ManHunt 2 banned in the UK.

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

This means that people in the UK can not legally obtain this game.

This is the begining of what I think will be major censorship.

A game with an 18-certificate, played by a 17-year old who went on to kill somebody. Anybody spot the deliberate mistake?

Anybody who plays a game like this, then goes out and actually murders somebody has serious issues with their mental health anyway.

People are always too keen to blame somebody/something else for their actions.

I hope Rockstar appeal against this, and I hope they win.

Madness...

Nanny state strikes again! The way its going, the UK will end up with more censorship and less freedoms than the bloody Chinese... Democracy... MY ARSE!!!

Dabz

*As you can tell, stuff like this makes my ears bleed with rage*

While I'm against the principle of censorship, and would defend videogames against the claims of "perverting young minds" (or whatever term we use today), I've always felt a little uncomfortable with the Manhunt game, and now it's sequel.

I've never played either, and have no real desire to, but my understanding is that it is essentially glorifying killing for the sake of killing in a realistic environment. At least GTA poses some kind of story to many of it's missions - you're not simply a mass murderer. War games and most FPS's depict the role of a soldier - there is a reason to the killing (whether you want to call it justified killing is of course a whole other debate). I'm probably over-simplifying, but hopefully the point makes some sense.

I think my opinion is that if there is a line to be drawn somewhere, Manhunt 2 probably defines it.

If they banned games based on poor quality, I'm sure everybody would be a lot happier.

(also I agree with Gfk)

Your perception of it is therefore based on what the media says about it, right?

Personally I don't see the problem. The only problem I have with it, is that parents buy these games for their kids who are not old enough to buy it themselves, then have the audacity to complain about the content.

Its time people started to take responsibility for what their kids see and do.

The game isn't very good anyway - I've played it Fangoria Convention in California... The WII version seems to be more fun, but believe me it's not worth the money...

I agree with Gfk. The games have got 18 certificates for a reason. The parents should be the ones taking responsibility for their kids actions, not the games company.

Oh, dear! I was playing Zuma for half hour and now I have an irresistible urge to dress as a frog and throw coloured balls at people in the street in order to make them disappear. Zuma ought to be banned!!!!

Barney

too funny! :)

Dabz

I don't agree with censorship either, Personaly I found the whole idea behind manhunt in poor taste, and the thought of playing it made me feel a but queasy, so I never have.

But there are far worse things out there to subvert kids, like those stupid Korean Vengance films that the VA shooter got all excited about.

I really enjoyed the original Manhunter. I liked the storyline, loved the atmosphere, and the game had a fantastic gritty 1970s John Carpenter movie feel to it.

It's ridiculous to slap an outright ban on Manhunter 2, or any other game for that matter. This reminds me of the equally ridiculous UK ban on video nasties in the 1980s.

If the government is so concerned with preventing the corruption of the British youth then they should spend more money on education, policing, and medical treatment for people with mental problems and learning difficulties. Of course it's easier to capitalise on the fears of the ignorant and ban a video game. Well, that's democracy for you - a bunch of seedy politicians who have to pander to the ignorant majority in order to court popularity and win votes to stay in power.

Hah, I like that. I'm gonna have that on a tattoo or something.

Do you have a limb thats long enough?!

Actually, don't answer that.

Wont they just make all the People into "Zombies", then leak a "patch" onto the net

Not all is well in North America regarding Manhunt2 either, apparently they want the Wii version to be rated AO.
(Adult Only, which basically means you won't see it in retail ever)

Anyhow, my only experience with the original was on the PS2 via a rental, and I had to say I quite enjoyed the title, stealth elements with a dark story, and gruesome deaths for shock value, which enhanced the title for me actually, since no other company has ever went that far.
(well, aside from getting your head chainsawed off in Capcom's Resident Evil4)

> Its time people started to take responsibility for what their kids see and do.

It's really hard to do that when society is flooded with inappropriate material.

Oh well that's OK then. Its all society's fault! Why didn't anybody mention this before? </sarcasm>

I rest my case.

I couldn't care less if it's banned, its a lazy pile of crap anyway. Rockstar really need to come up with something different other than running about attacking people.

> Oh well that's OK then. Its all society's fault! Why didn't anybody mention this before? </sarcasm>

to paraphrase "oh well that's ok then. Its all the parent's fault!"

I'm glad I'm ignorant if it means I detest sleazy, lowest-common-denominator pap. Hope the ban works and sends Rockstar into a more imaginative direction.

Crap game or not, I want the right to decide whether I play it. How can it be worse than films like 8mm (which I actually thought was fairly decent) or Hostel (which I'm not bothering to see)?

Presumably HitMan is OK because you're doing it to make a living? : )

Yes: the victim owned Manhunt and not, in fact, the murderer, as pointed out by the police investigating the case at the time!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3538066.stm

No one is ignorant for detesting it. They're only ignorant if they think that other people should be prevented from watching/reading/playing/etc "it" because they don't like it.

What??!

Hum.... well if people will play these games, there's no point acting all surprised when someone knifes you.

(this is nonsense, of course. but so is the original story).

Well, if its that bad that it has to be banned in a whole country for its violent content, i'm definately getting this game.

And thats the definitive post quote!

Dabz

I wish murderers did use Manhunt as a blueprint to their crimes. That way they'd believe they were invisible when standing in the merest of shadows at the scene of the crime and would be easy to catch.

Plenty available on Ebay UK. A ban is pointless.

Kind of - it's based on reviews of the game in game editorial, not the Daily Mail, or any other rag that is desperate for a headline. So I hope my perspective is as objective as it can be, without actually going and playing the thing. Which I won't do, as I have no wish to play such a game, and it endorses the production of similar games.

My perspective is that the problem is lax parents that don't censor what their kids play, and the total disregard for ratings at retail. Those are the problems that need addressing, not resorting to banning material. However, some people would still call addressing those problems as being a "nanny state".


That's exactly how I feel. I think Manhunt probably goes in the same box as Clockwork Orange for me: a box that I really have no desire go anywhere near, and that kids should not be allowed near, but I am not convinced should be a locked box (i.e. should not be banned). It is only the lack of other controls to prevent access to this material that push me anywhere near thinking that a ban would be appropriate.


Why is it that Rockstar have decided to go for this "we're the bad-boys" image? (apart from table tennis I guess!) They're clearly capable of producing excellent material, why does it have to be so violent and excessive? Is that really all the market wants? I don't think so. (Separate question, how desparate are Nintendo for adult content, that they'd let Manhunt2 onto Wii? What are the odds on them dropping it like a stone in all territories after this? Hard to tell...)

To be honest though, I think it does raise some interesting questions in my eyes: why are all FPS games okay, but Manhunt not? Is it simply because Manhunt is so graphic? Is the logical conclusion then that games that "de-sensitise" you to killing, those that make death a trivial matter that doesn't affect you, are "better" than those that make you stop, and realise what you are doing? Or is it the other way round...


I played the demo of the most recent Hitman. I thought it was quite interesting. I enjoyed the gameplay right up to the end where I had to kill someone in cold blood. There was some exposition of the situation, and I didn't want to kill the guy. But there was no choice: it's either play the game as that character and do what it tells you and accept the consequences, or not. I just turned it off. But it made me think, and in many ways, I wonder if that isn't better than just playing half-life 2...

Anyone read Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card? Quite relevant here I think....

Yes, that was a particularly brilliant time for journalism, and not just the tabloids. The thing is, even after it became clear that it was the victim that owned the game, there was still loads of press coverage citing the as the cause. *sigh*

Another one bites the dust:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6768695.stm

hmm, that one was a bit below the belt to be honest. If I recall, the film "Child's Play" was blamed for that murder, and not the fact that the boys probably had some serious mental and emotional problems.

People need to stop looking for scapegoats for everything and take a look at the justice system in the UK. I don't want to go off on a soap box rant but there's just no deterrent for criminals nowadays, especially for youths. They know they can't be touched for crimes and abuse that.

Yea, when they were in 'juvenile detention' they were given a Playstation and a copy of Silent Hill to play on it.

I agree with the ban on that last one, assuming it does contain images of James Bulger.

The beginning? The UK is a full-blown police state.

You know, the story of Manhunt, basic as it is, basically has you as the good guy placed in a very bad position. You save your family, you save a few other people, etc. The goal is to survive loads of essentially insane killers trying to off you. Of course, I'm sure the idea of playing a hardened criminal in the game had a lot of people figuring you're going out to murder civilians for the hell of it. Killing people in brutal ways is just a feature of the game (and it gets very repetitive) and generally makes it more fun, as it's a challenge to get a high score and pull off the executions.

Manhunt 2, from what I've seen, has the protagonist being a fairly normal person being placed in the same role. I'm not surprised that people have jumped the gun on it, given Rockstar's history and the original Manhunt having allowed idiots to speak out about how horrible it is, despite having likely never even played it.

And another topic regarding the current [a http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172743.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0]AO[/a] rating...

Now here's one thing I want to know, have any of these people that want it to be rated this even played it for themselves? They all make it sound like you fully perform the maneuvers yourself against opponents, where-as it's all really just gesture based.
(I know the guys at ERSP had too for rating purposes, but then again, hotcoffee slipped through the last time in San Andreas)

I'm pleased someone else can see it... I've been on about this for the last couple of years, and it IS getting worse!

Just look at the pointless 'petition' website the goverment set up. They end up having one major petition and what did it do... wafted it aside! Typical

Dabz

Agreed.

Banning it and making a big 'washington wives' fuss is just gonna make the kids want to play it all the more.

I am against censorship, but sometimes I think computer games and movies push the sick and twisted element to unnessacary proportions.

Ill explain:
The problem is, if you push the stone of freedom too hard, it falls over (and ruins it for everyone) no matter how liberal a society, they all have limits which have to be pushed back slowly and at the right time.
The problem with games like this is they just give fuel to the argument of those do-gooders that want all games banned unless they have cute bunnies teaching something.


:-"Theres no such thing as true freedom, a sense of freedom is a mirage created by those who control it!"

Thats my 2 cents worth anyway.

I can remember reading an article from the Internet about how violent comic books with explicit language were being blamed for corruption in today's youth culture by an irate tabloid reporter, if I recall it was dated something like August 1971.

That was before even Dungeons and Dragons was invented, a game known clearly for its corruption in children and satanic practices as if it were a cult.

I wish I could find the article. Anyway, just goes to show that the media has been stupid for nearly 4 decades. It's rumoured 5 to 10 million people have been enjoying Grand Theft Auto on PS2 and yet not one direct link to any actual violence inspired from the game has been reported. And over a decade old Carmageddon hasn't spawned one madman running over a street full of people in a car. Funny that, I mean it's almost as if violent games DON'T make you more violent.

By the way:-

BANNED = World's best publicity = More people will play/buy it

You'd think by now they'd learn wouldn't you?

Personally I think age ratings are a good idea. Nothing should be outright banned though. What I find strange is why, if these things corrupt minds, the reviewers at the BBFC don't go around commiting mass murders. After all they watch/play this stuff all day long.

I jump on turtles every day.

To make matters worse, here in the US of A, it seems like the ESRB made Manhunt 2 an Adults Only (AO) rated game. According to Nintendo's policies, it's against their licensing or selling agreement to have AO games in their lineup, so Rockstar may be out of a Wii title:

If I had a Wii I'd get it just because so I have it :) I'd not even unpack it, just keep it behind glas. I think that's the first console title ever to get a "A" rating in the US *lol*

- Wont they just make all the People into "Zombies", then leak a "patch" onto the net

Hey, why bother. At present the UK spends 1 million a month on Ritalin medication for hyperactive kids. Turning kids into zombies with mind altering drugs is apparently the norm already.

Then the same medical/psychiatric "experts" wonder why some of these kids end up losing the plot a few years later.

And don't even get me started on "police state UK". With CCTV already being equiped with microphones so that a controller can issue commands to law breaking street pedestrians using pre-recorded childrens voices, even Orwell would have struggled to make this stuff up.

Just a bit of luck all these laws (28,000 of them in Blairs term as PM) came AFTER guns were banned in the UK....or do you think that was just a coincidence?

The council has the right to overturn decisions made by the BBFC. Just lobby your local council if this issue really bothers you. If you're in the majority then the ban will be overturned in your area. It's been done with films in the past so it is possible.

Interesting that the reporter missed that it was the kid who got murdered who owned Manhunt, and not the murderer. Heck, even I remembered that. :P

Blaming media for bad stuff has been going on for ages. It did a very good job of ruining the comics industry in the US. Seduction of the Innocent, a book published in 1954 blamed comics for juvenile delinquency. It resultied in rigid self censorship, which in turn killed of genre variety in US comics. It all became superhero stuff and subsequently died a slow death, as only a small portion of the population likes superhero stories. Though, it's getting better, partially thanks to Japanese influence. :)

So it's no surprice that the newest media on the block get's all the blame. I just hope this time around people will see it more clearly, so we don't all wind up playing games for kids for the next 50 years.

Ragnar

Although the fact that there is a market for such games shows clearly how bloodthirsty this society is, it's also important evidence about our culture for future history writers.

Children must be protected from a lot of sick stuff these days, that's for sure. But there's one thing that's even more repelling: politicans who are jumping on the "Killer games" wagon. This whole thing is used to divert from real political Problems. In germany some ministers (eg. the hate preacher/ firestarter "beckstein") want to punish the creators of "killer games" the same way as producers of child porn media - I wonder what planet beckstein came from.

Additionally, you can't persecute somebody for deeds that were legal at the time they were permitted. At least this isn't practice of moderate justice. Even the nazis refused to do so. But today a lot of those things get normal, get legal.

> Even the nazis refused to do so.

As far as I can remember it was not illegal to be Jewish before they came to power. (sorry, just felt a need to point that out for some reason)

If the person playing the game has issues of interpreting the game as real and to apply it to the rest of their life, then it is irresponsible on the part of whoever supplies them the game, and in turn those who designed the game if they specifically designed it for such a person to play. Because then that person is going to take that game, distort their perception of it and use it as justification and ideas for what to do in the rest of their life. But clearly if the person playing the game knows it is not real and does not attribute reality to it and does not think it is really happening etc then they aren't going to be inclined to allowing it to `influence them`. It's the people who are susceptible and not of sound mind that we need to be careful about influencing, and since there is little to no screening of individuals based on their mental makeup when they go into a store and buy the game, this isn't going to happen any time soon. So then the burden lays on the shoulders of those who create these games, knowing that people of all mental capacities are going to pick it up, and knowing that it is going to mislead some individauls. But ultimately, even then, it is really down to the individual and their irresponsibility in using the game for their egocentric purposes. Nobody is really to blame, at the end of the day, and ultimately even that person who goes out and uses the game to inspire some form of murder or whatever is still wholly innocent in the eyes of their creator.

The main lesson here is simply that if responsibility rests on your shoulders it would be inconsiderate to expose delicate individuals to virtual realities that they cannot distinguish from real reality.

dynaman - I was referring to the french occupation. Some resistance men were arrested for doing anti-german propagnada before occupation laws were applied. The germans refused to kill them for the mentioned reason, but vichy french nazi-collaborators then killed them.

The nazis legalized the killing of jewish, commies, homos gypsies, masons etc. More than 50 millions people died during this war, including 5 million germans, but that's an other topic, so let's get back on topic: criminalisation of computer games.

I'm sorry but I've to say that such a step has been needed. The brutality of ManHunt just shows that the creators have some mental health issues, not the ones actually buying and by this step, it will actually send a signal out to such brainburnt idiots of creators that this kind of "blood festivals" are not accepted any further, that they just were tolerated for too long!

Games are not here to train people in something or to show stuff that real.
Millions of $, EUR and £ have been spent on campaigns to get criminality and other issues at teenie age under control, such shit games just make those spent money a bad joke ...
!!

Perhaps you need to learn to seperate art from the artist.


Would you apply this to other forms of art and entertainment too? I would argue that the best art and entertainment is profound - it has an emotional power that comes from touching on the human condition; in other words, on some level it is very real and this is its strength. If you strip art of its power to inform (train) or affect (by touching on the real) then you are stripping away its worth.


I think that this and the recent Manchester Cathedral issue show that people are much more interested in campaigning to restrict legal activities rather than illegal ones. Perhaps they should spend less time on trying to reduce harmless personal freedoms and more time on reducing crime through improved methods of prevention and punishment. Besides, surely parents should be responsible for controlling a childs access to violent influences rather than authoritarian institutions.

Art is freedom to express something.
Not freedom to entertain with moraly inacceptable human behavior not tolerated by todays ethics!

Show me art that trains you something.
PS: Hollywood trash is NOT art in 99.9% just to make sure. TV as well in most cases is NOT art
Just because the freedom was never restricted and people were allowed to do what they want, this does not mean that it is art.
I think people would need to be tought again what art is and what bestiality is ... there is a major difference, because cruality and bestiality is and will never be art!


the manchester cathedral issue is just a propaganda crap thing, I'm not interested in such "on the surface talk" that has nothing to do with the actual problem.
Thats just cheap propaganda stuff missused for their own thing as some parties missused DJ Bobos contest song this year for their own stuff here at switzerland (christian parties)
you can't solve the problem by reducing the allowed stuff on top. (thats if you would fix bugs by introducing IFs that check for each bug condition to prevent it from happening instead of just removing the calculation error etc)

And I should say I think this way although Switzerland does not have USK or any other rating system that prevents kids from getting manhunt and the like!

This is all a load of crap.

Anybody remember a game called Splatterhouse on the PC Engine years ago? You had to baseball bat people to a pulp in it - that was all you did. It was perfectly legal to sell it to kids, and kids played it and loved. Nobody was bothered, because everybody knew it was just a game.

Or what about Techno Cop? Where people explode in a mass of goo and blood when you shoot them. Who cares?

Maybe Moonstone rings a bell - the goriest sword fighting game of its time. So what?

A bit more recent - what about GTA which has a story completely driven by crime?

It seems to me that the more realistic a game looks, the easier it is to blame it for all the murdering lunatics in the world. They've only banned Manhunt 2 to make a point.

If you want to make a point that murdering people is wrong, then lock all the murderers up and stop letting them out early because all the prisons are too damn full! Build more prisons, or hang a few lifers.

Well to be fair Moonstone couldn't get distribution in America as it was too gorey, so in that respect America is being consistant.I don't think the BBFC banned it because they want to make statement about how terrible murder is. It's more likely they wish to send a signal to the games industry that using depravity just for they sake of entertainment is wrong. If Manhunt II had a strong social and moral message then I'm sure it would have got a certificate. The BBFC actually allow you to get away with a lot as long as it is not there simple to glorify violance.

On another note the BBFC actually has another certificate that they could have used instead of a complete ban called Restricted 18. As you need a special license to distribute R18 this would have had a similar effect as Americas AO rating in that it wouldn't be banned but no one would sell it.

Great. That will probably mean if I get caught downloading it in Aus I will get 3 terms for life imprisonment (1 for pirating, 1 for importing banned goods and another for a kick in the pants) - because you just knwow if the UK has a problem with something, Aus will have to find a way to top it.


Me. I liked that game. =]


Same. Never played Manhunt 1 either but maybe it's time.


hotcoffee slipped through because it was a completely innaccessible (ie removed) portion of the game. Apparently it's somehow Rockstars fault that people figured out a way to reactivate it, by producing a hack (it wasn't even a mod). Apparently if someone were to hack new images into Super Mario that depicted the Princess as a naked 6 yr old, it would be Nintendo's fault.


Somebody wondered why Rockstar wants a reputation for churning out these sorts of games - I think it's simply a smart financial move. I mean you can't beat free front page advertisements.


The Nazis only had a problem with those who -remained- Jewish, hence helping to prove his point.


Who made you God? Who are you to judge the sanity of one versus another? On the contrary, the ability to provide content towards amusement of such a graphic nature and to remain normal, functioning members of society proves that their mental health is perhaps higher than yours. You, being objectionable about something you havn't even played or witnessed, either pits you in the 'raving ignoramus' or 'deprived' categories.


You defined the term 'game' did you? In reality, games (or really any form of interactive entertainment) have graphic content that should not be discerned from that depicted by art, music, books, movies or any other form of entertainment.


Thus ManHunt2 is free to express the horrificness of murder.


Actually some games are obliged to offer a unique world in which to explore said horrificness and thus educate the player, helping to eliminate a curiosity that could have evolved into a tragic real life fantasy.


Show me a game that trains you how to kill. I already knew that pointing a gun at someone, or slitting ones throat with a knife is a pretty good way to harm a chap, from what I've seen on TV's News.


Of course, that's your opinion and has little relevance to the conversation, because as you surely realise someone elses opinion may vary and thus negate your entire argument.

Well the offending material was physically distribute by them on the game disc, so yes it was their fault. If someone else had made it then it wouldn't have been rockstars fault that's kind of how the law works. The people who break the law are in the wrong not those who discover it.Manhunt II is not art, it's entertainment. There is a difference.

So what's with Hollywood still functioning?


The offending material was not accessible by playing the game. It's exactly the same as patches to turn off the censoring of naked Sims not being the fault of EA, except for some reason that one blew over pretty quickly.

Probably due to the combination of games being targetted at different audiences (one being solely for mature minds) and the fact that EA have a much larger wallet to argue with.


Well, in that case, I should have the right to decide for myself which forms of entertainment is suitable for myself. I don't care what words you use, the argument is the same.

What Video Game Did Hitler Play?

Barney the Dinsaours Special Day out?

We should be thankful for what we've got. People in China can't play any game that features player vs player combat. So no UT, CS, Battlefield, hell not even some MMO's. And most MMO's they can play have built in security that forces them to take a break every so often or their character becomes increasingly weaker.

Officially. And yet counterstrike remains one of the most popular online games amongst Chinese gamers. In reality, you can play anything you want in China; bans prevent the sale of legitimate, legal versions of prohibited software, but shops only stock unregulated pirated copies. China is a PC gamer's (and DVD enthusiast's) heaven. It's great.

Yeah, being thankful is one thing, but while everyone sits around being thankful a bunch of new laws get passed which incrementally move us closer to the Chinese model of censorship. Internet 2 anyone?

These things are always done in little steps so as to cause the minimum of fuss.

I remember reading about a serial killer in Africa - he had no TV, PC or console and went on a killing rampage after reading Jeckyll and Hyde!

So why aren't films given the same treatment, or books, or theatre?

They all have in the passed. It's always the new media that takes it in the neck.

But didn't they have to change the models in CS so the characters weren't terrorists and counter terrorists but cyborg/alien/human hyrbid things?

You might be on to something there. If I had to play a Barney game for any length of time, I might well get the urge to kill someone too.

Muzzer,

No, not on any version that I ever saw people playing. You've got to remember that censorship laws only apply to legal software in China, but I never saw anyone play or even own any non-pirated games during the two years I lived there. Technically China has lots of rules, laws, and regulations on paper, but very few of them are enforced. For example: there are lots of games and movies that are banned or censored in China, but it's still pretty easy to get hold of them.

"Manhunt's maker Rockstar North has always insisted its games are geared towards mature audiences and are marketed responsibly."

Let's ask ourselves if killing and slaying and murder and stalkign and darkness and unconsciousness and attack is "mature"? The players of these games have to be mature in order not to suck into their dark realities, which has nothing to do with whether the game itself is mature, and clearly it is terribly backwards and deathly.

The suggestion that game players can know `it is just a game` is rather far-fetched. Are we saying they can remain so completely detached from it that they don't for a moment give it any reality or relate to it as being involved with it in any way? No. For it to be a game and for anyone to play it and to `enjoy` it you have to get `into` it and become it, to at least some degree.

The main difference with people who go out and act out the violence and those who do not, is in the degree of mental involvement in the game and the interpretation of it as real and fact. Obviously that error is in the mind of the game player and is not really anything to do with the game itself, although the more viscious and violent games are much more of a `temptation` and much harder to overlook as unreal and not disturbing. These types of brutal games are a direct attempt to tempt the ego of the player into going along with its insanity. Whether or not the player complies depends on their mental state, detatchment and awareness of what is real. For many people they do not have a clear mental state (even if they think they do) and easily allow themselves to become involved in the game and to mistake its fantasy for reality. It's those people that then cannot keep a healthy separation between what is make-believe game reality and what is real reality.

So you can't really blame the game makers because ultimately it's down to the mind of the individual. But on another level, if the individual does not have a sound mind then it starts to become the responsibility of the game's creators and those who market and sell it to make sure it doesn't end up in the hands of people with weakened minds. If someone is very susceptible to believing that a game is real and they cannot as easily keep things in perspective, it would be irresponsible to place a violent tempting game in their lap which pushes all their buttons and further weakens their mind. The violence in these games is hard to look at with no reaction even for people who don't play the game.

I am not sure where I stand on the idea that the game is art and its potency is some kind of wonderful thing. To me art opens the mind to mystical truth, which has absolutely nothing to do with closing the mind to some kind of sadistic statement of death or some meagre commentary on human life. What kind of commentary can that really be but a diatribe of lies and hatred for people.

These types of games are more of a `challenge` to the integrity of the mind and to its sanity, and you wouldn't want it in the hands of someone who does not understand its unreality, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the game player to manage their mental health through correct perception of what is true and important.

Personally I don't play these games that are so focussed on death, killing, murder, guns and explosions, because those are all temptations to the ego and I currently don't have the strength or discipline mentally to stay completely detached and unaffected by the things that these games suggest is real. There is already enough unreality that my ego believs in yet alone adding more. For the sake of the generalized sanity of a majority of people and for the wellbeing of those who would be adversely affected by such things in the wrong hands (and in the wrong mind), I'm glad this game is banned. I also don't think I would ever say it is an adult game. Adult generally means you have to have a strongly developed mind in order not to get totally lost in the game's nightmare, because the game is so immature.

There are many many things that are considered `adult` which merely means that we stop caring about innocence or truth and allow ourselves to dip into whatever temptation and deprivation we please. That's your choice but it is not mature or `adult`. Age has nothing to do with maturity. Maturity is spiritual and is reflected in clarity and sanity of mind.

I think this game and its creators are irresponsible only in the sense that they are directly attempting to tempt people into its world and to sadistically gain from its twisted behaviors. They want you to be shocked and upset because that disturbs your peace of mind, and once your mind is disturbed so is your sanity. The game can only appeal so long as you think it real.

Perhaps a question we should ask ourselves, though, is not whether the game causes people to be violent, but whether the mind of the gamer and the game creator is in a state of violent thought. Clearly for some people it is, and for some it isn't.

Yikes!
Forget Manhunter, now that is Scary.

Have you played Manhunter?

Right, now I see that Nintendo and Sony probably won't even allow it on their consoles at all, read their stories and policies on it, I knew that this was bound to happen:



http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172830.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;1

That's because Chinese people are insane. Apparently they die from dehydration (if they stop drinking for their 72 hour game sessions) and/or ruptured bladders (when they stop peeing for their 72 hour game sessions).

Yeah! They should make Income Tax Registration Simulators and Stuck in Traffic or Can't Find A Bloody Parking Spot Simulators. Also you can never have enough Train Your Spam Filter Simulators or Help Desk Simulator.

At what point, sitting in front of your COMPUTER or CONSOLE, watching PIXELATED caricatures of people get cruelly and completely UNREALISTICALLY maimed and gored, on your PROJECTION SCREEN, holding a KEYBOARD and MOUSE or JOYPAD, are you even marginally in DOUBT whether you're actually committing a HOMICIDE? In real life, it is not as easy to jack a car, as walking up to the drivers seat and hitting the "X" button, nor is it as easy to kill someone as aiming at their head with the convenient on-screen reticule and clicking the mouse.

In real life, car doors can be locked or the car can speed away. In real life guns have a ballistic trajectory, and depending on the distance from you to the target, the type of weapon, your stance, the degree of familiarity of the weapon and whether or not it has been "zeroed" to you, chances are that if you aimed at someones head, and pulled the trigger you wouldn't hit a damned thing. Also in real life, people tend to fight back when threatened - and it's a lot harder kicking someones head in when they're gouging out your eyes.

Haha yes I remember Splatter House, great game, I used to play it in the arcades when I was about 8 years old, happy memories. That's what was good about the good old days, pretty much anything went and noone sued for stupid reasons, I mean especially since the game IS Jason Voorhies (or at least his twin brother) Even in 1992 when certificates were coming out on the Megadrive and SNES for games like Mortal Kombat, you could still tear someone's head and spinal column out with Sub Zero in the arcades at any age (providing you were tall enough to reach the joystick)

America may have banned Moonstone but so did Germany, those countries have always been stupid in their censorship decisions.

I mean, an arcade game in 1976 called Death Race was banned in America for being too violent, even though the people were already changed into zombies and the gfx are barely legible. And of course in Monochrome where's the realistic red squared blood?

http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=&game_id=7541

God bless America - where you children can't have video games, but they can have as many guns as they like.

> where you children can't have video games,
> but they can have as many guns as they like.

Yes but you're forgetting the real issue here, if they don't ban the video games first. THE CHILDREN WON'T BE ABLE TO KNOW HOW TO KILL PEOPLE USING GUNS LIKE IN THE *GAME!

* Aka Real life

Yes. I've stolen an inconceivable number of cars in GTA (particularly in San Andreas) by dragging the poor unwitting victims from their vehicles -- and I've sometimes run them over lest they shoot me for my impertinence.

Not once in real life have I even considered dragging a driver from his or her car, even when they pull out from side roads in front of me in a real hurry and then proceed to drive slower than I ever thought imaginable, or when they turn without indicating... and they don't even have guns around here.

Its a good point. I had a nasty habit of climbing up to the top of stupidly high mountains in GTA San Andreas and driving off the top in a stolen hotdog van to see if I'd survive the fall. The hell would I do that in real life, though.

See, most people can tell the difference between games and reality. If you can't, then you shouldn't be allowed anything sharper than a crayon, let alone knives and guns.

> where you children can't have video games, but they can have as many guns as they like.

Only if their parent's buy them, which is all that is really required for certain "games" as well.

Yeah, because most of the Gang Bangers go ask their parents to buy them an uzi before they go shooting the sh** out of poeple.

> Yeah, because most of the Gang Bangers go ask their parents to buy them an uzi before they go shooting the sh** out of poeple.

OK, so they can get them illegally, and I forgot all about Texas, but then I'm in New Jersey where even thinking of owning a gun requires getting a permit first.

Yes, that's the point, most people are okay to tell the difference, some people get confused and their confused perception translates into insane behavior.

You can't set rules based on the potential actions of the insane or the stupid. I shouldn't be prevented from watching Airplane because some idiot might think it's OK to punch a Hari Krishna in the face for being annoying in the airport lounge.

When you are remembering it.
It not a question of if you can tell the differance when you do/play it, it a question of is your recolection of it still so obviously not real,
In "Normal" people even if their memory of the event has antianalised the Pixels, and edited out the Screen, and the Keyboard, mouse joystick what ever, they still relise that the Memory is of a Game, because they dont feel the level of guilt that they know they would if the memory was real. Peolpe with lower natural Guilt levels however wont to the same level, but these are people who dont feel guily about things before they played the game.

However, I still think its wrong to let Kids, who are of an age to belive in Santa, play San Andreas, or the like.

Manhunt was not that memorable, and I doubt the second one is any different.

Yes. Unless you're on mind-altering drugs (like PCP and LSD) there is no way you're not aware that it isn't real, no matter how poor your memory is. Even if you where in a sensory deprivation tank having violent images feed directly into your cerebral cortex, you would still be perfectly aware that it was not real.

There are only three reasons people commit violent crimes:
* Impulse - Anger or passion, coming home to find your wife in bed with another man, that kind of thing.
* Personal gain - Mercenaries and gangsters, who calculate that the reward is worth the risk.
* Compulsion - The mentally ill, who kill because they have to.

The idea that video games (and rap music, dungeons & dragons, rock music, comic books and pornography) work as catalysts for violence or "murder simulators" is a myth, spread by the second group mentioned above (and the ambulance chasers who represent them), as a calculated legal tactic to get a reduced sentence. As proper scientists at MIT have confirmed, video games do not dictate behavior, although behavior may dictate the choice of video games (as people tend to play games, watch movies or read books with protagonists they identify with).

Well I think it's wrong for you to decide what videogames my (hypothetical) kids can and can't play. It's even more wrong for you to decide what videogames I can't play at all, because they are now illegal, and I can be charged as a terrorist and shipped off to Guantanamo Naval Base, to rot for all eternity.

Why bother? It's not in question. Take Two never said it was a mature game.


Implying that I can't tell the difference is far fetched.


I'll thank you not to go delving around in my subconcious - thankyouverymuch.


There's no lies in telling a story that revolves around mass murdering in graphic detail. Hatred by the boatload sure, but then who said art has to be uplifting?

I'll say I don't much care for the 'games is art too' argument. I couldn't give a crap what games is. Just don't tell me I can watch Hostel but not play a video game version of it.


I havn't played ManHunt, but I was under the impression it never portrayed itself as something based on a real story - just another fictional universe along the same lines as Half Life, Counterstrike, Doom or The Sims. It just has more red in the art.


That's the ESRB falling down again, then. 'Mature minds' covers it, but I agree with you; not all adults have mature minds.


Complete garbage. I don't see how it's any different from playing Doom 1 - and Doom was hardly ever real. How does anyone misinterpret hitting a key on the keyboard to mean 'I am slitting one's throat'?


That one could be a lot of fun.


You ever been stabbed with a crayon? It freakin hurts, man. =]

@Flame,

Yet again, my whole post was saying that whilst I can think of a situation that was excluded by your "You can tell its real" condition. That you were right.

But for some reason, nearly all my points were wrong. Does this mean that you were infact not right? Or that again you didnt read the post. HHAHAHAHA.

I am ALSO saying that there has to be something wrong with you before you play these games for you to act apon them

However.
Agian you are missing the point. YOu think that its the quality of the imagage that effects/improves the way the memory is, or its quality.

Have you ever dreamed that you were James Bond? It real when you are having the Dream is it not. The reason you know it wasnt real isnt because of the quality of the original Media, but simply because you know that, that wouldnt have happened.

I agree with you totaly in your list of people who dont become aware that the memory isnt real. But I however still hold that at the moment of recolection it is both possible to recolect that you were playing a game, and also as a seperate act devoid of any game playing, recal whatever violent act you commited, and then remember that it was a game.

I not sudjesting that I would say what vidio games your Kids Can and cant Play, I saying what vidio game I would and wouldnt let them play, just as if they were staying at my house I would decide what the would and wouldnt be given to eat, what they would and wouldnt be allowed to watch on TV, what they would and wouldnt be allowed to do with the Charcol brickets.
And.. if you let a child of the age to belive in Santa, watch Alien, or Debbie does Dallas, or play Doom3 or Manhunt, then I would still say you were wrong to do so.
Why this makes you a terrorist I dont know, but it definatly would make you a parent with a poor judgement on what children should watch.

To be clear here, I think there should be NO materail that an adult should not be allowed to buy/read, as long as the deisre to read it didnt cause harm to accur in its creation, (ie Snuff).

So whilst I dissagree with the banning of Manhunt 2, I think that certification is a good idea, so that parents, know not to let there six yearold play it, because most people think its wrong to let little Kids watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Now you notice, Im not stopping you from showing these films/games to babes in arms

I think its bizarre you want to be torturing someone ...

Why make a game which has any form of torture is beyond me.

There IS stuff that shouldn't be on sale as it feeds fantasies that can only be described as sick/mentally deranged.

Rockstar deserve to get shafted, they've been getting told for years that games such as this would fall foul of censors when graphics approached photo-realistic; instead of thinking up new ideas they just keep pumping out the same old shit.

Well, then you have games like "The Godfather" that is actually based on a movie, but that seems to simulate on how to threaten business owners/shopkeepers into demands, which, too would probably wind up being blamed on a game like that... However, that's still not as extreme as Manhunt 2, but it still proves that those games influence other crimes besides murder... Bribing police officers, too, would be illegal, and that sort of stuff. Unlike R*, at least EA, THQ, and Microsoft are off the hook when it comes to those types of games, for some strange reason. They don't seem to get the publicity of game censorship that Rockstar gets...

Pushing the responsibility onto the parents is silly. You know if a kid is told they can't play a certain video game, they are just going to go to their friend's house and play it. Then you have parents that are considered overprotective, and children who are ostracized.

If we had a 24-hour graphic torture channel, what kind of effect on society do you think that would have?

If we had a 24-hour channel of people pooping on each other, what kind of effect on society do you think that would have?

It isn't really about freedom versus censorship, it's about what kind of society you want to live in, and who gets to choose what it is.

I want to live in a society where I can choose how I live my life without being persecuted by the ignorant or the close-minded. I don't want to conform to a stranger's idea of what is acceptable. I don't want to watch people pooping on each other or torturing each other, but I would like to live in a society where people recognise the difference between watching these things (and even finding them entertaining) and going out and doing them.

I want to live in a society where I can screw up if I want to - and be punished if my actions harm others.

I want to live in a society where people are encouraged to take personal responsibility for their actions, and to a lesser extend for the actions of their children, without blaming strangers for their own failures.

It absolutely is about freedom versus censorship. And it's about accepting personal responsibility for our actions too.

I used to believe in that passive state of mind, where your own judgement is fine for your immediate surroundings, but you wouldn't dream of applying those values to all of society. It's a very easy position to take.

I don't agree with censorship but Halo made a good point above. What kind of society do you want to live in? If you want to change it then run for office.

Really? Well I would prefer violent sociopaths take out their compulsion to murder people on video games, rather than random people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Which in turn is based on a real criminal organization, who were around well before anyone even thought of videogames.

None. Who would want to watch that?

I think they have that in Germany. Again I don't think it would be particularly popular, but it might prevent people with a poo fetish from defecating in public.

In the US there are more TV stations preaching Christian and "traditional" family values, and other hippie nonsense than any other country in the world. At the same time it holds wonderful records like "largest percentage of population in correctional facilities" and "most executions of children". So I think it's a pretty safe bet that the media does not have as profound an effect on society as you seem to think.

Unfortunately losing a bid for public office is not going to change society.

> In the US there are more TV stations preaching Christian and "traditional" family values, and other hippie nonsense than any other country in the world. At the same time it holds wonderful records like "largest percentage of population in correctional facilities" and "most executions of children".

Both groups would be amused (at best) to know you worked both of them in together like that. As for the Christian Right and Capitol punishment - you are actually disproving the point you were trying to make by linking them together, many such stations and programs support this.

I think the point was that the media has not influenced the children away from committing the acts, not that it had or had not influencd people toward or away from capital punishment.

Hmm, how do they tally "Thy shalt not kill" and "Vengeance is mine" with their support for death sentences, I wonder?

Gah, I really don't want to get involved in another dumb relious thread, I just hate hypocrisy...

Like everyone else, they ignore the bits they don't like.

> I think the point was that the media has not influenced the children away from committing the acts

The vast majority of children do not watch such channels, there really are not that many religious channels compared to those playing cartoons with lots of brainless, consequence free, violence.

To be honest I firmly believe that its a privelege to live in a city with everyone else, not a right.

Therefore if you choose to live in the city among so many other people you really should have censorship and laws against disturbing antisocial media.

If you choose to live in the countryside and expose yourself to cow sex and slaughter well at least no-one else is affected.

Many people scream "freedom of xyz!" but such freedom comes at a terrible cost when so many people are together like a city. Such freedom is really anarchy.

I move to say there should be a complete ban on certain game based concepts. This includes killing children and torturing any other living thing.

I would also extend it to rape you can participate in, but I would not ban the scene of rape if it were a cut scene... in short interactive sick behaviour has to end, but storytelling must still be given movie-like restrictions.

Taking part is taking it too far, especially with the realism in the graphics of today.

How do you define "disturbing"? Things that disturb me might not disturb you. Should these things be censored? Things that disturb a politician might not disturb either of us. Should these things be censored? This is a fundamental problem with categorising things in such absolute terms. One of the reasons that the argument for censorship is flawed is because there is no such thing as a universally disturbing/unhealthy/wrong (etc.) thought, concept or action, and so censoring anything on these terms unfairly forces others to accept your own personal beliefs.

> concept or action, and so censoring anything on these terms unfairly forces others to accept your own personal beliefs.

Not censoring actually does the same thing as well. The trick is finding the fine line between the two.

Yeah, extreme to the point where even Sony doesn't even accept the game, that's something... I knew that Nintendo was going to be strict with Rockstar right off the bat, but even then, M-rated games on most Nintendo consoles were usually more toned down than the other two consoles anyway. Been that way since the N64 with a few certain games, and even SNES with Mortal Kombat, since then, Nintendo seemed to understand what gamers really do want.

Do you really need that question answered? I would think that the majority ( I Hope ) of decent human beings can recognise what is disturbing. Yeah some people will find things less disturbing than other people find them but it all depends on what one has subjected themselves to already.

I would think things like Murder, Rape, Child Molestation, Torture, Snuff and many other things that fit the same categories can be considered disturbing.



I have a problem with what you are saying. Here's my problem. If i were Joe Psycho with my Snuff collection and I was having this conversation with you and said the following to you, "Snuff doesn't disturb me but because it disturbs you does it mean it should be censored?".

What would you say to that?



I believe that's complete bull. Just like there is the act of sticking to generally excepted science there is also the fact of sticking to what is generally ( by the masses ) accepted as wrong and disturbing.

It should be clear what is and what isn't. To me it is, anyway.

Dont need to define it. You simply draw the line and move the line over time till it suits the most statistically. No need to get into endless debate.

That's a very touchy subject.

My take on it is, there's enough violence in the world as it is. The last thing we need is to desensitize our children with realistic violence towards others.

I'm still surprised GTA, Bully and other rockstar games didn't get the same treatment..

Like someone above said, replace foes with zombies, robots, aliens...etc..

I'd say it's illegal and therefore completely unrelated to a debate on censorship.

Are you on LSD 24/7 or are you just completely insane? Seriously, you come across the exact same way my parents described people on LSD trips, and they have been on a lot of those. Do you ever come down? Having a good trip or a bad trip? Walls closin' in on you yet, Daniel?
I'd say there's a very large difference between genuine death and a virtual world that hardly resembles real life, wherein I kill people while defying the laws of physics. Whereas you're evidently just someone with a fetish for death -- you do realize the entire purpose of snuff is that it is sexually arousing to the people interested in it, right? It's not about "oh yay, gonna watch someone die and eat some popcorn," it's "this chick is having her throat slit and I'm so turned on by that blood." If you find yourself getting off to virtual death, I'm not going to hold it against you. When real people die just so you can reach orgasm, then we have a problem, capisce?

All you're doing here is making a very poor equivocation.

You know what's really disturbing? The news. Go watch it some time, there are things on there that nobody should ever have to see. You call Manhunt 1 and 2 disturbing, and yet most of you can sit down with a cup of coffee and enjoy watching death and suffering on your magical picture box. Is virtual death somehow more harmful to you than the images of real people dying on television?

Well said.

The issue with games over tv/film is that the player has to participate and not just watch. There's no such thing as total freedom, anyone who thinks there is is living in a fantasy world.

There is but the feelings and emotions they try to elicit are the same.



I didn't know there was a sexual side to it.



I understand. Again I'll say that whether or not it happens in real life or Virtually in a Game, both are trying to elicit certain responses, feelings, urges from the viewer or player.




I don't find the news visually disturbing. The reports the way they are told can be. Thankfully News Broadcasting in the UK is controlled unlike the show and shock anyone tacticts of US news Broadcasters.



How do you know people do this? I don't think you are in the position to be telling what people do. Unless you've interviewed them all.

I haven't played ManHunt 2 so don't know if it's disturbing.



They're both harmful. Both are trying to tag on to a certain emotion, feeling, sensation and urge. The news tells it like it is, Games let you take part.

Then I suppose removing people who are more or less pure evil in a game in an attempt to survive and find your character's family and the truth about his life is bad. Nevermind that you take part in the news as well, by the way. You think you're not participating, sitting there and living it all vicariously? You're sorely mistaken if that's the case. You press the button to turn the television on, you shout at the TV when a sports team does something favorable, you argue with the host of a quiz show -- there's no end to the amount of participation with television. You can claim you aren't taking part in it, but that's a lie from being around it as long as you have. Every day, you participate in your wonderful world of exciting news, sports and other television shows.

You're joking, right? Sure, you English probably sit down with tea or get drunk first chance (we in America find your habitual drunkenness over almost anything, be it a game of pool on TV to some guy skipping down the street, quite unusual) and then sit in front of the television all day. I don't think anyone but you is going to argue that the vast majority of the English and American population watch the news for more than just information. You enjoy it, you want to experience what's happening.

It would benefit you to do some research before you speak about it then, now wouldn't it? Unlike you, I've actually looked into this, I know what has been released about the story, I've played and beaten the previous Manhunt, watched videos of the second. There is nothing disturbing about the second. If anything, it is much tamer than the first in terms of motive for violence in it. You play someone who isn't just a criminal taken into a madman's game.

So what do you know?

No, they aren't. The feelings and emotions that are received by real death are nowhere near the same that games are trying to achieve. Story tellers while wanting to allow people to become close to their character, at the same time recognize that you can never get too attached. There are lines, and so far nothing -- especially not Manhunt -- has crossed them. This is why there are scores. They aren't going after the feeling of killing, they're going after the feeling of winning a game and occasionally making you jump out of your seat. If you've ever seen anyone die, you should be well aware this is not the thing you'll experience.

I've seen enough of your television to tell you that this is incorrect. The news in the UK is just as interested in getting your attention, be it through shock or any other means they can. The difference is that their teeth and accents are more shocking than the news itself.

OK, I agree with that. It's the whole purpose of media. To take part.



I'm not English.



Your speaking for everyone again. " We Americans find"; you're not the whole of America.



I know that snuff is the act of taking pleasure in watching someone being murdered.



To you they may not be. How do you know that what you just said is true to everyone?



That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.



Maybe for you and others. How do you know that everyone is going to be playing the game like this?

Stop speaking for everyone.



I have and it isn't the same for me. But, I can't say for sure if everybody on this planet is going to react the same way I do.

Sick topic, useless topic...

happy to see less violence in the world. The only violence one should endure is that found in nature, ie a lion, or occasional fighting.

The rest is a sick by-product of civilization which frankly does not move the human race forwards. Ban it I say!

Something Noel has yet to learn, it seems. :)

Unfortunately, I don't think that's true. If mankind hadn't been such violent warmongers throughout history, we'd probably all still be living in caves, eating seeds. Romans weren't exactly pacifists. "What have the Roman's ever done for us?" :)

LOL

Imagine how different the world would be if people had given into Hitler. We'd all be white with blonde hair

And that's really part of the problem isn't it? All the people in favor of "book burning" never killed anyone, or watched someone die.

Because it is. Ever watched someone die? That is without doubt one of the worst experiences you can ever have, it reminds you of your own mortality. Video games are different in that they instead convey the idea that you're immortal (particularly if it's an easy game).

So how would that be different?

How do you know this? Did you speak to all the people in favour of Book Burning and ask them if they have ever seen anyone die or if they have killed anyone?



I'm loving these replies. Ego plays a big part in them.



Depends on what you're seeing and how they die. If they die of old age peacfully in their sleep it's hardly going to be as horendous an experiance as watching some get their head cut off.



I agree, they do convey that. But is everyone going to feel the same and see it that way?

What if you get a guy who's smacked out on Crack or LSD who plays this game and see's himself as immortal when killing people and watching people die. Would you like to spend a day in this persons company?

A few years ago while I was still in the UK, I saw a news report about a couple of Americans who were captured and killed here in the Philippines. Nothing was shown about them or the way they died on the UK news. As it turns out, the Americans were beheaded on our neighbouring island of Palawan. The whole thing was shown here on the news, unedited, including the executions.

I really can't see how seeing something like this on the news, or witnessing it first hand, could be compared to seeing a similar death in a video game.

Heh, well, Rockstar is far more twisted than most game developer/publisher companies, that much I can tell you. Makes me wonder what these guys see in games these days that noone else does. I mean, Rockstar is innovative, I'll give them that, but why are they just as extreme as they are is beyond me.

I'm not saying it will be similar to you. I'm saying that you can't guarantee that there will not be a person or persons out there who can't tell the difference.

The few spoil it for the many.

I couldn't agree more.

However, someone who can't tell the difference between an actual death and video game death is verging on being retarded.

Not just retarded. And they are out there.

Mental illness is neither predictable nor logical. If there are people out there who can't tell the difference between a real death and a banana split, should we ban those too? The problem with the censorship argument is that there is no evidence that the twisted individuals we all accept are out there are incited by violent games any more than they're incited by Mario, or Neighbours, or a ham sandwich.

The problem is, it's only people with healthy minds who see the logical similarities. The people with the sick minds, the ones that actually might kill someone, they don't have healthy minds, so there's no telling what they see or what provokes them. So your solution only works for people who won't be affected in the first place.

Yes and No. It depends which illness said person has. You wouldn't believe where you would find a psychopath these days. Look towards the business world.



No, it shouldn't be banned. A banana split is very much different to sadistic torture and murder.



Precisely. I would much rather have them play a game of Mario though than let them loose after having played ManHunt 2.

It's all about where people get the ideas from. Joe murderer was going to murder this person regardless. But what influenced Joe Murderer to murder this person in such a way?

[edit]



How do you know this? To you it may seem like that.



There is a game you can play with anyone that will enlighten you. It's called the Link and Connect game. It's intense and reveals, even in the people you say are of healthy mind, the true horrors and information they have stored in their minds.

One of the main things I have against censorship is that the person or persons doing the censoring will see, play etc everything - but then deem that the material that they are viewing/playing is not suitable for the rest of us - why, because we have weaker minds than they do ?
There will always be nutters in every walk of life - some blame films,video or now computer games for their own shortcomings or plain evilness.
We cannot all pay the price for the few weak minded or evil individuals who will eventually commit their crimes anyway.
Manhunter 2 is not a game I would probably play neither would I want my children to play it although I know they are well balanced enough not to go out and start killing people.
Live and let live - banning thngs is never the solution and just creates resentment- education and common sense should prevail - no part of society should be so "superior" that they can determine what is suitable or not for the rest of society.

I remeber a news article about a 16 year old kid who murdered his girlfirend. He was planning to do this anyway but he got all of his ideas on how to murder her from media he exposed himself to on the internet. He was in to Vampires and violent video games, torture and sadism.

Before he commited the murder I really doubt that he sat down with a a pencil and some paper drawing out a bubble chart, flow chart, ideas sheet on how to murder his girlfriend. He picked something that was stored in his brain.

Whether it was an image he saw on the internet or a technique he learned from a game, he used this information to comit the act.

Yeah, one thing I don't understand is that Rockstar is the company that's the biggest target by the media for this type of stuff. There are dozens of other big companies designing games like this, id Software, 3D Realms, THQ/Volition, Valve, RWS, Vivendi, EA, Monolith, just to name a few, yet these companies are left off the hook by the public media, even tho id Software was a target in the past, they've been overshadowed by Take Two and Rockstar. I'm wondering why Rockstar's much more special than the others I mentioned?

I don't believe this for a second. Young morons often use "video games/violent movies made me do it!" as an excuse for their crimes when they are caught. It's just a way to avoid taking responsibility for their actions or a way for their parents to avoid taking responsibility for their poor parenting.

That's fine. You're entitled not to.

It doesn't change the fact that the way he mutilated her body was shockingly similar to the imagery that was stored on his computer.



How do you know this? Have you spoken to all of them?

[edit]



Where did they learn these actions from?

Violent testosterone fueled impulses some humans are strong enough to resist, some only because they are scared of being caught by the law and others who simply don't feel guilt...

Would experiences, images they have seen, stuff they have done play a role in which of the 3 categories above they'd be listed in?

Isn't this discussion pointless? Everyone has their own views on the matter, and posting them here is unlikely to sway others' opinion. That's why threads like this usuallly just turn into a bun fight. Personally, I have my own opinion on the matter and don't give a toss what others think, TBH. Agreeing to disagree is good.

Copout response when your argument is too weak to be any good.

I think they should ban the tools they used to build an evil software like this game too.

I wasn't aware I'd presented an argument.

Yes, and burn at the stake the people who made the tools that made the evil software.

Let's kill God while we're at it, he made the people who made the tools that made the evil software that caused the violence that ruined the families that caused the media attention that destroyed the industry that made millions jobless that set about a depression that killed thousands that drove governments into hiding.

/me pulls Noel's undies right over his head

Now i really would like to play a good zombie game, an evil one. :O)

About the romans: that bears no relevence to today at all. In order to improve today we need to think about today and get back to natural conditions.

Natural conditions are the result of millions of years of evolution: whats best for us imho knowledge and peace, not disturbing images of torture.

I don't need to, it is obvious from their responses.

That's nice. However Manhunt 2 is not a game where you watch people die in their sleep.

There are a lot of things more dangerous than a guy high on LSD playing video games. Like a guy on LSD driving a car. You don't see anyone advocating baning heavy, powerful cars, do you? Here's an different idea - why not just outlaw LSD and Crack? Oh wait!

Because they can? Because people are buying them?

Well that's just because you're not very imaginative.

Or in some cases it even makes things worse. For instance "bukake" style porn videos were invented because in Japan it is illegal to show a mans genitalia on video. Personally, I find bukake the more disturbing option, but maybe that's just because I'm not a psychopath.

What the hell difference does that make. If he had already decided to kill her (premeditated murder) what does it matter whether he got the idea from media or whatever? Is a crime worse if it's a bit creative? In "The Punisher" you can kill someone by jamming their head through a ventilator grill (among several other graphical deaths the game rewards you for doing). Is that somehow worse than just shooting at them until they stop moving? Or hitting them repeatedly over the head with a blunt heavy object? How about just pushing her underwater and holding her under while she's taking a bath? It's not like killing someone is rocket science you know.

They sell more games. Don't you think the book burners can count? GTA3, GTA:VC and GTA:SA have sold more than 40 million copies worldwide - on the PS2 alone. The GTA franchise is the third largest franchice in the world (the first two being Super Mario Brothers and Pokemon). Now while surely one could make a case that a game that involves eating mushrooms and subsequently jumping on peoples heads is violent behavior, or that beating up wilod animals and trapping them in small balls, to pit them in full contact combat against other animals is also cruel and violent - these games have long since been established as children's games, so they're off the hook.

Yes, and I'm sure the family would have been much happier if their loving daughter was pushed off a tall building or run over with a car instead.

Maybe they just figured out for themselves that if you restrain someone and cut them, they will eventually bleed to death? Killing someone isn't something you need to train for or even be good at in order to do. Killing someone is as easy as putting a plastic bag over their head until they suffocate or poisoning their food.

Well, you got Running With Scissors, with the POSTAL series. They seem to be about as extreme as anyone can get, yet RWS wants to design a version of POSTAL 3 for the X360? I'm not too sure if Microsoft would do any favors, if that's gonna wind up in the same league as Manhunt 2. I mean, a game like POSTAL 2 was quite a bit almost pushing AO themselves.

Quite possibly, though I think it's generally accepted that if any video game were to push one over the edge, that one wasn't in the 'right' frame of mind to begin with. Short of some breakthrough in scientific research on the matter, I'm not going to believe a videogame can sway a person from one category to another.


And ship off their mothers to a prison on the antarctic.


That's also open for debate. Not here, though. =]

I believe pc games can trigger a mentally disturbed person. Anything can act as a trigger.

Thats not why it should be banned though.

It should be banned because desensitising people is counterproductive to society as a whole.

Hiding is the dark and pretending it doesn't happen or exist is productive?

you should be able to do anything and everything in a game
that's why it's a game !!! ...

This made me giggle:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6243762.stm

Note the quote



Poor car... all smashed up... bless its cotton socks, that must hurt other cars feelings, no really, it must do! Oo

Madness

Dabz

The comments about guns being legal in the U.S. are false. Most states here don't allow you to carry a concealed weapon. They make it very difficult or impossible to obtain a permit.

Of course MS13 has more weaponry than the LAPD, but they don't generally worry about permits.

Did anyone play that banned PS1 game Thrill Kill?

I mean, that game was outright banned, and it was really not that disturbing at all. A crying shame that never got released, no worse than Mortal Kombat and Nintendo's Super Smash Bros was a direct copy of the 4 player game play mechanics.

As far as 3D fighters goes, that was one of the best of its time. Not that I played it or anything.

er what? you say the opposite for me in some sort of automated response. your point is?

Thats a stupid thing to say. Perhaps we should read comics about child abuse because its a comic? No, just no.

yeah ok you're right ...

LOL at Dabz...


mine too!... a surveillence camera for every 8th person in the country?... and 99% of the time all they film is traffic offences, dogs taking dumps & litterers??

It's even gonna be illegal to have a ciggy in public after tomorrow!... I think I might walk into the local town hall & light up!... then I'll blame it on the character in `GTA Vice City`... see if that gets banned??? :P lolol

My point was your point sucked.


I refer you to Japanese cartoons. Probably hentai.


Been there, done GTA. Blaming it on Cid from Final Fantasy 7 would be way cooler.

Good point! ;)

Mleh, maybe blame it on Tecmo and the DOA franchise for going almost X-rated with their volleyball game. At least their game made it on Xbox with an M rating that could've almost been AO.