The Manhunt 2 Thread.

pspdude

http://www.nextgenireland.com/manhuntupdate.html

Unlike the UK who wont even look at a censored version of Manhunt (they say its soo bad that a censored version wouldnt be possible) IFCO have said that a censored version would be possible but its fully up to rockstar to submit one.

Id say they will definately do it, i mean, the AO rating in the US is really gonna hurt sales. Lets just hope they dont replace the humans with zombies like carmageddon

sorry excuse my mispelling of censored in the title, was in a rush :P

hullaballoo

MooseJam wrote:

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

***Apologies to those of you who have no interest whatsoever in what I'm about to post, but since someone actually asked me to quote the law - and it's helpful to me to do so, here goes nothing:

R v Brown and Others I'm going to skip the parts where this was in the British Courts because they all say the same thing as the European Court of Human Rights in the end. Some of you will remember this case because it was high-profile at the time (1994). A group of up to 40 men were involved in a sado-masochistic practice that included various injurious bouts of assault to one another, which were recorded on video and distributed to the members.

"The sado-masochistic activity consisted in the main of maltreatment of the genitalia with hot wax, sandpaper, fish hooks and needles, and ritualistic beatings either with the 'assailant's' bare hands or a variety of implements, including stinging nettles, spiked belts and a cat-o'-nine-tails. There were instances of branding and infliction of injuries that resulted in the flow of blood and which left scarring." (From The Professional Law School: Criminal Law handbook from Griffith College Dublin.)

The men were convicted on the grounds that you cannot consent to assault by Rant J in the High Court. They appealed to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division where their appeal was dismissed. They appealed to the House of Lords, where their appeal was again dismissed before they finally appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds of a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.)

The ECtHR held that there was no breach of Article 8. In doing so, they said: "The court observes that not every sexual activity carried out behind closed doors necessarily falls within the scope of Article 8...The determination of the level of harm that should be tolerated by the law in situations where the victim consents is in the first instance a matter for the State concerned since what is at stake is related, on the one hand, to public health considerations and to the general deterrent effect of the criminal law, and, on the other, to the personal autonomy of the individual."

The relevant statutory definition can be found in S. 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997: "[a] person who assaults another causing him...harm shall be guilty of an offence."

MooseJam

hullaball&#250 wrote:

***Apologies to those of you who have no interest whatsoever in what I'm about to post, but since someone actually asked me to quote the law - and it's helpful to me to do so, here goes nothing:

Yes I asked you to quote the law and you failed to do so

hullaball&#250 wrote:

"The sado-masochistic activity consisted in the main of maltreatment of the genitalia with hot wax, sandpaper, fish hooks and needles, and ritualistic beatings either with the 'assailant's' bare hands or a variety of implements, including stinging nettles, spiked belts and a cat-o'-nine-tails. There were instances of branding and infliction of injuries that resulted in the flow of blood and which left scarring." (From The Professional Law School: Criminal Law handbook from Griffith College Dublin.)

this is just some spiel from a textbook, not a law

hullaball&#250 wrote:

The men were convicted on the grounds that you cannot consent to assault by Rant J in the High Court. They appealed to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division where their appeal was dismissed. They appealed to the House of Lords, where their appeal was again dismissed before they finally appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds of a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.)

The ECtHR held that there was no breach of Article 8. In doing so, they said: "The court observes that not every sexual activity carried out behind closed doors necessarily falls within the scope of Article 8...The determination of the level of harm that should be tolerated by the law in situations where the victim consents is in the first instance a matter for the State concerned since what is at stake is related, on the one hand, to public health considerations and to the general deterrent effect of the criminal law, and, on the other, to the personal autonomy of the individual."

The relevant statutory definition can be found in S. 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997: "[a] person who assaults another causing him...harm shall be guilty of an offence."

this appears to be an English case, we are in Ireland, and anyway the people were convicted of Assault not sadism.

So just to sum up, you have failed to quote the law pertaining to sadism and do you know why, because there is none, Sadism in not illegal, no Irish law mentions sadism, you are simply wrong , so put away your textbooks and get over it.

christophicus

To be honest I would much rather import a copy rather then get a censored version.

o1s1n

I'll be just waiting to import myself. As I said in another thread, Holland don't ban things. Therefore they should get a full PAL release. With an English language option.

Creamy Goodness

there is a need for a second thread much?

quad_red

As well as being banned in the UK and Ireland, it has received an AO (Adults Only) rating in America which apparently "a virtual kiss of death as far as retail sales are concerned".

http://gamepolitics.com/

GP posed that question to Wedbush-Morgan analyst Michael Pachter, who tracks the video game sector:

I had estimated [Manhunt 2 would generate] around $25 million in revenues for this quarter, plus around $15 million in reorders. It’s not clear to me whether Take-Two will:

1) ship the game as is;

2) re-cut the game and try to have the UK ban/US AO rating lifted;

3) cancel the game.

It seems that since most of the cost is “sunk cost” [i.e., not recoverable], alternative 3 is unlikely. The trade-off between 1 and 2 is lower sales with option 1 and higher sales and higher costs (more development and some incremental marketing) for option 2. Without knowing what they plan, I’d say it probably costs around half of the potential revenues, but that’s just a guess.

tman

koneko wrote:

Manhunt 2 is not the issue, censorship is. Would you react this way if a game you're interested in was banned? Imagine for argument sake that IFCO decided it's in poor taste to have children (Little Sisters) in Bioshock, and ban the game. Would you object to that? Insert whatever game you want, it's just an example.

Aye, good point.
My poor hungover head was a little frazzled yesterday and I just couldn't comprehend people getting so worked up about this one game in particular.
In principal, I'm most definitely against this sort of thing, but I'm also still glad that this pathetic excuse for a game wont see the light of day over here.

And how come this alleged 9/10 score from ngamer hasn't filtered through to gamerankings/metacritic et al yet...

hullaballoo

MooseJam wrote:

Yes I asked you to quote the law and you failed to do so

this is just some spiel from a textbook, not a law

Where do you think the law comes from? Not everything that is a law is written in statute in this country. The common law - which is decisions handed down by the courts - comprises the main body of the law in this country. You'll find, if you ever have a cause to look it up for yourself, that court cases often cite texbooks as authority for decisions.

Though it is from a textbook, it is a textbook which is discussing the law as it stands. Fortunately for me, the analysis is quite clear.

this appears to be an English case, we are in Ireland, and anyway the people were convicted of Assault not sadism.

The English and Irish legal systems are intricately tied because Irish law was governed by England up until about 85 years ago. As such, English decisions are persuasive (though not binding) on Irish courts.

That's just a point of information, just as the rest of this post is, because the decision that I quoted from was one of the European Court, and is binding in Ireland.

Legally, sadistic acts and assault causing harm are the exact same thing. The offence that you would be charged with is assault causing harm. If you beat someone because they want you to, that's assault causing harm. Thus, sadistic acts are covered by the law as it stands.

So just to sum up, you have failed to quote the law pertaining to sadism and do you know why, because there is none, Sadism in not illegal, no Irish law mentions sadism, you are simply wrong , so put away your textbooks and get over it.

What's fatal to your argument is that you don't seem to accept that law doesn't come from statutes alone. The wikipedia article on Law of the Republic of Ireland gives a very brief rundown of where the law in this state comes from - case law is the relevant authority in this case (along with the s. 3 of the 1997 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Persons Act which I quoted from above).

"Irish law" does, then, mention sadism - because the decision of the European Court is Irish law, and sadism (or, at least, sado-masochism) is mentioned in the decision I've quoted above.

Anyway, that painful legal analysis of the laws against sadism (which, as I stated, was an aside to the game), is irrelevant to the game because no real person is harmed by the game insofar as is addressed by the above analysis.

The harm that the game does goes to the effect that it has on the person "playing" it. Of course, though that meets the criteria for assault, you can't take a game to court. It might be a viable legal avenue to sue Rockstar if you find that your mental health has been adversely affected by such a game, however.

o1s1n

tman wrote:

but I'm also still glad that this pathetic excuse for a game wont see the light of day over here.

Ah!!! *head explodes". You havent PLAYED IT YET.

OMG EVIL GAME! BURN DESTROY BAN BAN BAN! I KNOW IT'S EVIL BEFORE EVEN PLAYING IT! Night Trap has scenes of rape! evil burn destroy! Manhunt IS ABOUT A KILLER KILLING INNOCENTS! AHH!!"

You havent played the game yet. You haven't seen anyone play the game yet. Until you do, all you're going on is paragraphs of text and the odd video preview/screenshot. Until you see it in person, you have absolutely no idea whether it's "a pathetic excuse for a game" or not. Maybe the game engine is really really good? Maybe the character design is excellent? Maybe it actually has a decent plot.

MooseJam

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Legally, sadistic acts and assault causing harm are the exact same thing. The offence that you would be charged with is assault causing harm. If you beat someone because they want you to, that's assault causing harm. Thus, sadistic acts are covered by the law as it stands.

You don't seem to understand what is being discussed
heres a definition

1. Psychiatry. sexual gratification gained through causing pain or degradation to others.
2. any enjoyment in being cruel.
3. extreme cruelty.

Sadism does not merely mean torture, you can be emotionally sadistic for example, how could an emotionally sadistic act and assault causing harm be the same thing
anyway we are way off topic, ill leave it at that

hullaballoo

Fair enough. I was talking about sadistic acts where you actually inflict an injury on another. Injury, of course, extends to emotional and psychological injury.

Being a sadist can't be illegal, in the same way as being sexually aroused by thinking about rape can't be illegal. It's just if you act upon it.

That said, there's never been a prosecution for it in Ireland. There probably won't ever be. And, in my opinion, sadistic acts shouldn't be illegal. I don't see a problem with consenting to being assaulted (once you've got the capacity to give informed consent).

tman

o1s1n wrote:

You havent played the game yet. You haven't seen anyone play the game yet. Until you do, all you're going on is paragraphs of text and the odd video preview/screenshot. Until you see it in person, you have absolutely no idea whether it's "a pathetic excuse for a game" or not. Maybe the game engine is really really good? Maybe the character design is excellent? Maybe it actually has a decent plot.

I've played manhunt, which gave me more than enough of an idea of how appalingly bad the rest of the series will be.
The game is only coming out on PS2 and Wii. Its obviously going to be a game that they churned out as quickly and cheaply as possible, otherwise they would have gone for a release on the other two current gen consoles and the PC.
Do you honestly believe that it's going to be something special? is that based on an actual experience of playing the game, or is it based on the scant details that rockstar have released up until now, only a few weeks from the original release date... (surely that alone should set off warning bells that it's going to be crap.)

TheDoc

TBH soon enough it will get so ridiculous that you will find most games being banned. I think the idea absolutely ridiculous. Whats to stop them going on to ban more movies, music and even more games?

Youd have to argue if this is banned why arnt eh likes of grand theft auto banned, surely a game about vandalism,murder and car theft would give bad influences? NO...because people have the mental ability to distinguish between reality and fictional.

Why dont we stik the blame on the increase in boy racers and car related deaths to the likes of need for speed and forza....god this is jsut another ridiculous goverment body, funded by my tax money, bored out of their tree and jsut banned a game...

o1s1n

tman wrote:

I've played manhunt, which gave me more than enough of an idea of how appalingly bad the rest of the series will be.
The game is only coming out on PS2 and Wii. Its obviously going to be a game that they churned out as quickly and cheaply as possible, otherwise they would have gone for a release on the other two current gen consoles and the PC.
Do you honestly believe that it's going to be something special? is that based on an actual experience of playing the game, or is it based on the scant details that rockstar have released up until now, only a few weeks from the original release date... (surely that alone should set off warning bells that it's going to be crap.)

From the sounds of the controls, the game was mainly created for a Wii release. Because it's considerably less powerful than the other current generation consoles, they probably thought it the ps2 would be able to handle a port version too.

By your argument, a developer who now releases a game mainly for the Wii and ports it also to the ps2 somehow just wants to release a quick and cheap game? That's rubbish. Not to mention the ps3 and 360 certainly aren't void of rubbish games.

Making a game for a specific console is no indication of whether or not it's going to be any good.

I don't think this is going to be a breathtaking special event in video gaming history no. I am however interested in seeing how Rockstar utilized the motion controls. And whether they pulled them off or not. Not to mention I also liked the gritty ugly feel of the first game and was looking forward to its sequel.

Dave!

I don't think the game should be banned. For one thing, it serves no purpose really, since people are increasingly buying games off the internet. If they want it, then that's all they have to do.

But what was pointed out on the radio today, which I thought was a good point, was that the censor is essentially an adult (who is not elected AFAIK) who watches films etc., and then tells other adults that THEY cannot watch them! Seems pretty silly when you think of it like that.

Ya really need to rethink what the job of the censor should be... He's responsible for classifying the films, etc., into age groups, which is grand. It means that parents (as well as cinemas, video shops, etc) can be guided in what films kids should be allowed to see. But once you're over 18, why should you still be subject to the opinion of a censor? Surely you can make your own mind up at that stage?

The argument is made that the game should never fall into the hands of kids, and that inevitably games rated 18s will do that. But if the certificates are to mean anything, then surely they should be strictly adhered to anyway. I mean, Scarface is rated 18s -- so therefore it should NEVER be shown to kids. Or is there a grey area here? Scarface is 18s, but sure if a kiddo watches it, it's no big deal.......

They should either be adhered to or abolished. Banning games is ridiculous.

The other thing that has been pointed out already is that the censor just gave Manhunt 2 the best publicity it could ever have gotten. What audience does he think the creators are aiming at? Middle aged women? Or young lads who want to see blood and guts? The answer is the latter, and most of those people, if they've played Manhunt 1 (which was sh*te), would probably have steered clear of Manhunt 2 -- except for now they hear it's "so gruesome they had to ban it!" I'd be interested to know whether sales went up for the first one after the papers started blaming it for the death of some bloke. I'd say the sales of this one will be 10 times that.

DtotheK

I'd say rockstar are delighted it's banned here!

The yanks will be sayin "Oh myyyy gawd!! this game was banned in britain and ireland!! It must be great, i wonder why it was banned and i'm going to buy it now!!"

They'll get curious and i dont think it will affect rockstar much.

And i completely disagree with assholes banning games, i'm a fan of GTA, own almost all on all different consoles, and like the majority of everyone, i dont go around killing people!!

Ban the freakos who shoot up their school, and dont punish people like us Mr censor!!

Dave!

DtotheK wrote:

Ban the freakos who shoot up their school, and dont punish people like us Mr censor!!

I think they're already banned, lol

griffdaddy

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.

Ah don't become one of those tossers, you're always so normal on the UCD forum

Gizzle

To be honest, putting aside personal bias as to whether Manhunt 2 will be ****e or not (for the record I loved the first one for the same reasons I like films like Battle Royale or Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance et al, and was looking forward to the sequel), the main issue here is that both the BBFC and it's shadow IFCO are denying the right of adults to decide whether or not the game is suitable for them, thus pretty much denying a constitutional right.

I mean, I have a friend who's roughly the same age as me, and we have similar tastes, but he abhorred the first Manhunt, for both gameplay and content reasons. Fair enough, he didn't buy it. Even he would find this banning excessive though. As was stated many times in this post, people will be able to get their hands on it via other means anyway, so what exactly does the banning result in at the end of the day? Smacks of step 1 to Room 101 to me.

Not only that, but the basis of it's reasoning seems to be based upon the sensationalist media surrounding violent games in general. Of course, I'm open to correction on this.

hullaballoo

griffdaddy wrote:

Ah don't become one of those tossers, you're always so normal on the UCD forum

I felt like being a prick because I'm bitter at having to study for exams for the whole summer. It is slightly out of character for me to say stuff like that, but I wanted to bypass all the "and who the fcuk are you to say it's illegal" bullcrap and get straight to the nitty-gritty. Plus, if by "one of those tossers", you mean "lawyer", then too bad.

I have to say I agree with DaveMcG's comments (I too never thought I'd say that) - I reckon protecting children is key here, and after having looked at it the way Dave points out, I reckon adults probably should be able to make the choice for themselves.

However, I can still see the logic behind the ban from the point of view of protecting the public at large - it's just a bit nanny-ish.

Hugh Hefner

A point that I never see raised:...


Usually authorities such as the BBFC, IFCO and so on say, somewhere in their press release, something like, "We believe that contextualised violence/drug use/explicit sex is suitable for public release but we believe that the violence/drug use/explicit sex in is both of an unrelenting type and does not have higher, contextualised worth."

No authority or critic of authories ever (in my experience) considers the idea that such vicious and unrealenting violence is a worthwhile context in and of itself. More specifically, in many media there is the idea of theme overwhelming as a form of art. For example, many movies have scenes showing reels of war crimes, nuclear detonations and sexual violence to make the point, in an artful way, that violence is systemic or solely destructive. Now, I am not nearly suggesting that Manhunt 2 is carrying an underlying message of pacifism but it is fair to say that a game of such a type could be very succesful in illiciting reactions other than bloodlust and good for more than just "kicks".

Fear. A person could very well, I believe, experience the same fear playing a game like Manhunt 2 as they might while playing a game like Resident Evil. Some people enjoy this sense of fear and not knowing what will happen next. In this sense playing Manhunt 2 is almost identical to riding a rollercoaster, for example. It could even be likened to eating ice-cream, something which is done for pure taste sensation. Maybe I'm being too abstract for some but hopefully you will get my point.

I think we, and more critically the authorities involved in game classification/banning, must be willing to take seriously the possibility of games which on the surface are murder-sims having positive, or at least innocent, entertainment value, however taboo that might still be.

Gizzle

Personally, I'm in two minds about this whole banning vs. censorship thing they have going on. In mind number one, which is sparsely, yes functionally furnished (think IKEA), I'm colossally outraged and would rather not buy the game at all rather than accept a censored version. Following this path, the censored version going to retail will be terrible for Rockstar.

However, in mind number two, which is packed to the gills with techno-luxuries, but has so little room I can only sit three feet away from the telly when playing the Wii, I hearken back to 1997, and remember how phenomenally well a woegeous racing/murder sim called Carmageddon did cross platform due to the censored version going to retail.
Then a year later they just released the original because nobody cared anymore.
Treading this path the censored version will spell mucho dinero for Rockstar.

Dave!

hullaball&#250 wrote:

I have to say I agree with DaveMcG's comments (I too never thought I'd say that) - I reckon protecting children is key here, and after having looked at it the way Dave points out, I reckon adults probably should be able to make the choice for themselves.

Woah! Edit that out and give it some thought for the night, then put it back up in the morning if you still agree with me Ya never know when agreeing with me will get you into trouble!

bluemachaveli

IFCO are a complete joke. BBFC gives a movie a rating of 15. IFCO give the same movie an 18 cert. They just followin suit wit BBFC in banning. Such a bunch of sheep! I emailed just to complain but i also cc Gerry Ryan. Every1 should email the IFCO weather u play Manhunt or not. God knows it mite ba GTA next :eek:

bluemachaveli

Double Post, Sorry!

johnny_ultimate

By the way, Nintendo (confirmed) and Sony (havent seen confirmation yet) have refused to publish the game due to the AO rating in America, so even without the banning, no-one will be able to play it

[CrimsonGhost]

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

Another nail in the coffin.

And Sony
http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/adults-only-manhunt-2-homeless-270768.php

Zeouterlimits

Guys, the Irish Film Censors office have banned Manhunt 2.
The game, scheduled for release on the 13th of July in the rest of Europe, was banned due to "the game's unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying" and seems unlikely to be coming to a store near you or me anytime soon.
Personally, I think the idea of completely banning any game from a country is an outrage, and a blatant infringement of civil liberty. I believe it is the first game to ever be banned in Ireland, and the first in the UK since 1997. I think it marks a sad day for social liberty in both countries, when the right to buy a video game is taken from a fully grown man or woman. I, along with friends (and hopefully many others), intend to take firm action against this unjust banning, and any opinions, ideas, or words of encouragement would be greatly appreciated.
I shall be e-mailing the IFCO immediately, and would ask anyone that is of the same mind as myself to do likewise. Hopefully, with enough people, this censorship can be stopped.

If you agree, please help by signing this petition http://www.gopetition.com/online/12885.html

christophicus

This is really rather dissappointing . I really sont see why they wont allow the game. If it has a rating on it then that should be good enough to safeguard themselves from any lawsuits stc.