Open Letter to the IFCO

Blowfish

Ciaran500 wrote:

People don't get desensitized playing a game.

The US army disagrees.

As do Iowa researchers.

As do Toledo researchers.

As do New Scientist.

I could go on as there is plenty of research into it, but i'm far too lazy

MOH

Blowfish wrote:

The US army disagrees.

As do Iowa researchers.

As do Toledo researchers.

As do New Scientist.

I could go on as there is plenty of research into it, but i'm far too lazy

The problem is that for every study someone cites proving their view, there's one proving the opposite.

But if the US Army says it's true, that convinces me it's not.

Blowfish

MOH wrote:

But if the US Army says it's true, that convinces me it's not.

So why is the US Army using video games for their troops then?

Mitch Connor

Blowfish wrote:

So why is the US Army using video games for their troops then?

to teach squad tactics.

Dont be at yourself

We're not talking about children who shouldn't be playing this either way.

Yeah, there's two arguments here, but they're interlinked. The first is whether or not children should be able to play violent games, and the second is whether the IFCO should censor what adults may consume themselves. With parents buying 18+ games for kids, that has to be a consideration of the IFCO when choosing to ban games like Manhunt 2.

But should the IFCO ban the game entirely, stopping mature, sensible adults from playing it? Debatable. I do know that the IFCO has been one of the most progressive censorship boards in the world, and have never banned a videogame before - stuff like Carmaggedon, Manhunt 1, GTA, Soldier of Fortune and other violent games were deemed fit for consumption. The IFCO is also generally very consistent in their classifications, so if Manhunt 2 was banned, we can assume that it is more violent than the aforementioned.

As I've said before, the game is a cynical cash-in whose very existence was brought about to exploit the furore surrounding violence in videogames. From what I can tell, there is real reason or motivation for the graphic violence in the videogame, there is no message, there is no justification for it. It's the epitome of low-brow, immature, artistically bankrupt videogames. I never intended to buy the game, so the IFCO ban will not affect me. I appreciate that there are well-balanced people out there who do want to play it, but playing such a game can't be healthy.

MOH

Blowfish wrote:

So why is the US Army using video games for their troops then?

Well I'd hardly call America's Army a gorefest. It is more aimed, as Tauren said, at encourage people to act as part of a unit.

There was actually a letter in PC Gamer a few months ago from some guy claiming he'd be much better in a battle since he was so 1337 playing online games. He got fairly ridiculed, it being pointed out to him by some guy (allegedly) in Iraq that there's quite a difference between clicking around on a screen and having your mates blown to pieces around you while you shoot complete strangers.

The whole 'desensitise to violence' argument has been done to death on videos. I haven't seen Manhunt2 (has anyone seen any confirmed footage?) but surely watching a raft of gory, realistic horror films is going to desensitize you to violence far more than console graphics.

And as for the interactivity: there's been arcade games going back 15 years that allowed you to point a light gun and shoot at enemies. No-one's blaming those for Columbine.

Dunno if we're straying off the point a bit here - we're talking Manhunt in particular, not games in general. Or are we?

@NekkibBibleMan:

With parents buying 18+ games for kids, that has to be a consideration of the IFCO when choosing to ban games like Manhunt 2.

That's the problem, it should in no way be a consideration. The IFCO should consider an 18+ game in terms of it's impact on adults. They don't ban videos on the basis they might be seen by minors (do they?), and games should be treated the same way.

It's the whole 'games are for kids' mentality of parents who can't be bothered educating themselves (God knows what their kids are watching online).

There should be separate legislation with penalties for people buying these games for kids. Prosecute a few parents under this, there'd be a huge media storm, and they might think twice in future.

steviec

Of course parents should be better educated not to buy their kids 18+ games, however that doesn't preclude using censorship as a further tool to keep these games out of kids hands.

In an ideal world nobody would break the speed limit, but does that mean we shouldn't put up crash barriers, since it's drivers' own fault when they crash anyway? Lets leave the roads dangerous and educate people better.

Thats a more extreme example but its basically the same idea.

The fact is nobody here has played the game, various different censorship bodies all have and they've all come to the same conclusion, a conclusion that in the case of IFCO has never been reached about any other computer game they've ever tested. Does this not tell us that maybe the game really does go beyond acceptable limits? Especially considering its a well known fact that the game purely exists to be sickening and controversial, it's never been about the gameplay or any kind of redeeming features and all of the marketing and previews up to now showed that. It's about killing people in gruesome ways, nothing else.

And there's no point comparing it to films that weren't banned because how do we know it isn't worse than them? Films have been banned in the past too, it's not like it's the exclusive preserve of games, and plenty of games like Manhunt 1 for a start weren't banned so I don't think it's an obvious case of double standards (again, I haven't played the game, but given what I've read and the consistency of rulings in different countries I think it's likely that the game's deserved what it's got)

Personally I had no interest in the game and I hate what it represents and the image it gives the industry, and for this reason more than any other I'm glad it's been banned. Rockstar don't deserve to make money from such a cynical cash in on hysteria, and the industry as a whole doesn't deserve all the news headlines and bad publicity the game would doubtlessly get upon release, so we're better off without it in my opinion.

a5y

Its a good letter. I'd be surprised if they actually responded however; they seem far more comfortable telling you what not to do than providing rational reasons why.

I'm all for gratuitous violence in entertainment and worry that there will one day be a catch-all ruling that will remove violence from entertainment. If that happens I'll never get the chance to learn how to play chess. :rolleyes:

jonny72

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Until they can show they're able to be responsible, violent movies and videogames will need to be classified and censored accordingly.

How can the people show they're able to be responsible if violent movies and videogames are classified and censored accordingly??

Try to imagine tomorrow, that almost every video game and violent film in Ireland looses its classification, it can be seen by anyone..

Also try to imagine that there is hardcore pornography on a third of the channels from 11pm onwards at night..

Then take a trip to Spain to see how this affects society..

Ciaran500

jonny72 wrote:

Then take a trip to Spain to see how this affects society..

Since I don't think anyone is going to go to Spain to look into your claims why not just tell us :rolleyes:

jonny72

Ciaran500 wrote:

Since I don't think anyone is going to go to Spain to look into your claims why not just tell us :rolleyes:

These aren't claims, these are facts. There is hardcore porn on TV from 11pm onwards. I've seen entires families walking down to discos and clubs with their kids at 4am in the morning. I've seen kids dancing inside the clubs and discos at 5am. Children can go to the local video store and rent whatever film they want. At certain times of the year there are bulls running around the towns, and yes these bulls will gore/kill you if you don't get out of the way. They light giant bonfires in the streets. They use the fire hoses to spray the people. They throw fireworks at each other. There is little or no compensation culture. You can buy alcohol at almost any age. You can drink till 10 in the morning.

Now take a look at the Spanish students that come over to Ireland every summer.. are they unhinged violent binge-drinking types?

For your information manhunt2 isn't banned in Spain.

However I have a theory on how to get it banned over there. Firstly, start of by making alot of laws, restricting the sale of alcohol, stricter age limits, age regulations on violent films, age restrictions on entry to pubs, clubs, more laws, more restrictions, laws, restrictions... then bingo!, there you have it, a society like ours, a nanny-state where you HAVE TO ban violent games because the people are "too irresponsible".

Hugh Hefner

I've read all but a few posts in this thread aswell as the other threads on this subject. Add to that the "torture porn" thread in the Films forum. At this point I've just gotten tired. I'm really tired. I'm tired when I see that issues like an adult's right to choose and an artist's right to expression are being overlooked for arguments that haven't be proven (i.e. video games' detremental affect on people), misunderstanding of a medium (i.e. an office that is primarily for film classification censoring a game) et cetera, ad nauseum.

And you can't say that Manhunt 2 is devoid of art. It's just not logical. For one, who's to decide what isn't artistic. For another, it's fair to say that any creation where presentation, tone, effective control scheme, etc. have been contemplated is artful. I don't know what something devoid of art would be but it's not this game. Hell, even the game's textures are a form of art!