...Discuss.

Must we?

I wanna choke people with my Wiimote, dammit.

No, but I was interested in hearing people's opinion revolving around the controversy surrounding the game (regarding the rating, etc.) as opposed to the game itself.

I think its ironic that event adults don't have a choice as to what games they can play... makes one wonder why the AO rating even exist being the kiss of death that it is.

Well I find that weird myself, along with the whole NC-17 thing in the US. Over here, we have 18 rating. That covers both your R and your NC-17 effectively. You can't go see an 18 movie unless you're 18 and yet they do fine over here. So, as an outsider looking in, the lack of distribution for NC-17 movies in the US strikes me as utterly bizarre.

Manhunt 2 is a little different as it has been refused classification in the UK and also in Ireland, effectively meaning it's banned. That's different to the US situation where Nintendo and Sony are just refusing to release it.

This is only the second game ever banned in the UK to my knowledge and the first (Carmageddon) had the ruling overturned, so it's not like the BBFC just have twitchy banning-fingers. They're pretty serious about it.

In general, I'm against censorship for adults. Having said that, I think sometimes lines have to be drawn and it seems clear that Rockstar fully intended to take it too far to get the contraversy they were looking for. They've got that now but can't get the game released. Whether that decision is right or not, I can't say. I haven't played it. I'm guessing it may well be an over-reaction but it's one Rockstar went in looking for.

I agree. I'm not against violent/adult-themed games, but I am against using them as a sales-weapon and I feel Rockstar has gotten away with murder (literally) over the years, since people discovered you can kill hookers and the like in GTA3. So yeah...I'm glad when stuff like this game and the Hot Coffee blow up in their faces. I can't think of a company that deserves it more than they do.

I read the premise for the original Manhunt when it was reviewed and I just thought these people were at it again with their adult-themed tricks and turned the page. Frankly, it's a good decision...Keep another game off the shelves that's more about making people feel "grown up" than actual gameplay.

The sandbox genre exists because of GTA3.  I know some people don't go for those games, but there are nothing inherently wrong with them.  Bully wasn't a bad game, and the only controversy it has was same-sex kissing, which isn't inherently wrong either.  As for the original Manhunt, basically it was a more gruesome stealth game (I guess, I rented it but didn't really care for it), but it isn't as if it was as bad as, say, Saw franchise or Hostel.  Even the main character had a motivation (survival while being armed with whatever he can find) as opposed to just the utter cruelty of those films.

I disagree; Rockstar may have done some shoddy things in the past (Hot Coffee comes to mind), and it definitely focuses on gaming experiences limited to the M-rating, but the censorship here is wrong.  I also disagree with the double-standard when dealing with the ESRB, because video games are far from realism as Hollywood can mimick.  Worse, if the ESRB did this as an over-reaction as opposed to rating the game on its actual merits, then the ESRB truly needs to be fixed.

I find this interesting:  "ADULTS ONLY Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."  How long is "prolonged"?

Well, I don't think banning the game was appropriate. Giving it an AO rating is fine. I think Nintendo and Sony are perfectly in their rights not to publish any games that have an AO rating. So, if it only comes out on the Xbox, well I guess Microsoft will have another hit on their hands mainly because of all this controversy (people are naturally intrigued). So I think in the long run this will only be benficial to Rockstar Games.  Did anyone play the original Manhunt, and if so, how was that? I also wonder if these games are really that much more violent than what people see on television and movies? Honestly, I looked at the trailers for the game and it certainly looked very violent, but from what I could tell it's not at all realistic in the same way movies and television can be.

cheers,

-avatar!

Microsoft share the same policy on AO games.

Don't get me wrong, Ryu. I love the GTA games and I think they have far more than some people give them credit for. I actually rate Rockstar pretty highly. But they went looking for this with Manhunt 2.

There is a crucial difference between the examples you give and this game - the films take you on their journey through the eyes of the victim, not the perpetrator. That is a very different scenario. Like I said in my earlier post, without having played Manhunt 2 I really can't speak for the game at all but the BBFC release is interesting in its comparison with the original - http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/press/20070619.html

"Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game’s unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game. That work was classified ‘18’ in 2003, before the BBFC’s recent games research had been undertaken, but was already at the very top end of what the Board judged to be acceptable at that category.”

It very much says that this wasn't down to individual acts of violence. It was as much about tone so it's not something Rockstar can just cut and send back for a new rating.

I don't see this as banning or cencorship as the AO rating itself doesn't have the effect of a ban like similar systems in many European countries would, and the policy by Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft to refuse to license AO rated games for their systems should be known to developers to whom it's a concern (Take 2 definitely included due to their track record). So Take 2 took a known risk and failed in this particular case. The only odd thing is that they didn't even plan a PC release which wouldn't have been affected, only this business mistake makes it look like a "total ban" even in the US.

I've never seen or played Manhunt but I personally think these kinds of games try to be memorable for all the wrong reasons

I think the British and Irish bans are idiotic since I'm pretty firmly against government censorship.  I have mixed feelings about Nintendo and Sony's policies against allowing "AO" rated games to be released for their systems.  I mean, on the one hand, these are closed systems and abiding by the manufacturer's rules is what you have to do to be a licensee, but just because I can understand it doesn't mean I agree with it.  I do, however, completely agree with whoever brought up the point about Rockstar not having a PC version ready.  They had to know this was coming, especially after Hot Coffee.

It made the front page of the Associated Press site (AP Top Stories), which is the most mainstream press coverage a game could ever dream or hope for...  I didn't even bother reading the details though, who cares about making a game controversial...

So this is really about idiotic parents not being careful about what they buy their children?  I would think the 'Adults Only' rating would logically denote that this is a game is aimed squarely for adults - NIMF seems to believe all games should be geared toward families it seems.

If I remember correctly, Manhunt had a similar story as that recent movie where a bunch of convicts were on an island and only one can survive to get off of it or something.  I assumed Manhunt 2 followed a similar narrative.  But, honestly, Nintendo and Sony are ridiculous (and the government censorship) because M is 17+ and AO is 18+; what's really the big difference a year makes?

And the sad thing is I didn't care for Manhunt when I tried it last year and had no interest in this game.

Oh, and so far this game wasn't destined for the 360 either; anyone know if MS has a similar policy like Nintendo and Sony?  It may be getting ported as we speak if they don't (but I bet they do).

The first line of Jay's post you quoted has the answer.

Really, I don't know how I'm such an idiot.  Thanks.

My bro played it through...twice, in fact, with me watching for about 25% of the time. I agree with Ryu's description in that it's a gruesome stealth game. It's basically like almost any other stealth game -- move slowly so as to make as little noise as possible, hide in the shadows, drag bodies out of the way so the others don't see them and get alerted. The only real difference is that when you kill someone, it goes to a grainy filmlike cutscene where it plays out the exact manner of gruesome death you have planned out -- slitting the guy's throat, bashing in his head, whatever. It's an okay game, has the same hardships that any other stealth game has.

I'm interested in Manhunt 2 for the storyline; it's just not the kind of game I'd play myself. Of course, do you realize that if this were a movie, it would have gotten the mere rating of R and could very well have been praised as a horror movie? Heaven knows there are some horror movies out there with as much or more gore than Manhunt 2 is said to have. Why is it that movies that follow the steps of the killer aren't subjected to the same kind of outcry as when a game does the same thing? Are censors afraid that playing the game will teach people how to butcher others? Oh yes, I'm sure that flicking the Wiimote will educate me on that matter.

What horror movies have the killer as the protagonist?

The Nightmare on Elm Street movies seemed to shift the focus to Freddy as the series progressed... Freddy v Jason, especially.  Considering that you can't beat 'Death', I suppose it correcting flukes of destiny in Final Destination puts that force of nature as a protagonist.  I was sorta rooting for Michael Myers in the last Halloween movie because those people were so annoying... but I'm not quite sure that was intentional.  The latter Chucky movies put the killers seem to put a lot of focus on the killers, especially the one with his child.  Of course, some of those movies when the killer gains the focus tend to shift from horror to comedy, so it makes it kinda difficult to draw a parallel.

The better question, IMO, is why is it so bad for Rockstar to take a serious stab at a horror game with the main character being the killer?  I'm just not seeing it as any problem that should prevent the title from reaching the shelves for it to be bought or rented by those that are of legal age and allow the market to determine the game's fate.

In all those movies you mention, save the last two Chucky films (only because I haven't seen them so you could well be right), have the victims as the protagonist.

The difference is quite important, which is why I asked the question. The horror genre is designed to scare. By switching the protagonist to the perpetrator, it becomes only about the thrill of the kill. The Nightmare on Elm Streets did effectively become that but in a complete fantasy way and still, each and every single one of them, with the victims as the protagonists. There are more relevant examples that some may refer to as 'horror' (such as the Guinea Pig films), usually they're just faux snuff movies. That's not the genre.

As for why the market shouldn't just sort it out? I don't know. I haven't played it.

Exactly, this is what allows ppl and parents who don't want to be parents to call games like Manhunt and GTA "murder simulators" and junk... and from the description of the Wiimote controls this just adds another element to such a label. I'm not an activist in anyway but rapidly pressing a button to stab someone is a little different than thrusting the mote through the air like a knife to achieve the same effect. I can't remember who said this (*probably some snot eating politician like Liberman) "people who watch movies are observers, people playing games are participants." Supposedly, being a participant is more influential than just seeing something. I don't know how true that really is as seeing or experencing something horrific in reallife can scar a person for years and beyond - much more than a game.

Still, the ESRB has really seems to been on steroids since I was a teenager. I can name several PS2 games that were handed a T rating when an E-10+ was the highest (and would have been an E or K-A in the PS1 years) I thought was appropriate. Of course, then you have anomalies... I'll never understand the ESRB.

What about Silence of the Lambs?  Honestly, it didn't particularly scare me or leave an impression on me (but apparently many others loved it). However, even if it didn't have the killer as the protagonist, there was a huge emphasis on him, and I believe the sequals did have him as a protagonist (I didn't see the sequals, but from what I gather they're all about him).

cheers,

-avatar!

You may be right about Hannibal actually. I can't remember. Or didn't it follow someone trying to catch him? Don't know. My memory isn't all that reliable.

Jodie Foster's character was the protagonist of Silence of the Lambs though. But, yep, Lecter was the secondary character and definitely got a lot of emphasis.

Heh, in my original post, I had been about to type this whole story summary but then deleted it, but now it seems that a story summary was indeed needed...

Actually, in Manhunt, Cash (the main guy) isn't out for the thrill of the kill. He's basically shanghaied by the director (Starkweather) into the kills using various threats. I suppose the fact that you get a Style rating depending on how you killed people is something...

As for Manhunt 2, it seems that the killer must kill only in order to find out who he was and exactly what experiments went on in the facility. Again, it's a matter of being forced to kill, rather than being a homicidal maniac who lives for the thirll of the kill.

I believe Anthony Hopkins won his Oscar award for Silence of the Lambs - with a record least minutes on screen. I think he was onscreen in the movie for all of 16 minutes.

All rather flimsy plot devices - it's debatable whether these are there just as foil to serve the greater themes of violence underlying the attraction of Manhunt.