The Manhunt 2 Thread.

koneko

Does that mean films like Hostel and Saw should also be banned, because some kids might get their hands on them thanks to their irresponsible parents? Likewise with porn, or violent games in general.

quad_red

"Quote:
use a pair of pliers to clamp onto an enemy's testicles and literally tear them from his body in a bloody display; and if that weren't enough, you'll take one of the poor victim's vertebrae along with his manhood".

Why, the hell, would anyone want to do that? That's taken from IGN, a gaming website ie. Not a sensationalist rag story written by a journalist who has never played the game nor ever plays computer games.

I remember the whole furore over Doom and Mortal Kombat when I was a kid. I remember laughing about it.

But if ManHunt II is as bad as it appears, if it is grotesque detailed slaughter with no other point but violence and torture, where the player has to mutilate other people physically acting out these movements (wii)...

TEARING off testicles, ripping muscles, removing vertabrae??

WTF?

SNL

koneko wrote:

Does that mean films like Hostel and Saw should also be banned, because some kids might get their hands on them thanks to their irresponsible parents? Likewise with porn, or violent games in general.

Do you believe that these films would produce the same effects and emotions on a person (18 or younger) who are controlling the actions and rewarded for them, than someone who views the actions, imitated sawing of a skull or closing on a pliers is were the fine edge game developers walked was crossed. The IFCO was but in place regulate these things, what exactly would a person get out of this what is the fun factor, or a people just acting pedulant and getting annoyed now that they are told they cant do it.

Also everyone is jumping on the bandwagon before playing a game, the actions were taking after someone played the game, nobody here actually knows how bad it was and just assumes the censors are in the wrong maybe they expect it to be toned down.

johnny_ultimate

It has been said before, I will say it again: the arguement is not over Manhunt being banned, it is about banning in general. I agree that the description on IGN sounds extremely unnecessary. Yet now people do not have the choice to play the game, they just can't play it at all, based on one organisations morals. This is what alot of people here are arguing. The fact that the IGN previewer seems to actively enjoy these things is a bit disturbing though.

quad_red

I'm with SNL on this. To be honest, I find movies such as Saw disturbing and pointless. Don't get me wrong, I love to be scared. But continual, incessant torture, mutilation, rape for titillation disgusts me.

ManHunt II has the player as the one who guides and perpetrates these actions. Concerted torture, mutilation, decapitation etc.

Rockstar are taking the piss with **** like this. And by pushing the bar beyond all reasonable decency, they're making it more likely that loads of other games are going to be thrown into the same category.

Again, I have not played this game. But from game site descriptions (again, not going on sensationalist know nothing rags) it sounds like, well, snuff.

koneko

SNL wrote:

Do you believe that these films would produce the same effects and emotions on a person (18 or younger) who are controlling the actions and rewarded for them, than someone who views the actions, imitated sawing of a skull or closing on a pliers is were the fine edge game developers walked was crossed.

I don't believe they have an effect on people, and it's interesting to see what the BBFC actually found on this:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=24246
People used to say books influenced people, then music, then movies, now games. All have had releases that were banned.
But that doesn't answer my question. If you're going to ban something assuming children can get their hands on it, then a lot of things will be or could be banned, then there is no such thing as entertainment aimed at adults as the assumption is that "kids will get their hands on it anyway", so all entertainment must be suitable for kids.

or a people just acting pedulant and getting annoyed now that they are told they cant do it.

:rolleyes:
Dismissing a valid argument? This is about censorship, yes, if that's what you're getting at, rather than a specific game.

quad_red

johnny_ultimate wrote:

It has been said before, I will say it again: the arguement is not over Manhunt being banned, it is about banning in general. I agree that the description on IGN sounds extremely unnecessary. Yet now people do not have the choice to play the game, they just can't play it at all, based on one organisations morals. This is what alot of people here are arguing. The fact that the IGN previewer seems to actively enjoy these things is a bit disturbing though.

And currently we are in a situation where games ratings are not taken seriously. Either way, by Rockstar going totally beyond the pale of any sort of decency, this issue is going to become current currency.

I am no psychologist but surely one has to be concerned over the possible side effects of physically, viscerally re-enacting immensely shocking immersive violence?

I think there is a big difference between something like GTA/Fear/Mortal Kombat etc. and something like ManHunt.

Now, fair enough, the Wii isn't exactly photo realistic. But Rockstar is clearly going to push this trend to ever more extreme levels should something not constrain them.

SNL

But its the interactivity of the game which makes it alot different to the other three forms of entertainment, whilst your right in your argument in relation to porn,movies etc, none of these forms of adult entertainment reward the murder, sex etc.

I just want to know if people agree that rockstar are right to push the boundarys so far or do they disregard why the IFCO have made the decision and think they are wrong

johnny_ultimate

quad_red wrote:

And currently we are in a situation where games ratings are not taken seriously. Either way, by Rockstar going totally beyond the pale of any sort of decency

Aha! Decency! That word is probably the most important word of the arguement.
Everyone has different morals. Some people are religious, some not, to give just one example. Everyone has different opinions over what is right or wrong, and should be able to make up their own mind based on this. Banning is a form of collective mind-making. Through, the majority may support the banning, why should the minority not be able to play because others dont want to. I have said it numerous times on this thread and others: I personally think this game is OTT and will not play it. Yet I would not go to someone "Oh, I don't agree with it, you can't play". "Elite decision making" has been around for centuries, if not millenia, and in this day and age, I feel there is little place for it. There is a need to protect children from such things though, and thats why I feel proper rating systems are an excellent compromise.

quad_red

johnny_ultimate wrote:

Aha! Decency! That word is probably the most important word of the arguement.
Everyone has different morals. Some people are religious, some not, to give just one example. Everyone has different opinions over what is right or wrong, and should be able to make up their own mind based on this. Banning is a form of collective mind-making. Through, the majority may support the banning, why should the minority not be able to play because others dont want to. I have said it numerous times on this thread and others: I personally think this game is OTT and will not play it. Yet I would not go to someone "Oh, I don't agree with it, you can't play". "Elite decision making" has been around for centuries, if not millenia, and in this day and age, I feel there is little place for it.

Sloppy on my part to use that word. That was said as more of a phrase.

Censorship is taken in the pejorative by most people here. I am extremely disdainful of religious censorship. And most purely 'moral censorship'.

Hence, I think slasher films are dull, un-inventive vehicles to see people brutally maimed and tortured. Not my cup of tea. And if I ever have kids, they ain't watching em. But, it's up to people and the movies are suitably rated.

I would have serious concerns about what something like ManHunt II, which is clearly far beyond any movie or previous computer game in terms of interactivity and levels of deliberate maiming, torture and realism.

Whilst the Irish Censorship Board decision appears to be no more than a response to the UK decision (which is potentially problematic in itself), the UK decision is clearly based on a detailed examination of the game.

MooseJam

http://www.carmex-kiss.de/index.php?meintanz=964920423981

[CrimsonGhost]

A couple of points which I don't think have been mentioned as yet in the thread:

It has been shown that people are much more aware of the distance from reality when playing games than when watching movies. (Still looking for the source I original read this, I'll link it when I find it). Making the likes of saw and hostel far worse than any game.

IFCO are the same people who banned Life of Brian in the 70's. This alone imho disqualifies them from having any sort of valid opinion as to what is suitable for consumption by the adult population of the country.

hullaballoo

For those who are arguing along the lines that this is censorship, and censorship is inherently bad insofar as it infringes on our civil liberties - yes, you have a valid point. That said, IFCO have been very liberal in the past about what they allow. GTA is arguably too violent, even the Getaway featured scenes of violence that I wouldn't want any children to see.

However, it all fit within the context of the game. In GTA, the idea was a sort of piss-take and humourous take on tribal warefare and mafiosos in the US. The Getaway was a lock, stock-esque game in which the torture scenes made sense.

Manhunt 2 is a whole different affair. There's no context to the violence at all. It's just bloody gore for the sake of it, with no humourous undertones and no real plot to it. Add to this the fact that gamers actually have to perform the physical actions of dismembering victims. That's what makes it most wrong in my opinion. That sort of thing has an effect on people, no matter what age they are.

I mean, I can't deny that having played GTA for hours on end for a few weeks running before I finished it, I would go outside and my perception of the world was different. I had to resist a weak urge to walk out in front of cars and carjack people. Now, it wasn't anything too serious - I'm fairly mentally stable.

Think of those people who play games who are perhaps not quite so mentally stable. Playing a game where you have to torture people in unfathomably cruel ways just to advance in the game is going to have a negative effect on some people.

Unfortunately, the types of people upon whom this would have the greatest negative effect (to a dangerous extent) are largely incapable of recognising that they should not play a game like this.

I don't see that the ban is excessive to any extent. I don't see that a precedent is set whereby normal games with some or even a lot of violence will be banned in future. I just think that games that might seriously negatively effect the psyches of gamers may be subject to similar appraisal. I don't see how anyone can give out about that.

[quote=[Crimson ghost]]IFCO are the same people who banned Life of Brian in the 70's. This alone imho disqualifies them from having any sort of valid opinion as to what is suitable for consumption by the adult population of the country.[/quote]
That's a painfully irrelevant argument. IFCO, the institution, banned Life of Brian in the 70s. IFCO's composition has changed, probably close to 100% by this stage, which means that none of those who made the decision then are around making decisions now.

Aside from that, the socio-cultural macros in this country in the 1970s were so different from now that the ban probably made sense. Think of all the staunch Catholics that would have been mortally offended by such blasphemous material. Even now, a significant number of people would be offended by it.

Ciaran500

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Manhunt 2 is a whole different affair. There's no context to the violence at all. It's just bloody gore for the sake of it, with no humourous undertones and no real plot to it. Add to this the fact that gamers actually have to perform the physical actions of dismembering victims. That's what makes it most wrong in my opinion. That sort of thing has an effect on people, no matter what age they are.

All we know of the story came from a small synopsis on GameStop site, how do you know that?

hullaball&#250 wrote:

I mean, I can't deny that having played GTA for hours on end for a few weeks running before I finished it, I would go outside and my perception of the world was different. I had to resist a weak urge to walk out in front of cars and carjack people. Now, it wasn't anything too serious - I'm fairly mentally stable.

Can't say I've ever experienced anything like that.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Think of those people who play games who are perhaps not quite so mentally stable. Playing a game where you have to torture people in unfathomably cruel ways just to advance in the game is going to have a negative effect on some people.

Unfortunately, the types of people upon whom this would have the greatest negative effect (to a dangerous extent) are largely incapable of recognising that they should not play a game like this.

But these people find the violence they want in movies, books, music, internet sites and even their own writings. I can't see how a game will make them any worse.

hullaballoo

Ciaran500 wrote:

All we know of the story came from a small synopsis on GameStop site, how do you know that?

I've read a few articles on it by this stage - the Irish Times have an article on it, plenty of newswire sites, and a few of the posts here highlight it.

Can't say I've ever experienced anything like that.

I don't remember saying that you had.

But these people find the violence they want in movies, books, music, internet sites and even their own writings. I can't see how a game will make them any worse.

I don't think that argument stands up considering that you control the steps involved in removing someone's manhood (as well as other forms of torture). Even where you don't actually have to perform the physical actions, the buttons you press give rise to the on-screen actions that do the damage. It brings things a step closer to real-life. If you're reading these things in a book, or watching them in the movies, they're supposed to make you think, "yuck!" If you're performing the actions yourself, it seems to me that you're supposed to derive some sort of sadistic pleasure from it.

You're not supposed to derive sadistic pleasure from watching Hostel or Saw. It's supposed to scare you.

It might be a point to remember that sadism is illegal in this country as well. Just as an aside.

MooseJam

hullaball&#250 wrote:

It might be a point to remember that sadism is illegal in this country as well. Just as an aside.

lol no it is not

hullaballoo

Yes, yes it is. It just so happens that I (a) have a law degree and (b) am studying criminal law at the moment for professional law exams. You can't consent to assault so sadism is illegal (as is masochism, unless it's self-inflicted, and you're alone).

MooseJam

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Yes, yes it is. It just so happens that I (a) have a law degree and (b) am studying criminal law at the moment for professional law exams. You can't consent to assault so sadism is illegal (as is masochism, unless it's self-inflicted, and you're alone).

lol no, no it's not, law degree or not sadism is not illegal, if it was i would be in trouble as i derive great pleasure from pulling the wings off flies.

you might be erroneously trying to infer that it's illegal cause you can't consent to assault, however sadism isn't confined to abusing people, i can be a sadist and torture fish

Tar.Aldarion

hullaball&#250 wrote:

I had to resist a weak urge to walk out in front of cars and carjack people.

Now, it wasn't anything too serious - I'm fairly mentally stable.

Contradiction.

I would say somebody fairly mentally stable would have no such urge.

SNL

MooseJam wrote:

i can be a sadist and torture fish

can people be done for criminal neglect to pets

MooseJam

SNL wrote:

can people be done for criminal neglect to pets

don't get smart, i can go fishing catch a fish and kill it in what ever cruel way i see fit

christophicus

hullaball&#250 wrote:

You're not supposed to derive sadistic pleasure from watching Hostel or Saw. It's supposed to scare you.

There are so many points in this thread that I completely disagree with , it has actually become quite fascinating seeing how different people think.

Anyway as regards teh quote. Really ? I would have thought you are seeing as these films do not appear to be trying to scare the viewer, well thats how it appears to me at least. To me they appear to be trying to dissgust or repulse the viewer. If that is the whole point of the movies and the viewers a fully aware of this when watching , that can only lead me to believe that they enjoy watching these sadistic acts.

hullaballoo

MooseJam wrote:

lol no, no it's not, law degree or not sadism is not illegal, if it was i would be in trouble as i derive great pleasure from pulling the wings off flies.

you might be erroneously trying to infer that it's illegal cause you can't consent to assault, however sadism isn't confined to abusing people, i can be a sadist and torture fish

Torturing animals is also illegal. In fact, there are vast criminal sanctions for it. The ISPCA would be able to instigate proceedings against you for torturing fish. I'm not sure about flies, but personally, I don't see the difference.

You need a licence to actually kill fish that you catch and I'm sure that if the fisheries authorities knew that you were torturing fish, you would not get such a licence.

I must commend your bravery for arguing a point you clearly know nothing about with someone who has a degree in the matter. Foolishness, but bravery nonetheless.

@Tar: prove it. Either prove it or back it up, or you're no longer my other half.

christophicus wrote:

There are so many points in this thread that I completely disagree with , it has actually become quite fascinating seeing how different people think.

That's what makes discussion interesting.

Anyway as regards teh quote. Really ? I would have thought you are seeing as these films do not appear to be trying to scare the viewer, well thats how it appears to me at least. To me they appear to be trying to dissgust or repulse the viewer. If that is the whole point of the movies and the viewers a fully aware of this when watching , that can only lead me to believe that they enjoy watching these sadistic acts.

I would have thought that it's because most people's lives don't have enough excitement that films that evoke emotions (fear/sadness/lust/whatever) gives them something to feel. I wouldn't think that the aim is to fulfil sadistic urges. I certainly am no sadist, and find films like that disturbing. At the same time, I like watching them because they give me a strong emotion that I otherwise am without in everyday life. That, and the relief that I get when I come out and say, "thank fcuk that's not me."

Tar.Aldarion

I am fairly mentally stable, I have done the same, I have felt no urges. Anybody else ever say they felt those urges to you?

hullaballoo

Yeah, quite a few people. It's not an urge as much as a very temporary distortion in my perception of reality. It's a split-second thing. It's not like I'm wandering around trying to fight off a desire to go and bludgeon someone to death - I just feel for a nanosecond that I'm in the GTA universe and then think to myself, "that was weird". Most people I've mentioned it to have had similar experiences.

I suppose that's not to say we're not all crackpots. I'd say the balance of probabilities goes against us all being crackpots though.

MooseJam

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Torturing animals is also illegal. In fact, there are vast criminal sanctions for it. The ISPCA would be able to instigate proceedings against you for torturing fish. I'm not sure about flies, but personally, I don't see the difference.

You need a licence to actually kill fish that you catch and I'm sure that if the fisheries authorities knew that you were torturing fish, you would not get such a licence.

I must commend your bravery for arguing a point you clearly know nothing about with someone who has a degree in the matter. Foolishness, but bravery nonetheless.

all right mr look at me I have a degree, quote the the law that says sadism is illegal, and i want the word "sadism" to appear in the law, lets see you do that

delly

I was under the impression that IFCO don't have any mandate to ban video games so I checked out there annual report and found this.

VIDEO GAMES
Video games are exempt from classification under the Video
Recordings Act 1989, although they may in fact be prohibited on
grounds specified in S. 3 of that Act.

Ireland is a founder member of PEGI, the Pan European Games
Information system.The Deputy Censor, Ger Connolly, is a member
of the PEGI Advisory Board.The other founder members were
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

The PEGI system classifies video games in one of the age categories
3+, 7+, 12+, 16+ and 18+.This is a successful initiative which
provides a significant aid to parents in relation to the content
suitabilility for young persons of various ages. Games rated 18+ are
regularly examined by IFCO prior to release.

The success of the initiative can be demonstrated by the fact that in
the last year the following countries have also begun using the PEGI
rating system: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia.

The first part reads as if they can't ban but can if they need too

Crucifix

delly wrote:

The first part reads as if they can't ban but can if they need too

I took it to mean the can't rate them, only ban them?

delly

Crucifix wrote:

I took it to mean the can't rate them, only ban them?

Ah, that sounds about right.

-TK^Creator

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I am fairly mentally stable, I have done the same, I have felt no urges. Anybody else ever say they felt those urges to you?

i have felt similar urges, im sure most ppl have. it would be along the same lines as wanting control time/space from heroes or just wanting to beat up ur boss badly when he pisses you off by shoving his head into the nearest wall after wanting someone in a movie/game do it.

p.s i hope im mentally stable