Wii versions of Manhunt 2 have been rejected by the British Board of Film Classification on the grounds of what it considered to be its "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone... which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing". The BBFC reviews all videogames containing gross violence, sexual or criminal activity likely to earn the game a PEGI 18+ rating. In the UK, unlike the rest of Europe, games expected to receive the PEGI 18+ grade are automatically referred to the BBFC under the Video Recordings Act.

Dagless
Jun 20, 2007, 12:00 PM
The plot thickens. Read in the paper today that part of the reason Manhunt 2 was banned was the killings inspired by Manhunt 1 a few years ago. I can see why it was banned now.

BoyBach
Jun 20, 2007, 12:07 PM
The plot thickens. Read in the paper today that part of the reason Manhunt 2 was banned was the killings inspired by Manhunt 1 a few years ago. I can see why it was banned now.


But:

Police said robbery was the motive behind the attack on Stefan in Stokes Wood Park on 26 February 2004 - and not the video game blamed by Stefan's parents.


It's just a cop-out. The BBFC didn't want a fight with the 'moral' newspapers (I'm looking at you Daily Mail & Express).

Coded-Dude
Jun 20, 2007, 12:08 PM
yes........another absurd attempt at adults trying to control what other adults do.

pcypert
Jun 20, 2007, 02:59 PM
Well things are getting odd. I put down a payment for Wiisident Evil 4 last week and they didn't mention anything about ratings or anything. Then when they called to let me know it's in they went on and on about the ratings...never happened before. Wonder what the call will be like for Manhunt :) .

If some loser teen can buy the Anarchist's Cookbook why can't someone buy this game? Jack Bauer does worse every week on 24 getting info from folks :)

Paul

zap2
Jun 20, 2007, 03:01 PM
Well things are getting odd. I put down a payment for Wiisident Evil 4 last week and they didn't mention anything about ratings or anything. Then when they called to let me know it's in they went on and on about the ratings...never happened before. Wonder what the call will be like for Manhunt :) .



If some loser teen can buy the Anarchist's Cookbook why can't someone buy this game? Jack Bauer does worse every week on 24 getting info from folks :)

Paul[/QUOTE]
Jack Bauer ripping a man's balls off with a pair of pliers?! Or worse!

Dagless
Jun 20, 2007, 05:00 PM
yes........another absurd attempt at adults trying to control what other adults do.

If there was a way they could ensure only adults would play this game it probably wouldn't be outright banned. But age ratings are more or less disregarded by media outlets and parents. Kids will inevitably end up playing this. Even with a total ban! They always find a way.
Which is a total shame, I'm 21 and I would love to play this game (providing it's better than the original, urgh).

MacRumorUser
Jun 20, 2007, 05:22 PM
I'm 21 and I would love to play this game

Sounds like your the big kid :p


At 28 I have no desire what so ever to play this - and the thought of children playing this and 'physically' mimicking the actions sickens me to the stomach.

Whilst I invariably don't like censorship - I agree 150% with the BBFC decision.

takao
Jun 20, 2007, 05:30 PM
so with the rumored AO rating for the US somebody thought itm ight be a smart idea to ask what nintendo stance is on AO games... now guess what: "As stated on Nintendo.com, Nintendo does not allow any AO-rated content on its systems."

http://kotaku.com/gaming/original/nintendo-nixes-ao-manhunt-270741.php

and before everbody falls into "OMG NO BLOOD IN MORTAL COMBAT .. NINTENDO YOU SUCK" mode, joystiq decided to ask the same question sony and got the answer

"Currently it's SCE's policy not to allow the playback of AO rated content on our systems."
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/20/nintendo-and-sony-wont-touch-manhunt-2-with-ao-rating/

microsoft didn't answer but on the other side that wouldn't help rockstar since manhunt got developed only for wii,ps2, and psp

i wonder what happens if it also get's axed in US retail ... will it still get released in countries over here without such ratings ? or will they don't bother and start porting it to pc to at least get _some_ money ?

edit: personally i'm not really hyped for the game(it's no Wack & Ziki ;) ) and didn't plan buying it but if banning continues i think i might buy it just to prove a fricking point .. but of course i'll wait for the reviews

zap2
Jun 20, 2007, 05:47 PM
If Manhunt 2 is released was Adult Only game, and Nintendo blocks it...I will be PISSED. Few things that companys can do that upset me that much,there is NO reason for Nintendo to block Manhunt 2 for the Wii. None, zero, nadda! Simply don't sell it to minors!


But no! That would mean parents need to watch their kids, which clearly is too much work!


If either Sony/Nintendo stops it from being released on either system, I will, be very very very upset


-But now, I'm expecting Take Two to dumb the game down!! I want the real thing!

zap2
Jun 20, 2007, 05:52 PM
At 28 I have no desire what so ever to play this - and the thought of children playing this and 'physically' mimicking the actions sickens me to the stomach.

Whilst I invariably don't like censorship - I agree 150% with the BBFC decision.


How can you agree with the banning of a game? I fully support rating it AO(or the highest European rating)(if the content is worth rating it that, having never played the game I can't personal say, but I'm assuming the content in the game is worth that type of rating)

But why ban it? Movies have this kind of stuff in them, while they don't act it out, it looks real. I find the idea of banning Manhunt 2, BS.


This is another reason Nintendo will hold onto its "kiddie" name...while I agree, and know, everyone can play games like Mario, Link etc...games like Manhunt 2 add a different feel to a console, like its supports all types of gamers. Like you can buy the Wii, and have every type of game to play. NGC had trouble with this...it lost lots of 3rd party support(as did N64), and now Nintendo is saying no to an AAA 3rd party title. They should set it sell for the Wii(at AO rating), and score points with "hardcore" gamers. And if Sony did let it ship, then Nintendo would look even better.



(Now I know how people felt when Nintendo blocked blood from Mortal Kombat for the SNES, and Sega allowed it on the Genesis. Come on Nintendo, take a lesson of Sega, let gamers play their games!.

Dagless
Jun 20, 2007, 06:03 PM
So what's to become of Manhunt 2 now? I haven't seen such an outright ban, unless you count the subtle way the W
CQMP (World Commisioner of Quality MP3 Players) banned the Zune from everywhere but America.

applekid
Jun 20, 2007, 07:10 PM
Considering Rockstar is rumored to be losing money for this game not getting released and not getting a rating that is friendlier than AO (or the European equivalent), Rockstar can:

- scrap it.
- tone it and waste more time and potential profits.
- port to the 360 and be done with it.

It'd be one of the worst looking 360 games ever, but at least it'd finally be able to exist and Microsoft has no problem with an AO release (I believe there was an "unrated" version of Leisure Suite Larry, that well, ended up getting rated AO).

Tone it down, risk more losses, but at least retailers will sell and rent it. And Nintendo and Sony will actually license it.

Scrap it and just don't let it exist anyway. Might as well cut their losses now.

Vidd
Jun 20, 2007, 07:12 PM
Wouldn't importing a copy from France, or better still, Jersey work? AFAIK all European PAL games are pretty much the same save for the initial language settings.

*I haven't imported a game from mainland Europe.

Anyways. I want Manhunt 2 on the Wii. I bet that game is awesome is motion control :eek:

According to old N64 magazines, even Australian games worked due to still being PAL.
What a place where people can decide for you what you may and may not play. :)
EDIT: I forgot to clarify; I have never played the original and do not agree with what it portrays but I resent the belief that people cannot play video games without being affected greatly by it.

Also, you can also only agree 100% with something. :)

EDIT2: I was just reminded of something; Nintendo ordered the removal of semi-naked women from Duke Nukem. One magazine described it as them "going through it like a kleenex". I can't remember the reception of it but I believe at least a few parents were pleased.

Dunepilot
Jun 20, 2007, 07:36 PM
At 28 I have no desire what so ever to play this - and the thought of children playing this and 'physically' mimicking the actions sickens me to the stomach.

Whilst I invariably don't like censorship - I agree 150% with the BBFC decision.

I'm also a 28-year-old libertarian, and even I have a huge problem with what I know of this game (having read IGN's preview). Seems like a completely unnecessary product.

Coded-Dude
Jun 20, 2007, 08:26 PM
so we shoudl jsut start banning all violent media?
music, movies, games, etc.

This game is targeted towards adults and the makers should not be held repsonsible for the lack of competence on the side of parents and/or the media provider.

Dagless
Jun 20, 2007, 08:33 PM
Movies and music aren't interactive though. Games are marked up because of their interactive nature. It involves the player making a concious decision to digitally act out the events.

Agathon
Jun 20, 2007, 08:49 PM
Movies and music aren't interactive though. Games are marked up because of their interactive nature. It involves the player making a concious decision to digitally act out the events.

It's just another pathetic moral panic.

Years ago it was videos.

Then it was heavy metal.

Before that it was comics.

After all, it is wrong to depict graphic violence, but perfectly OK to launch a war based on lies that results in the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

zap2
Jun 20, 2007, 08:51 PM
Movies and music aren't interactive though. Games are marked up because of their interactive nature. It involves the player making a concious decision to digitally act out the events.

Maybe, but the effecta they use with movies make it all look really, really real. PS3/Xbox 360 can't even make things look real yet...let alone Wii/PS2/PSP

Dagless
Jun 20, 2007, 09:11 PM
Well, thing is there has been at least 1 murder in the UK related to Manhunt 1 so I can understand the ban. On the other hand a few months ago, some 16 year old kid who was hooked on cannabis watched some film and went out and killed 2 of his friends, re-enacting bits of the film.

I suppose you get it on all fronts. Faces of Evil? wasn't Clockwork Orange banned (and a mighty good film, I might add). The UK cover of some 50 Cent album had him holding a baby, rather than a gun.

applekid
Jun 20, 2007, 10:29 PM
Well, thing is there has been at least 1 murder in the UK related to Manhunt 1 so I can understand the ban. On the other hand a few months ago, some 16 year old kid who was hooked on cannabis watched some film and went out and killed 2 of his friends, re-enacting bits of the film.

I suppose you get it on all fronts. Faces of Evil? wasn't Clockwork Orange banned (and a mighty good film, I might add). The UK cover of some 50 Cent album had him holding a baby, rather than a gun.

So, you're saying, because of a few unstable idiots in the world, banning media is okay?

This goes back to the violence and video games thread that I believe you started. I would have hoped that since you are a game developer that you would be more understanding. It's fine you have your own morals and choose to not develop a game like Manhunt. But if somebody did blame your game for their violent rampage or other criminal acts, you would just accept the blame?

seenew
Jun 20, 2007, 10:39 PM
Eh, we all know they'll just tone it down to an M rating. Don't get pissy, guys.:)

LethalWolfe
Jun 20, 2007, 10:50 PM
How can you agree with the banning of a game? I fully support rating it AO(or the highest European rating)(if the content is worth rating it that, having never played the game I can't personal say, but I'm assuming the content in the game is worth that type of rating)

But why ban it? Movies have this kind of stuff in them, while they don't act it out, it looks real. I find the idea of banning Manhunt 2, BS.


This is another reason Nintendo will hold onto its "kiddie" name...while I agree, and know, everyone can play games like Mario, Link etc...games like Manhunt 2 add a different feel to a console, like its supports all types of gamers. Like you can buy the Wii, and have every type of game to play. NGC had trouble with this...it lost lots of 3rd party support(as did N64), and now Nintendo is saying no to an AAA 3rd party title. They should set it sell for the Wii(at AO rating), and score points with "hardcore" gamers. And if Sony did let it ship, then Nintendo would look even better.



(Now I know how people felt when Nintendo blocked blood from Mortal Kombat for the SNES, and Sega allowed it on the Genesis. Come on Nintendo, take a lesson of Sega, let gamers play their games!.

Feel free to make sweeping, general statements about all the consoles now because Sony, MS, and Nintendo have said they will not have AO games for their consoles.

Movies and music aren't interactive though. Games are marked up because of their interactive nature. It involves the player making a concious decision to digitally act out the events.
There are no credible studies showing that playing violent video games changes one's behavior over the long term. In fact, the only long term study done on the subject says, Contrary to popular opinion and most previous research, the new study found that players’ “robust exposure” to a highly violent online game did not cause any substantial real-world aggression. (http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/05/0809videogames.html). Of course heaven forbid facts disrupt society's preconceived notions and baseless opinions. Why spend time studying the problem when it's so much easier to obey the talking heads and their FUD looking for an easy, push button solution. It's books to blame, no it's TV, no Ozzy Osborne made him do it.. WTF? Seriously. How many people get exposed to the same external stimuli but don't go off killing people? I bet all these acts of violence were committed by people wearing shoes and some sort of clothing. F##k! Shoes and clothing music be the problem! I mean, how many murders do you hear about at nudist camps? Quick, everyone get naked a grab a pair of flip flops...

I guess PnP role playing games or just playing "army" are probably the most dangerous forms of imagination because you are actually pretending in real life instead of pretending on a Wii or PS3. Next time I get pulled over for speeding I'll try taking this approach w/the officer. "But you don't understand, sir. As a kid I pretended to be a race car driver and that's why I was speeding. It's not my fault. I can't help myself. I'm a victim of society's negligence. If only someone would've stopped me from pretending to be a race car driver I wouldn't be the horrible driver I am today."


Lethal

pcypert
Jun 20, 2007, 11:52 PM
Exactly. I don't like violence and gore...but it's the lazy solution to go banning things...regardless of past experience. If anything it does a negative reinforcement...now more people will hear about the game. By giving it this rating they are giving it more press and attention. They are getting more people talking about it than would have happened.

Take conservative Christians with DaVinci code. The movie sucked. If they'd have shut up and let it go by it wouldn't have done crap. But the more folks whined and boycotted and wrote books about it the more others were interested.

My Mom listened to a Marilyn Manson cd I'd gotten my hands on as a youth and got rid of it. No big show about it...not because she read about it, but because it was garbage and she had heard it. Then we had a talk about it.

I honestly feel really bad for kids raised by parents who just blindly follow whatever some board decides for them based on whatever science they're trying to back this crap up with. Decisions motivated by fear produce horrible results.

Paul

sikkinixx
Jun 21, 2007, 12:19 AM
well it ain't getting released until they tone it down, I'm a little surprised that Sony and Nintendo both outlawed it.

LethalWolfe
Jun 21, 2007, 12:39 AM
well it ain't getting released until they tone it down, I'm a little surprised that Sony and Nintendo both outlawed it.
They saw Rockstar get burned by hot coffee and don't want to spill any on themselves. The last thing they want is to invoke the wrath of "caring" parents who buy their 10yr old kid a rated R game (and of course later sue as a smoke screen to hide the lack of involvement in their child's life). A wise man once said, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.


Lethal

Dagless
Jun 21, 2007, 07:24 AM
So, you're saying, because of a few unstable idiots in the world, banning media is okay?

I just don't want to see anyone killed over a video game.

zero2dash
Jun 21, 2007, 08:36 AM
Considering Rockstar is rumored to be losing money for this game not getting released and not getting a rating that is friendlier than AO (or the European equivalent), Rockstar can:

- scrap it.
- tone it and waste more time and potential profits.
- port to the 360 and be done with it.

It'd be one of the worst looking 360 games ever, but at least it'd finally be able to exist and Microsoft has no problem with an AO release (I believe there was an "unrated" version of Leisure Suite Larry, that well, ended up getting rated AO).

Incorrect.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172830.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;1
Though Manhunt 2 isn't slated for any of Microsoft's systems, the company has also confirmed that it does not allow AO-rated titles on the Xbox or Xbox 360.

I really don't see the point of this game, other than the shock-and-awe factor. I wasn't the least bit interested in the first game and I've never played it; after seeing a feature on the sequel in Game Informer a month or so ago, I basically said to myself "hmm, guess they're making another one? That's nice." </turns page>

I'm not saying games have to have a point to them to be a humanitarian affair, but while Rockstar usually tiptoes the line between acceptable and ridiculous (in relation to game content), both of their Manhunt games (IMO) are just too 'out there' for most people's tastes, including my own. Really...what's the point of the game, other than committing murder repeatedly? Sure, they throw a story in there and probably some objectives, but the underlying idea is "kill, kill, kill" and I don't support or get that. :rolleyes:

Dagless
Jun 21, 2007, 08:49 AM
Sure, they throw a story in there and probably some objectives, but the underlying idea is "kill, kill, kill" and I don't support or get that. :rolleyes:

Says the chap with a Street Fighter avatar :D

I kid. I love SF.

pcypert
Jun 21, 2007, 10:12 AM
What game isn't kill, kill, kill? GeOW = Killing. God of War = Human Sacrifice. Call of Duty = Killing Nazis. The point of Serious Sam was just kill hundreds and hundreds of people and monsters.

If we didn't do things because someone might get killed over them we'd never do anything. Remember the movie Fisher King? Someone copied that and shot up a Luby's...they found a ticket stub in the psycho's pocket and decided that must have been it. So movies aren't safe. And we all know kids are shooting up schools because of music so no more music. Now video games. Someone will now shoot someone expecting them to come back to life ala Lost and TV will be unsafe. Plus there were tons of murders and sickos before electricity so we need to ban books and candles too...they might push someone over the edge.

I'd say books get way more in folks heads than video games. That level of description and detail. Way more than a game or movie could ever do....yet somehow folks that read are deemed capable of handling their junk...whereas us dumba$$ video gamers seem incapable of seperating reality from fiction.

Paul

jdechko
Jun 21, 2007, 10:16 AM
Look, I think we're missing the point of why it got an AO rating rather than an M rating in the first place. And I don't think it's the violence...

"The ultra-violent videogame Manhunt 2 allows you to rape a woman shortly after you beheaded her in the brothel level called Honey Pot. Members of the ESRB were shocked when Daniel Lamb used his male reproduction organ and simulated a penetration in the bloody hole. Other gruesome parts include microwaving a living cat to death and being a witness of necrophilia in a cemetery..."

Personally, I wouldn't want to act out the killings on the Wii and stuff (like MRU and others) but I think the violence in the game is tolerable compared to this.

LethalWolfe
Jun 21, 2007, 10:23 AM
I just don't want to see anyone killed over a video game.
I don't want to see anyone senselessly killed either regardless if it's over a video game, iPod, pair of shoes or lost love. But that doesn't mean we should do away with video games, iPods, shoes, and significant others. The problem doesn't lie w/the video game or the pair of shoes the problem lies w/the individual who perpetrated the act of violence and that's where the focus of our attention should be in efforts to address the problem.


Lethal

wyatt23
Jun 21, 2007, 10:36 AM
this is an excerpt from Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho... (made into a movie not so long ago)... if you are easily offended or squeemish, read past the quote.

"I start by skinning Torri a little, making incisions with a steak knife and ripping bits of flesh from her legs and stomach while she screams in vain, begging for mercy in a high thin voice. Finally I pour acid onto her belly and genitals, but none of this comes close to killing her, so I resort to stabbing her in the throat and eventually the blade of the knife breaks off in what's left of her neck, stuck on bone, and I stop. While Tiffany watches, finally I saw the entire head off--torrents of blood splash against the walls, even the ceiling-- and holding the head up, like a prize, I take my c***, purple with stiffness, and lowering Torri's head to my lap I push it into her bloodied mouth and start ********** it, until I c***, exploding into it." p. 304, from American Psycho



that is a book that can be bought at amazon.com, barnes and noble, borders, etc... you can problably go on/into those places and purchase this without any hesitation. That is also an excerpt that was FAR LESS brutal than most other passages (just to prove my point).

The hypocracy that exists in this world! as long as your READING or WATCHING extreme gratuitous violence, it's ok... but god forbid you play a FICTIONAL video game.

honestly. i'd be more worried about the guys going and reading american psycho and similar books than the people playing manhunt 2.

(that's not to say i don't want to read the book of a movie a really enjoy :) )

Igantius
Jun 21, 2007, 10:42 AM
Well, thing is there has been at least 1 murder in the UK related to Manhunt 1 so I can understand the ban....
wasn't Clockwork Orange banned (and a mighty good film, I might add).

With the murder you're referring to, it was widely reported in the media that the killer was obssessed with Manhunt; the victim's parents blamed the game too.

However, although the victim owned a copy and played it a lot, the killer (a friend ironically) didn't have a copy - in fact there is not evidence to suggest that he even played it.

The police team involved in the case issued an official statement that the game had no influence or part in the murder... but did that get widely reported?

A Clockwork Orange wasn't banned in the UK, but it was withdrawn for many years (and so was illegal to screen) at the request of director, Kubrick - but you're right it is a great film!

takao
Jun 21, 2007, 11:09 AM
agreeing with the previous poster i just wanted to add a few things

knowing that the game mostly consists of sneaking passages with kills in between i think it brings up a few interesting questions:
is it worse to kill a few enemy characters gruesome compared to taking out enemies in the _dozens_ like in other games ? (i'm quite sure you kill a lot more people in call of duty by the 3rd level than in manhunt 2 combined
what is wrong with games letting the player feel somehow uneasy or even offened by his characters actions ?
don't we really need such provoking games if we really want to consider games a form of art ?

2nyRiggz
Jun 21, 2007, 12:19 PM
I'm not saying games have to have a point to them to be a humanitarian affair, but while Rockstar usually tiptoes the line between acceptable and ridiculous (in relation to game content), both of their Manhunt games (IMO) are just too 'out there' for most people's tastes, including my own. Really...what's the point of the game, other than committing murder repeatedly? Sure, they throw a story in there and probably some objectives, but the underlying idea is "kill, kill, kill" and I don't support or get that. :rolleyes:

The game is about survival and I understand where you are coming from but whats the difference between this and any other violent game out there....the point in the majority of games is to "kill, kill, kill" I've played the first one and was rather interested in the story...sorta like the running man.

This is just rockstar topping itself again. I'm not too interested in this one because of the level of violence but really...we've seen things like this before in video games this is nothing new.




Bless

sikkinixx
Jun 21, 2007, 01:54 PM
this is an excerpt from Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho... (made into a movie not so long ago)... if you are easily offended or squeemish, read past the quote.

The hypocracy that exists in this world! as long as your READING or WATCHING extreme gratuitous violence, it's ok... but god forbid you play a FICTIONAL video game.

honestly. i'd be more worried about the guys going and reading american psycho and similar books than the people playing manhunt 2.

(that's not to say i don't want to read the book of a movie a really enjoy :) )

Have you read American Psycho? You do know that the violence in that book is a few chapters out of a few dozen and that the violence is not the main aim of the book. It's not just some slasher book where the whole thing revolves around him killing prostitutes or homeless people. Besides, publishers did decide not to publish American Psycho at first, but it later found someone who was willing to put it out. It's a work of literary art, not just a book about killing people for no apparent reason (although it's debatable that the killing never happened).

I find it hard to compare the two since Manhunt is clearly just made to shock and offend and to push people as far as possible. And im sure the fact that you are actually DOING the actions with the Wiimote and such don't help Manhunt's case much.

takao
Jun 21, 2007, 02:07 PM
have you played Manhunt 2 ? i guess not ... so don't be so fast with judging either ;)

from wikipedia on plot:

"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."

they list it as survival horror or psychological horror so i guess it's also debatable if the killings actually occur or not

unless you actually played the game already ;)
(oh and i read american psycho)

sikkinixx
Jun 21, 2007, 02:12 PM
^ so true. But do you really think they allowed the killing to be even more brutal to make an artistic point? Rockstar is the king of shock publicity ;) Again, I don't think it should be banned or anything but I find a great difference between AP and Manhunt.

takao
Jun 21, 2007, 02:32 PM
^ so true. But do you really think they allowed the killing to be even more brutal to make an artistic point?

well it depends: just look at newer modern antiwar/war movies where many soldiers die a brutal death opposed to the old movies of the 50ties/60ties
which are worse ? personally i would say the old ones which often end up as a glorification of war

i think part of the game was from the starting point to make the player confused or questioning his own characters actions which actually are his own and even his ideals or goals which should make a player think about it quite interesting

Rockstar is the king of shock publicity ;) Again, I don't think it should be banned or anything but I find a great difference between AP and Manhunt.

that's why i guess that they will magically turn around by deleting like 2-3 scenes (which very likely were put in there just to get this rating and thus publicity and will be easy removable) and release it anyway

pcypert
Jun 21, 2007, 02:50 PM
That's what I'm thinking. They had these scenes in there for it to go to ratings....big media circus around it gets them a lot more buzz (because people are stupid and don't realize they could let stuff go and have non of the press for something...please take note next time there's a major shooting folks) and then poof, here's a copy without the scenes and they sell a few thousand extra copies...all courtesy of stupid, lazy parents and Senators trying to divert attention away from money they're making their friends....

They had to know the rape scene would push them over the edge....but then again just because a character in the game CAN do something doesn't mean that the player has to do that. In the Wii stuff I've read there are brutal executions, but you don't have to do them. The player can choose a really simple death for the killers or do the brutal, showy, sneak one...raises some interesting points about players and what they'd rather do which actually raises the concept of the game up a notch for me...

Paul

zap2
Jun 21, 2007, 05:09 PM
Feel free to make sweeping, general statements about all the consoles now because Sony, MS, and Nintendo have said they will not have AO games for their consoles.
l

Thats not what I was doing.....MS and Sony don't have the problem. They have GTA 4, RE5, God of War, Gears of War, Halo 3...all are the AAA titles of the systems. Nintendo has Metriod, Mario, Link...they all rock! But they also have problem with being a child brand of gaming. And trouble getting 3rd party games...RE4 was a huge step in the right direction, Manhunt was going their too. The last thing Nintendo needs is dev feeling unwanted on Nintendo systems.


Also Nintendo has a history of censorship....Mortal Kombat on the SNES? This is different, but Nintendo could come out, looking like a king if they let Manhunt 2 ship with AO rating, and Sony didn't. Also what is the point of AO, if console makers in general won't use the AO rating? Other then PC games of course.


Nintendo has a lot to gain here, by letting the game ship as is on the Wii, and a lot to lose by not letting it ship. So does Sony, but not as much. Heck PS2 isn't even the main Sony system anymore, Wii is.

takao
Jun 21, 2007, 05:27 PM
Also Nintendo has a history of censorship....Mortal Kombat on the SNES? This is different, but Nintendo could come out, looking like a king if they let Manhunt 2 ship with AO rating, and Sony didn't. Also what is the point of AO, if console makers in general won't use the AO rating? Other then PC games of course.

best irony of last generation which went under the radar:
mortal kombat: deception got released on gamecube and ps2.. now guess on which console they had to obfuscate backgrounds which including naked greek statues showing bare breasts with nipples
believe it or not it wasn't the Gamecube, it was indeed only censored on the PS2

zero2dash
Jun 21, 2007, 05:34 PM
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172931.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;1

Take-Two shelves Manhunt 2
Plans to release game "temporarily suspended" while publisher continues exploring options.
By Brendan Sinclair, GameSpot
Posted Jun 21, 2007 3:16 pm PT

In the wake of international bans and an Adults Only rating in the US, Manhunt 2 won't make its July 10 release date, Take-Two Interactive has confirmed. The game had been expected to ship that day for the PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, and Nintendo Wii.

"Take-Two Interactive Software has temporarily suspended plans to distribute Manhunt 2 for the Wii or PlayStation platforms while it reviews its options with regard to the recent decisions made by the British Board of Film Classification and Entertainment Software Rating Board," a representative told GameSpot. "We continue to stand behind this extraordinary game. We believe in freedom of creative expression, as well as responsible marketing, both of which are essential to our business of making great entertainment."

While the ESRB's initial rating of an AO for Adults Only doesn't explicitly prohibit the game from being sold, most major US retailers refuse to carry AO games, and console manufacturers prohibit their third-party publishers from releasing AO titles on their systems.

MacRumorUser
Jun 21, 2007, 05:35 PM
I'm also a 28-year-old libertarian, and even I have a huge problem with what I know of this game (having read IGN's preview). Seems like a completely unnecessary product.

Quite. That's EXACTLY as I see it too. Maybe its a 28 thing ;) :D

How can you agree with the banning of a game?

simple. A movie does not involve a persons interaction. Watching an actor kill someone whilst horrible if there is no context other than to disturb (hostel), there is a line between that and asking the audience to PHYSICALLY carry out the actions on screen.

What the hell is in your mind-set that the thought of using your wiimote to stab, strangle and torture someone - seems as actual fun for you or a good idea. It's sick for the sake of being sick.

takao
Jun 21, 2007, 06:20 PM
What the hell is in your mind-set that the thought of using your wiimote to stab, strangle and torture someone - seems as actual fun for you or a good idea. It's sick for the sake of being sick.

"What the hell is in your mind-set that the thought of pressing a button at will which results in people getting shot and being blown to bits or loosing limbs - seem as actual fun for you or a good idea. It's sick for the sake of being sick."

why is pressing a button more acceptable ? when was the last time while playing a shooter with a normal gamepad or mouse when you thought "it is so sick killing people just by pressing a button"
please think about it .. shouldn't it be more sickening that people get killed by pressing buttons completely emotionless and without remorse ?

LethalWolfe
Jun 21, 2007, 09:23 PM
Nintendo has a lot to gain here, by letting the game ship as is on the Wii, and a lot to lose by not letting it ship. So does Sony, but not as much. Heck PS2 isn't even the main Sony system anymore, Wii is.
A lot to gain? By pissing off the same "some one think of the children" faction that Rock Star pissed off w/"hot coffee"? Nintendo has been very successful so far selling a truly all ages system, and they aren't about to watch that crumble by getting painted by the mass media as the only console that doesn't care about "protecting" children.



simple. A movie does not involve a persons interaction. Watching an actor kill someone whilst horrible if there is no context other than to disturb (hostel), there is a line between that and asking the audience to PHYSICALLY carry out the actions on screen.

So, again, I guess PnP role playing games, kids playing "army", and/or an actor in a violent film/play are the most harmful things ever because it's people pretending in real life to do these things. Gary Oldman has played a lot of villains in his day. I hope someone stops him from acting soon before he goes out and kills someone for real...:rolleyes:


Lethal

jdechko
Jun 21, 2007, 10:24 PM
"What the hell is in your mind-set that the thought of pressing a button at will which results in people getting shot and being blown to bits or loosing limbs - seem as actual fun for you or a good idea. It's sick for the sake of being sick."

why is pressing a button more acceptable ? when was the last time while playing a shooter with a normal gamepad or mouse when you thought "it is so sick killing people just by pressing a button"
please think about it .. shouldn't it be more sickening that people get killed by pressing buttons completely emotionless and without remorse ?

I think that there's a bit of a difference between just pressing a button and physically performing the action at least in a psychological sense. Normally, there used to be a lack of immersion in games (think Wolfenstein3D). It was easier not to get drawn in to feeling like you're there. With HD graphics and 5.1, the games drew us in and immersed our sight and hearing. These same advances draw us into movies as well. Of course, the more senses you excite, the more immersed you become (imagine if they added the stench of a rotting corpse to the game). Adding touch/feel deepens this interaction; however, button pressing isn't all that immersive compared to actually making the motions. So psycholgically, I think there is a difference between the two, with motions being more disturbing, while button presses feel more disconnected.

zap2
Jun 21, 2007, 10:29 PM
simple. A movie does not involve a persons interaction. Watching an actor kill someone whilst horrible if there is no context other than to disturb (hostel), there is a line between that and asking the audience to PHYSICALLY carry out the actions on screen.[/SIZE]


However, the move looks real..no one playing a game for PS2/Wii/PSP will think its real.


I understand you not wanting to play it...but why do care what other people do? Why should a game be banned, when it warms no one. No one is forcing anyone to play it, and keeping it away from minors is important.

I'm playing the game for the survive effect...the horror of it. Same reason why I watch horror movies, or play RE4.

applekid
Jun 21, 2007, 10:46 PM
I'll say it again, you've got to be pretty unstable to actually find it in you to kill a person. A video game is not going to suddenly churn out murderers. :rolleyes:

In other news, Microsoft apparently has a no AO game policy, too (thank you, zero2dash). No Manhunt for you!

But, I will say, Rockstar probably screwed up by putting in enough violence in Manhunt 2 to get the AO rating and hence this battle to release the game. Considering no store will sell AO games and none of the three console makers license AO games, Rockstar probably should've tried a little harder to go for the M rating...

I don't care if this game gets released or not. I just find the whole "violent video games make violent people" argument irrational.

Coded-Dude
Jun 22, 2007, 05:15 PM
I blame Nintendo........:p
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/a/a5/Zapper.jpg

On a serious note, anything violent is going to have an impression on a child.
(children are impressionable)
Thats why they are not allowed to watch/partake in such things.

Again, It is not the fault of the game-maker but the lack of competence on the parents side and/or the carelessness of videogame retailers.
Hold them accountable, not Rockstar or others

Dagless
Jun 22, 2007, 06:07 PM
http://satansam.co.uk/ftp/tomshootfull.gif

From me ol' archive.

Stella
Jun 23, 2007, 09:34 PM
The UK starts illegal wars and become terrorists themselves... ...and they still have the nerve to try and censor games from the public.

If you don't like the game, don't buy it. Simple.

Don't censor.

Parents don't like the game - make sure the kids don't play the game - the Wii has parental option. Use it.

I'm older than 18, if I want to play Man Hunt 2, then its my right. It won't start me on a murdering spree. It may a minority: But if you start this route, ban gambling, ban alcohol, ban food ; they may make a minority of people: gamblers, alcoholics, fat. In every product, there will be people who will abuse it.

Stella
Jun 23, 2007, 09:43 PM
I just don't want to see anyone killed over a video game.


So you don't like anything, because any product can be abused and lead to death?

Wrap yourself up in a padded hospital cell and remain there for the rest of your life and reality.

Too much exercise, food, water, oxygen can kill! Lets ban oxygen because too much of it is poisonous to humans!!

Shotgun OS
Jun 24, 2007, 12:20 AM
Ahh, crap. I just learned about this ban/rating/suspension the other day when I got RE:4 for my Wii. The suspension/ban is total crap. I wanted a super-violent game to play on my Wii. Guess I stick to RE:4. Just my two cents.

Just another way of controlling-I mean protecting the public. :rolleyes:

Dagless
Jun 24, 2007, 06:06 AM
So you don't like anything, because any product can be abused and lead to death?

Wrap yourself up in a padded hospital cell and remain there for the rest of your life and reality.

Too much exercise, food, water, oxygen can kill! Lets ban oxygen because too much of it is poisonous to humans!!

Did your word a day calendar have "exaggeration" today?
Thing is - Manhunt is basically a murder simulator, and if it follows the first game (which I only played on for a short while) it has no gameplay or artistic value to it.* And why should someone be killed for something that isn't going to push people towards a new, better society, or something that isn't going to help sick people or have any impact other than "shock" to even the gaming community.
If if it was a revolutionary game with new addictive and enjoyable gameplay to bring gaming out of the cycle of rehash and sequel after rehash and sequel then it'd be a different story.


*all that said they might have realised what was wrong with the first game and fixed it for the sequel.

pcypert
Jun 24, 2007, 09:07 AM
There are scant few games that actually better society...all that most video games do well is keep losers huddled up in their bedrooms instead of out in public :D

I could see if you earned points in games that the company rolled into a non profit in the form of monetary support...then I could see games pushing people towards a "new and better society".

I think what people don't like is having to openly face their stuff. The games that are popular now are violent games...why do we want that? This is the natural progression of things. Some don't mind...some are finally taking notice. We already have games where you can run around randomly killing folks just because and then you heal yourself by sleeping with a hooker...this is just killing one person at a time to get out...at least there's more reason to it...and you don't have to do it gruesomely...that choice says something about the player.

MacRumorUser
Jun 24, 2007, 09:50 AM
and you don't have to do it gruesomely...that choice

But you do have to do it. That's the point.


My problem with the game is that it's soul purpose was to set out and shock people. If the ratings system was actually worth something and implemented in stores - then I would have no problem seeing this game getting an 18 certificate.

But.... in reality the certificate / rating system means nothing, and the majority of people buying & playing the game would be teens and pre-teens. You only have to look at how many kids own a copy of GTA or other 18 rated games to see this.



For me....

Physically acting out mutilations on people IS a step up from just watching it happen at the press of a button. There is an added intimacy and an extra layer of reality when your holding the tools of torture.


Whilst most adults may be able to draw a line between reality and fantasy - the point is, that a young mind may not.

Childhood innocence is beautiful and precious enough as it is, and if banning a game as offensive as this protects a few people, i'm all for it.

Is anyone really going to miss this game in the great scheme of things. No.

Lord Blackadder
Jun 24, 2007, 10:12 AM
The probelm is that parents should be banning games in their household - it should not be necessary for the state to do this. Where is individual responsibility in this debate? I agree that young children should not be playing this game, perhaps not even many teenagers...

But I'm a big advocate of people taking responsibility for their own lives and those of their children. A lot of kids are playing GTA who shouldn't be, because their parents can't be bothered to educate themselves about the content their children are exposed to - they are too busy saving up for that SUV or watching American Idol.

In sum, I think the fact that governments need to ban violent games represents a failure of society to get up off their collective butts and take responsibility for the way we raise the next generation - shutting them in a fantasy world of "acceptable" content isn't the answer, but neither is exposing them to everything out there without some moral reference point. It's the fault of the parents, not the state or Rockstar games IMHO.

MacRumorUser
Jun 24, 2007, 10:23 AM
^ true in an ideal world.

Parents should be the responsible ones. Society as a whole should be responsible. But it isn't.


The reality is.

We have government making daily decisions on how we pay taxes, how we go to war, and generally how our lives are effected on a very day to day basis.

We have government 'state' schools - teaching our children, deciding what and how they learn for nearly 18 years of their lives.

We have government 'state' hospitals - were we are giving birth to them, taking them to have operations

We have government 'NHS' GP/ Doctors - were we take them when they are ill.




The governments (as you put it) are constantly involved in making decisions that effect our lives, decide what's best for us as a society.

So why get so offended when the BBFC decide due to the nature and intent of this game it deserves a ban, do people get so outraged.

Lord Blackadder
Jun 24, 2007, 10:41 AM
The governments (as you put it) are constantly involved in making decisions that effect our lives, decide what's best for us as a society.

So why get so offended when the BBFC decide due to the nature and intent of this game it deserves a ban, do people get so outraged.

My issue is not with the ban so much as the fact that people think it is the government's responsibility to keep this game away from stores. That's a cop-out: you and Ishould ultimately be responsible for what we do and what our children do.

If a kid is emotionally disturbed, plays violent video games that exacerbate his troubles and then goes and actually kills people is it Rockstar games' fault? Absolutely not. Rockstar should be more rigorous in educating people about their games' content, but it is ultimately your responsibility and mine to control what we choose for our entertainment. I dont think Rockstar has ever claimed that its games were not violent - so why do we act so shocked that our own children are playing them when we as a society allow them to do so?

Yes, the government is constantly making decisions about how we as a society regulate our lives, but in a democratic state the citizens are supposed to bear the ultimate responsibility of government.

If we were all taking proper responsibility as citizens, these games wouldn't cause the controversy they do because people would educate themselves and make informed decisions for about who is permitted to play them rather than relying on the government to do all the thinking for them.

takao
Jun 24, 2007, 10:50 AM
The probelm is that parents should be banning games in their household - it should not be necessary for the state to do this. Where is individual responsibility in this debate? I agree that young children should not be playing this game, perhaps not even many teenagers...

gotta agree with that... though there are plenty of problems

after all i'm the one in my family enforcing it a lot more since my parents grew up in a time where there weren't ratings anyway (since of the obvious lack of owning visual media at home)

my mother simply can't control it (after all she is happy if my little 15 year old brother goes to school every day not like half a year ago)

on the other side all new consoles and i think even vista offers a central policy system to restrict access to games of certain ratings which should help to lock out younger kids who are totally out of question _but_ that only works if kids are younger
when i was 10 and my sister 13 we did set up the console in the living room and not my parents



also the technical solutions for locking out kids have to improve considerable the next, i'm thinking of some kind of add on device which would look like some some sort of USB hub with additional 5 little USB key ring dongles (colored in the rating colors) which would only have to save a unique value:
when first plugged in, the console should register the keys and don't allow these values to be overwritten by buying an additional such device

it has to to be such a hardware solution because otherwise no parent can outsmart their teenager

but it can't be an built in feature because the teenager would immediately have the control themselves

edit: another thing also about the ratings: not all teenagers are the same: for example there are quite a few games/movies with higher rating here which i don't have a problem with if my brother (15) plays them while on the other side there are some where i have a problem

that said the best ways for making your kid/younger brother/sister not play a game are:
number 1:when the age difference is not big(like with brothers) and they look at what you are playing etc. and they know your a "gamer": say the game is crap
thanks to that trick my brother doesn't play GTA

number 2: the old "i found it totally cool as well" trick.. totally overdone _but_ it still works if the age difference is big enough and you actually have the nerve to do it and you aren't like my mother who thinks Super Monkey Ball is "horrifying" ("those poor little monkeys"... "they scream so horrifying when falling down" .. actual quote .. i'm not making this up)

pcypert
Jun 24, 2007, 02:10 PM
From all I've read (haven't played so can't say for sure) there are a lot of choices in the game. They said that players are rewarded for sneaking up on folks with gruesome kills, but the player can do a normal stabbing or anything else you would have in a normal game...Link stabs a lot of folks too now...you don't have to horribly execute people from what I've read...you can kill them as any other game out there or do a special kill...to me that's an added element in the game...it's like you can choose to give into sick inner desires (I'm not going to or probably even play the game) or not.

So a kid is spared THIS game but still playing GTA. Show me all the killings and stuff from GTA or any other game. Now compare those acts of violence to all the acts done per capita by youth before video games. Be sure to count all the sicko stuff like torturing animals and things like that that I know went on in the country.

When I have kids they won't be playing games like this till a certain age...I'm not a worthless parent. But that still doesn't mean that banning one game is going to save these other kids...if they're in homes where parents aren't taking an interest...well banning a video game is like plugging a hole in a dam when the dam is made of paper to begin with. It looks good on paper and makes us all feel good about ourselves...but folks, that kind of censorship isn't saving anything...those kids are screwed up because people have dropped the ball (neighbors as well as parents) and not done their part. This game can be an excuse we point back to later on to make us feel better or put the blame off of ourselves...but it wasn't the game...that kid was a murdering sociopath before Take 2 ever went into development.

Paul