So you want to know why Manhunt 2 was banned?

This says it all:

http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/psp/game/news/article.jsp?sectionId=1006&articleId=2007110215313988099&releaseId=20070206111615557015

... and add to that that you actually perform the moves on the Wii version with the controller... sick!

What's ironic is how ManHunt1 never got banned for doing the same thing, hell, after being forced to censor the game, ManHunt2 is actually less gruesome.

Still.. I find it disturbing..
Who knows what it can trigger in some unstable persons head?

What I find amusing is that there are any number of horror films out there showing far more graphical violence than this and no one complains about them. Not that games are being made a skapegoat of course.

Yes - films are equally as interactive as first person games aren't they? Even so, I agree, films shouldn't be let off the hook either, but in today's shallow world the figurative dollar ultimately rules, even if it is made to wriggle about for its supper sometimes. This vomit will become the norm soon.

Right, because clearly all these unstable people will be completely unable to get ideas if they just see someone else doing it. If they actually get to twiddle a little piece of black/grey plastic at the same time, the effect is obviously completely different.

Two words.

Sadistic.

Pointless.

That may be true, i dont care for Manhunt either (its a bad game, atleast the first one was)

But i really dont like the trend of banning violent games, or banning anything for that matter.
The message i get from it is that we are to stupid too realize this is fiction, so the gov must step in and protect us from ourself.

now i know this is done primarily because games are seen as a something kids play, bu we all here know thats not true anymore.

No it doesn't. It doesn't say anything. It just shows a series of fairly benign pixelated murders - none of which is half as disturbing as footage from, say Iraq. Of course if you're talking about the right-wing dominated medias obsession with pretend violence, to draw your attention from the real violence that happens every day, then sure - but it doesn't actually say that anywhere on the page.

Well I guess Nintendo are finally going to lose their kiddie game rap, not pussying out like other platforms.

Then don't buy it.

Then don't buy it.

You mean like Hitler or Pol pot? I don't think "playing too many video games" was their problem, okay? People snap for the strangest reasons, "working at the post office" seems to be reasonably common, yet nobody is calling to ban postal and courier services.

You think school shootings started because Andrew Vachss wrote "Dress-Up Day", or do you think it was the other way around (that the story was inspired by actual incidents).

It gets worse. Now all the sociopaths can simply blame videogames for their anti-social behavior, and real coldblooded killers get off lightly (having played GTA:SA is a mitigating circumstance for killing a homeless person and defecating on his chest? WTF? We must not have had the same version of GTA:SA), at the same time providing morons like Jack Thompson with more fodder for his uninformed, ridiculous crusade against fun.

So interaction is the key difference? Well whenever someone is bludgeoned to death with a Wiimote, we can talk again. You don't need interaction, or even violent media to figure out that if you take an axe or baseball bat to someones head, they're gonna be in a world of hurt.

Here's two more: Bad game.

Here's a more fair and balanced view of it all. And here's one from 3 years ago. I really can't be the only one starting to think that Jack Thompson and his idiot horde of journalist buddies in the GOP are starting to sound like a broken record? Manhunt which is basically a video game version of Richard Connells The Most Dangerous Game is bad, But "Ethnic Cleansing", a video game written by a white supremacy group, has you killing Jews and Spics (and possibly other ethnic groups "Resistance Records" finds objectionable) but is somehow just fine and dandy?

Well, having watched the video I can say that the violence is nothing suprising. I've seen ten times worse in Movies and even worse in video imagery I've seen coming out of Iraq, Africa etc.

I was going to go on one of my "Yeah but this could trigger off a psycho" type response but I'm guessing (And probably right) that a psycho will trigger himself off anyway with someone just looking at him.

I would be happy if they stuck an (18) label on it and stated that there was heavy interactive violence and just let it be.

Change of stance from the last thread. :)

I think the difference is that video games are made for leisure enjoyment. One either finds an activity like this game distasteful or enjoyable. So the question is should we make entertainment which appeals to individuals who enjoy simulated torture?

Well, I never planned to.

What you think doesn't really matter. There still haven't been done enough research on the subject.

I think the interactive nature of it does make a difference. Even the most banal, basic, rubbish film has ten times more story, character development and emotional depth than the deepest computer game. If you were to take the goriest, most depraved ten seconds of a film, and put it on a loop for eight to ten hours, that would about sum up a lot of games. While I find censorship distasteful, the thought of my children playing that kind of repetitive barrage of sickness is even more distasteful. And I'm sensible enough to know that an 18 certificate on a game means 18... but children will get their hands on it anyway, usually because one of their friends' parents is ignorant in that respect. (My cousin bought Grand Theft Auto 3, with all the language and violence, for his eight-year-old son.)

I think the problem is, the aesthetics of games are getting ever closer to films, with more realistic people, motions, sounds etc - but the story content is still as basic as space invaders, with any depth provided by the choice of gun used for each enemy. Characters are not affected emotionally by the carnage they visit on other people, there's no exploration of what it actually means to take another life. I know you can say that about some films but still...

I would argue it's all linked with the climate we live in of me me me, where are my rights but forgetting that we also all have responsibilities.

And psychos emulating what they see - I do agree, we can't blame games for things like Columbine but there is some common sense to be used, surely? And where's the line to be drawn? What if the game allowed the character to rape women? Kill children? Rape children? If anyone says well obviously that should be censored - well, what makes rape worse than decapitating over thirty people with various household tools?

I'd say overall, having watched that clip, that I'm glad it was censored. I never thought I'd hear myself saying that...

i still found it absurd that for years (a decade?) the bbfc chose to omit the nunchucka scene from enter the dragon yet let the TMNT go unscathed.

its a game for adults and should be rated accordingly
if any children play it then its their parents fault

saw and hostel were good films if a bit on the off putting side for some but rightly rated 18

yet if little timmy walks into hmv and trys to buy it he wouldnt get served
but if timmys dad got it and timmy watched it
well timmys dad shouldnt leave it around for him to watch
unless little timmy is closer to 18 and not 8 ;)

edit:
basically most of what mrtricks wrote, his post wasnt up when i started reading this thread

Yes there has. Research of this sort has been ongoing more than 50 years, with more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies (and more than 3300 politically or religiously motivated studies). Of course since these scientific studies don't subscribe to popular preconceptions, nobody cares about them.

Two books on the subject I think you should read before we discuss this any further. Fredric Werthams "Seduction of the Innocent" (written in 1954, supporting your version of the truth) and Gerard Jones' "Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence" (written in 2002, supporting my version of the truth). Then when you're done reading and have had time to reflect on Werthams anecdotal evidence, and Jones scientific evidence, we can talk again, about which belief system, we find most likely.

Before you start reading, answer me this: Does baseball have the same effect as videogames? I mean in baseball you're trained to accurately hit, small objects traveling at high speeds, with large blunt instruments, and then run away and attempt to not get caught.

Do you know what happens for real when you shoot someone? It doesn't go down like Quentin Tarantino or John Woo thinks it does. To this day I have yet to see one realistic death in movies or in videogames.

Should it? Common sense is just a smarter word for prejudice. Or truthiness. Thousands of years ago it was common sense that a heavier object would fall to the ground faster than a lighter object. Hundreds of years ago it was common sense that the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth. Fifty years ago it was common sense that children exposed to violent images in comic books was more damaging than the real violence they encountered every day in society, and in some cases at home.

The truth is that children emulate their parents, not their videogames, music or comics. If their parents teach them that violence is an acceptable means to get what you want, that's the way it's going to go down. The "Do as I say, not as I do" mantra isn't effective.

Does "Mature" mean something different in British English?

This is awesome. Yet another game I must buy. :L

anyone who would enjoy playing a game like that is probably the same type of kid who tortures small animals

I think the people who created this game should have their heads checked.. bunch of psychopaths

Doesn't appeal to me, I must admit.

i started yawning 3-5 mins into that video ... bit boring very samey

Well I'm more the type of person who thinks small animals are adorable and saves moths from flames, but think what you want. Believe it or not, people can still be sound of mind and play games like this.

Out of curiosity, are you the type that, if you played this game, you would have to go out and torture small animals? I can't imagine where else you would have gotten the idea.

My personal opinion is that baseball is, to some, seen upon as a game. Beating, or stabbing, someone to a pulp fall into another category.

The thing is that when viewing such materials, some people might feel that they think it's OK to do such a thing, or that it doesn't really matter.

This happened to a kid here in Norway, when he got run over by a car thinking he could just "fly" across the road like Batman, after he had seen the show on the telly.

I'm guessing the same could happen to some person as well, by playing this kind of game, or watching these kind of films. He might go out one day and get in a situation where he acts just like in the game/film.

Anyways, what I meant by my initial post, was that it might "tip" an unstable person in the wrong direction, if that person happens to find him/her-self in the "right" situation.

Noel Wrote


That's the issue believe it or not. Where people get the ideas from.

Isn't it odd that the normal players of games like this are not likely to see a game like this and think "Boy, I'd love to play this and torture small animals?" Instead, it's the people who are against games like this who see it and think of torturing animals. Honestly, who's the one with the warped mind when the anti-violence side is the one dreaming up all the real-world violence?

You're assuming that he dreamed this all up. He could have merely seen one of the many documentaries shown on TV on the behaviours of Psychopaths of which one is torturing small animals.


I'd like to see proof of your statements, also.

Actually no, I don't believe a person's personality can be altered by a game, but I do (to an extent) believe that a person's choice in games can be a reflection of their personality.

Of course it's not always the case, I know people of "sound mind" may find this game entertaining, but I can't help but think this game will be a magnet to very disturbed people.

What, proof that small animals are adorable and that I save moths?You didn't answer my question- are you going to go and torture small animals after playing this game?

I don't think it's such an issue of "someone might try that". I don't think this game will have a significant effect on violence rates. I think it's more an issue of whether such a thing should even be made or not. Do the members of our society have any say in what is produced and sold to us?

Why are there no games in which you molest children? There's certainly a market for it, among a certain small section of the population. It's no more illegal than torturing people to death. All Flameduck's arguments apply to this, as well. You could argue that just because you molest children in a game doesn't mean you will do it in real life.

The reason we do not have such things is that this is one area where we still feel we have a say in our own society.

Don't go to Japan.

No.

I want proof of the following.

Quote Noel:

You can in Second Life, from what I heard on the radio this week.

Look around. These ideas aren't coming from the gamers, they aren't running around in the news shouting "OH GOD I JUST NEED TO STRANGLE ONE MORE CHILD," it's the people who are against games like this that keep proposing these outlandish ideas. There are no studies to back this up, there's just observation.

Of course not, I love animals. I don't know what your question had to do with anything, but I felt I did answer it, I told you that I don't feel a game has the power to change some one's personality.

I guess I should have pointed out that I didn't have an "animal torturing" personality to begin with

Well said.


Also a good point.


No. The "torturing small animals" argument is simply an expression of disgust towards this kind of violence - he's describing how to him playing a game with this level of violence would be similarly repulsive to watching someone torturing small animals.

Maybe it would have been phrased better if he asked this: Why do you derive pleasure from the "pretend" murdering and torturing of people in the bloodiest, goriest possible way?

Why would you watch someone torture small animals if you didn't get some pleasure out of it yourself?

That's the point. Anyone who watches someone torture small animals most likely has something wrong with them (as in, the sort of things they derive pleasure from). He's making the point that a person deriving pleasure from this sort of video game is similarly distasteful to him.

I totally agree. take Jack Thompson for example, calling Doom a "murder simulator". Who in their right mind really thinks doom taught them how to murder people?
If anything it would teach how to kill demons, wouldnt that be a good thing?

that was my point. Why would you watch someone torture a person (virtual or not), unless you got some pleasure out of it.

to be perfectly clear, I don't believe in censoring games, I just don't see how anyone could enjoy a game where the whole point is to violently torture people

But hey, whatever floats your boat I guess.

I disagree with this. In this game, you are the good guy and trying to get your family back. What about fighting off hordes of criminals to find your family is distasteful?

I agree that that idea (fighting off hordes of criminals to find your family) isn't particularly distasteful. It's just that the game seems to focus on causing excessively violent deaths of these criminals.

Well you're certainly not going to get past them by arguing.

In the context of the story (and I don't know the story, so I'm probably going to be way off here), I'm going to bet a (sane) good-guy would probably use something a little more "civilized' then the methods of killing shown in the video. Wouldn't it be more "humane" (if there is such a thing when it comes to killing) to first knock them out or even just shoot them?

I think the main issue most people have is that the idea of acting out extremely bloody and violent killings (even for "pretend") is simply distasteful and often quite offensive to most people. When these people see/hear someone else talking about enjoying this "gameplay mechanic", it just brings up a whole lot of questions about what kind of person you are (whether or not those doubts are fair or not is another issue).

That's a cop out. So is Manhunt. Explain why practicing beating someone to a pulp and running away in baseball is good, while doing the same in a videogame is bad.

No. I'm sorry but videogames do not make you a psychopath. Psychopathic disorders stem from abnormal brain functions - there is no evidence that suggests playing a videogame can induce physical brain damage. Prevalent theories suggest that psychopathic tendencies are inherited and/or caused by child abuse. Of course it's nice and convenient for abusive parents to blame video games and violent media - unfortunately in real life, psychopathy predates any form of media by several millennia.

Says who? Besides the kids an idiot. If he thought he could fly, why didn't he try it somewhere safe first? Here's a different scenario, he was running away from his abusive father, didn't have time to look both ways before he steps onto the road. Cops show up. What are you gonna tell them? That the kid was running away cause his dad was beating on him, or that the kid thought he was batman?

Here's the deal tho'. Nothing in said game/film is even remotely as disturbing as the kind of things a sick mind dreams of. If you were to be the victim of a real serial killer like Theodore Robert Cowell, John Wayne Gacy or Dennis Rader you should pray to be killed as quickly and relatively painless as depicted in Manhunt 2.

Good. It's better we discover who has psychopathic tendencies early on before they have a chance to kill potentially thousands of people.

Real life. Like how Mr. Timothy James McVeigh learned how to make improvised explosives in the Army and learned how enjoyable it was killing Iraqis with the autocannon on his Bradley IFV. What? You think he got the taste for slaughtering people by playing Manhunt? He was executed before it was even out.

Oh it will, but not the effect you think. Why? For the same reason Mortal Kombat did. People started being virtually violent instead of real world violent.

Or indeed, if you were the kind of person who did do it in real life, it would be better for everyone if you could get off doing it virtually instead.

Not if you're Jack Thompson. Surely he has demon blood running through his veins.

The same reason people enjoy watching Animaniacs?

Maybe it's inspired by capital punishment?

I'm willing to bet that if someone was threatening your whole family, you couldn't care less how they died - and that the degree of stress you were in, would probably put you way beyond what any jury would consider sane.

Animaniacs was great. Just saying.

I've seen documentaries on those and also a guy called Tommy Lynn Sells. Sells is aparently the worst of the worst.

Anyway, listening to the arguments, both sides are valid. There are people who will be disturbed by Games like Manhunt, people who don't mind the violence because it's a video game and then there's the loons who will get ideas from it.

I think it's a case of not letting the few (the psycho's) spoil it for the many.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the game's going to make you insane. Just that it "might" give an insane person the wrong ideas. Granted, that's a big "might" coming from anyone who isn't an expert on criminal psychology.


I don't know about other countries, but in most "civilized" countries criminals are NOT executed by someone with a large garden shears maniacally cutting at throats, stabbing, slicing, etc. (and that's just one example of many, many, others). Seriously, I don't know what point (in favor of your argument) you're trying to make here.


I think a major point is this: Spoil what? Fun? Which brings up the question, why do you derive fun from this?

I guess it comes down to personal taste; for some this sort of "pretend" violence is considered extremely distasteful. For others it is not at all. Obviously there is a big divide here since both sides seem to have difficulty understanding the other's point of view.

In this respect the best way to "resolve" the argument would be for each side to explain why they do/don't consider this sort of violence distasteful.

Because it takes skill in MOHAA, Call of Duty to get a head shot with a sniper and I simply feel cool when I've dropped someone. Obviously when they quit the game they will still be alive and go on about their business but they will do this knowing they got pawned.

:)

Well I can understand that. But the question really was about the brutal slaughtering in Manhunt 2, not COD2/etc. Personally I think there's quite a difference between shooting someone, and tearing and hacking at someone with sharp objects until they bleed to death in agony.

There is no agony for virtual characters. When in Manhunt one of the criminals is getting his head cut off it's only a virtual head and there is no pain.

Yes, that's why it's not a crime to do this. Similarly it wouldn't cause any real agony if you were to watch (and enjoy) a video of a kitten being brutally tortured, for example, yet this is still considered extremely distasteful.

Psychopaths aren't insane. They just lack empathy. Not all psychopaths turn out as serial killers or child molesters. Some become lawyers and CEOs - trades were a lack of empathy is often considered a boon.

But Psychopaths already have the wrong ideas. It not like you can cure a brain damaged individual (or make it worse by playing video games). If they snap, all you can do is get the hell out of their way until the police put them down.

No. Instead we keep them locked up in small cages for 9 years (on average) after which we kill them in a way that is not even suitable for the euthanasia of pets. What difference does it make to the person getting killed whether he was in excruciating pain because he's having his head severed with garden shears, or being paralyzed with Pancuronium bromide after which a dose of Potassium chloride induces cardiac arrest. Both methods are equally traumatic (to the person being murdered) and ultimately fatal. That someone would advocate some method of murder they find more aesthetically pleasing is the kind of thing that would keep you awake at night.

For some people the idea of abortion is considered extremely distasteful, yet killing doctors is just fine and dandy. These are the kinds of people who pose a threat to society (or if you don't care about society, then you personally), the people who find ways to justify real violence, not those who enjoy pretending.

I thought the Bonzai Kitten hoax was hilarious. It was even more hilarious reading the hatemail from all the tools who thought it was real (never mind possible).

I agree that both are ultimately fatal, but I hardly think you can argue that slicing a person up with a garden shears is less brutal and more (or equally) humane than a lethal injection.


So did I, though I thought the hoax was a little cruel to someone who might actually believe it. Either way I don't see how this has anything to do with the main issue (I doubt you'd be laughing if you saw someone enjoying a video of a kitten being chopped up while alive with a garden shears, for example).

Just watched that video - it is awful, couldn't watch more than about the first 10 seconds. Not my thing at all. However I fail to see how anyone could want to emulate those 'moves' unless they were already 'twisted' that way (don't know what the correct word is.)

If we're talking about psychological stress of the murderers, sure I agree. It's much less traumatic shooting someone than cutting them up with a chainsaw. And it's even less traumatic to a murderer to watch someone killed by poison or neural toxins, than by shooting them. Surely the outrage over Manhunt would be a matter of killing, rather than the graphical nature of it? Surely the problem with murderers is that they're leaving behind maimed corpses?

No. I'd report them to the police, as actual (non-virtual) animal mutilation is illegal in this country. I mean we're even concerned about how well pigs are transported to the slaughterhouse for crying out loud!

Also, it annoys me that people never point out the positive aspects of violent videogames.

Yes, we're basically talking about inflicting "psychological stress" (aka pain / torture).


The graphics, the physics, the interactivity, etc. etc. all combine to produce realism, obviously. Manhunt 2 is considered extremely distasteful because you interactively commit brutal torturous murders with a high level of realism. Again, I would ask why you would derive pleasure from this. Sure, you're not actually causing real agony, but neither would watching an animal be tortured cause real agony.

For example, how would you feel about an animal torture simulation, complete with screams of terror and agony, and highly realistic blood? Do I need to explain why this is extremely distasteful?

Doesn't look at all realistic to me, but I guess it's different for people (e.g., you) that have never seen someone die.

True. In fact it looks very unrealistic, with highly exaggerated amounts of blood. The point is that the visual / audio effects attempt to create an impression of extreme gore, bloodshed, and agony, which the player obviously takes pleasure in inflicting. Again, my point is best expressed by asking: "Why you would derive pleasure from this?" I'm not implying that your reasons for enjoying this are good or bad, just that answering this question would put a lot of confusion to an end.

Please prove me wrong, but I have a feeling that this question isn't being answered because many of you are ashamed to answer it honestly.

To the person being killed the most prevalent trauma is death. Dying is not any less traumatic when you're being shot or poisoned, than being decapitated. The only person who cares about the gruesomeness of a killing is the murderer. The more bloody a murder, the harder it is to kill someone.

The average human has about 7 liters of blood - and it does not cascade out of a simple knife wound all at once. After stabbing a person, the wound creates a low pressure, making it very difficult to pull the knife out again (if you don't know how, and pressing the 'X' button isn't good enough) unless you're using a dedicated combat knife like a KA-BAR. The violence being depicted in Manhunt 2, and the violence depicted in Animaniacs are roughly equally "realistic".

I don't. I couldn't care less about Manhunt 2, because it's a poor videogame. The way you kill people isn't even remotely imaginative or funny (as opposed to The Punisher which although it has Frank Castle putting a criminals head through an industrial strength ventilator, never got a rap for "being violent" - possibly because it wasn't made by Rockstar Games, so there was no political motivation for defaming it).

I'm not sure the animal agrees with that.

Sounds a bit boring to me. Kinda like those Japanese Hentai Rape games. And Manhunt 2. And Harry Potter.

Sure. While you're at it, explain why games like Ethnic Cleansing are in good taste.

Claiming that violent videogames promote violence is as stupid as claiming that Operation promotes medical malpractice.

You're assuming I play it for the blood and gore, and so I can't answer this question. Try again without using a loaded question.It isn't being answered because you're asking a loaded question that doesn't even ask why the person plays the game. You're making two assumptions with it: 1) the person plays the game for the violence and 2) the person derives a great deal of pleasure from the violence. So, John, I suggest you revise your way of looking at this before asking that question.

Let me try to enlighten you as to what the violence means to me in a game like this: it's a visual cue to indicate that I win, you lose; good show, chap, but I'm not the one with a crowbar stuck in my skull. It looks all neat and cinematic-y, but in the end the gameplay is what counts, and very little of the gameplay in Manhunt 2 is about the deaths unless you play it on the Wii (I don't intend to, since it just seems like a hack to me).

What? When did I say games like that are in good taste? Sorry but I have to say this is just a little off-topic.


I didn't say it promotes violence. I simply said that Manhunt 2 is overly violent and distasteful to the point where I would wonder why anyone derives pleasure from playing it.


Good, then there's no argument here.


I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be shot in the head (instant death) than slashed and tortured until dead.


I didn't assume it, I suspected it. Honestly, I am curious as to why anyone would derive pleasure from this sort of thing. My question was in no way intended to be "loaded", but if you think it is, well, that's pretty sad.

If this is what your argument comes down to, I'm going to leave this conversation now, as it's clearly just going to be you looking for the answer you want instead of keeping an open mind.

Ok, you may very well be right that the gameplay isn't focused on causing death, but somehow that's hard to believe. I guess I'd put it this way: If Manhunt 2 had no death, no blood, and no visual killing, would most people keep playing it? If so, again, I'd ask "why" (is there anything wrong with asking "why"?)


It wasn't an argument, it was just a comment. I simply found it sadly amusing that you would disregard my open-minded curiosity by claiming that my question was "loaded". Please don't think my question was intended to "trap" you in any way, because it wasn't. I'm just curious as to why anyone would enjoy this sort of game.

I'll try to say it in a more open way: "I'm curious as to why anyone would enjoy this sort of game. If you could explain it to me I'd greatly appreciate it. If not, that's fine too; I'm sure you have better things to be doing today :)"

Well apart from the ADL, nobodies even piped about it. What makes games like Manhunt and GTA so much worse, that it deserves all this special media attention? Is it a coincidence that both games were developed by Rockstar?

Funny. I feel the same way about "horror" movies. Why does anyone watch Saw? Never mind all it's sequels. At least Manhunt requires you to think about how you can beat a level (even if it is literally) - while most horror movies seem to glorify violence simply for the shock effect, and have stories so bad it makes porn movies seem deep and philosophical.

Well ideally I'd like to live, so I'll take the one that gives me a fighting chance.

Again it's a false premise. If WoW had no overt violence, would anyone play it? How about Quake Arena? Would they watch both minutes of Saw? Or read the short paragraph that would be left of a Joe R. Lansdale short-story?

It's a bit like fish and chips, swearing and forum posting, coffee and smokes. Sure you can enjoy either separately, but it's just more fun (and in the case of videogames, more challenging) if you combine them! I mean how are you going to ever lose a life if there's no violence?

Well I think it has a lot to do with marketing. For example I never heard of that "Ethnic Cleansing" game until now, and I don't think it's because it's any less wrong. The more money you spend on the advertising of a product, the more people will talk about it, and when the product contains controversial content like this, it's bound to get a lot of this sort of media attention.


I agree with you here :)


Yeah, well the point is in the game they're gonna die anyway, so it's really a matter of how brutal/torturous it is, not how much of a "chance" you give them to live. And BTW, personally I think there's a certain level of pain where you might even want to die, but then I've never been there so I can't comment on that.


Good point.

All I'm saying is that I believe there's a point where too much violence becomes just that: too much. But I guess what is distasteful to one isn't to another, so I'll just have to let it go at that.

Let's get one thing straight. There is only one thing which determines whether a computer game will seem to `cause someone to become more evil`, and that is entirely to do with to what degree they CHOOSE to believe it is real. The more they choose to believe it is real the more they will appear to give up their choice and will appear to be a passive victim, as if the game is now choosing reality for them. This is ultimately just an appearance because nobody ever really loses their free will choice.

If they believe it is totally real they will *seem* to be `affected by it` because what they CHOOSE to be their reality aligns with what the game presents as its truth. When their choice seems to produce the same results as would happen if they were affected by the game, it seems to hide the fact that they are choosing it and they turn into a victim. All victims are victimizers so then it's only a matter of time before they do something that demonstrates their insanity.

But then there are people who do not believe that the game is real, at all, and upon seeing it do not in any way experience any internal upset or confusion or change as a result of the game. They are not at the effect of the game and they do not GIVE it the illusion of having power to determine their sanity. For these people, it would not matter how violent or disgusting or horrid a game would seem to be, it would not `cause` them to do anything.

The fact is that even for the people who think that games hold truth, even they are choosing to pretend to be `caused by` the game, which is always a cover for their decision to believe insane ideas. Even though they appear to be at the games effect, they are still choosing to perceive reality in the way that they are, and it's still their decision to believe in and act out insane untruths.

Bottom line is, we all choose it and nobody is every affected by ANY game, ever, but some of us let ourselves become convinced that its possible and that it's real. Those people are the ones who need help, but fixing the game is not going to fix the problem. The problem is not the game, the problem is the way people look at and choose to experience the game. So if the game is seeming to create violence in the player, it is because the player wants and chooses that to occur - their mind is not trained or vigilent enough to counteract the persuasive insanity of the game world. To fix this means fixing the players belief in what is real - that's where the real problem is.

So there is no point blaming any games for causing anyone to become victims or victimizers. That is not how it works. We have to be responsible for what we choose to believe is real, and ultimately to align with what really IS real, which is not something we actually have any say in.

This game (and others) was banned because people believe the game has the power to affect untrained minds. Untrained minds are trained in pretending to be affected by things which have no power or reality over them. It is only because so many people think they are victims of the world that they have to remove the supposed problem, thinking that the problem is the thing they are being affected by (ie the game), rather than ever wanting to look at what the real problem is which is in the mind of the player.

I don't condone violent disgusting games whose forms intend to convey lies and overt symbols of death, but then again why do we accept `nice` or `good` or `happy` games as being anything different? It's only because we let ourselves by affected by those games too that we think there is no problem with them. If we think the happy good game is real then the happy good game can affect us and cause us to be happy and good. If we think the bad evil game is real then the bad evil game can affect us and cause us to be bad and evil. We just *prefer* that we be affected by `good games` and think of `bad games` as being our nemesis.

Fact is, believing that ANY game is real is all the same problem, regardless of whether the game is good or evil. If we're going to be consistent here then we have to realize that ALL games try to convince us of their reality and ALL games try to tempt us to believe the things which they suggest and imply is true. If we have to be vigilent mentally not to pretend to be pulled into a dark evil seeming game then we also have to be just as vigilant against cutesy casual happy games. They are potentially just as evil-inducing. But we don't want to look at that, either, because then we have to admit that believing any game to be real is insane.

We want to keep the happy games, the acceptable games, and the games which seem to affect us in a good way, and censor and disregard the games which affect us seemingly negatively. This is itself an insane way of regarding these games because it says some games are actually different from other games. It is not the content of the game or what it looks like that has anything to do with whether you are sane, it's whether you choose to be absorbed into its dream world as if it is reality, allowing it to replace and disrupt your sense of what really is real. If you let a game distort your perspective of sanity then you're in trouble.

And this then comes down to this one simple thing - EVERY game is an attempt to make fantasy true. If you buy into it and fall for it, or in other words if you choose to make that your reality and then act as though it did it to you (both the same thing), then you're also choosing to become insane and that will *potentially* lead to insane thoughts which might produce violent or disturbed activities.

Games aren't real. Games do not change reality. Games do not cause anything, ever.

You are real. You cannot change reality but you can fool yourself into thinking that you can - that is insanity. You cannot be altered by a game, and believing that you can or have is insane.

It is a sorry state that anyone would become insane for any reason to any degree, regardless of whether it becomes ingrained enough that it might seem to express itself in insane behavior. Thinking that a fantasy game is real is already insanity in the mind, regardless of whether it seems to affect anyone else.

Isn't regarding oneself insanely an act of violence done to yourself? And isn't that a terrible thing already before we even start to talk about how it might seem to affect other people? Why do we only care about it, or about such people, at the point where their state of mind leads them to hurt someone else? They are clearly in need of help or sanity even if they do not act it out onto another person. We should have compassion and understanding for any person who thinks themself insane, regardless of whether they might express that in violent acts. They've lost touch with who they are, what is real, and what they're doing.

It's nobody's fault. It's just a mistaken attempt to believe something is real which is not, and that can only happen in the mind of the player, by choice.

The same can be said about music.

Which goes to show that theres a lot of messed up people out there...

Hello.

Not as gory as Larn, to be fair.

Seriously, though, the main thing that concerned me, and sorry if someone's already mentioned it is the subliminal use of the word 'HATE' in during the transition effect. I wonder who that was aimed at?

Goodbye.

I agree, for the most part. Games/movies/books/etc. generally aren't going to change you into a serial killer, for example. Only someone who is already mentally unbalanced would actually try to act out a violent game/movie/book in real life, and I agree that the government shouldn't ban games just because this "might" happen.

My only argument above was that the level of interactive graphic violence in Manhunt 2 is just "too much" to the point of being repulsive. Of course, this really isn't an argument anyway (it's an opinion), which is why I asked the question "why is this not repulsive to you" (which seemed to offend Noel Cower, unfortunately).

I'd explain it as being repulsive to me this way: "The idea of someone enjoying being brutally, tortuously violent in a video game is similarly repulsive to someone taking pleasure in watching small animals being tortured (whether or not they do the torturing themselves)."

If FlameDuck's fish-and-chips explanation is correct, then Manhunt 2 wouldn't really be "fun" without the brutal killing part. Basically the dislike for Manhunt 2 is because a player who enjoys the game is either:

A. Deriving great pleasure from the idea of inflicting of great pain without actually doing it.
B. Completely ignoring the brutal part of it or viewing it with indifference.
C. Something I haven't thought of (remember my original question is still open if you think I'm way off on A and B)

i stopped reading about 10 posts up ... all very long and i wiill get back to them after this

years ago no one batted an eyelid about shooting space invaders and why should they?
after all its just an arcade game where the 'enemy' is just a crudly drawn sprite in a formation.

and fps played via bots or online against real people again no one dies they just get fragged.

but i read a dr who book "winner takes all" i think it was
plot spoiler
basically people playing this "one life FPS" are infact controlling real humans taken to an alien world to kill real aliens, each avatar is a real human with no controll of their bodies
just think, if you or i were playing this game and we found out that cos we sucked big time we let however many humans get slaughtered just cos we lost yet another life
wouldnt you feel bad?

edit:


i saw saw and enjoyed it, 2 and 3 are ok but more how can we kill people via really stupid contraptions.
and a few months before the film i saw a book called vertigo on sale and the jacket said basically
"if you go to the police person A dies, if you do not person B dies." so either way someone you dont know dies, i guess somewhere in the book the main character tries to save one of the strangers, but its a moral choice the fate of one person is in your hands.
saw 1 had such a choice, kill adam the guy across the room or your family will die, bit of a no brainer that one and it was nice to see an 18 rated movie that wasnt porn in a cinema, all horror now is watered down for teenage couples to date movie.

saw 2 and 3 were kinda like final destination meets se7en in fd the deaths were funny (i hope intentionally)

im surprised they even bothered with a story for fd though, it was sort of the horror movie porno, your just waiting for the money shot.
some in fd2 made me LOL when i borrowed the DVD, i wasnt going to waste my own money watching that crap.

I think "Ender's Game" answers this question quite conclusively. But on the other hand anyone throwing their lives away on my ability to play FPS games (or lack of, as it were), probably doesn't have too much going for them in the first place.

Stephen King was once interviewed about a serial killer who just King's books as a template for his murders. They asked King if he thinks that the killer was triggered by his books. King said that that guy was insane and would have killed anyway, but that he used his books to get some ideas only demonstrated the murderer's lack of creativity. I think Stephen had a point there.

Other than that: That game looks as dumb and disgusting as it gets. Who needs that kind of crap? Comic violence is okay for me, but these guys use pornographic cruelty.

deleted by the censor ;-)

Oooh! Woodsaw to the head!

I gotta try that one out for myself!

(Yeah right. I know I'm not the only one who thought that was stupid.)

Apart from anything else its just a shame that the developers needed to make a game like this to make money between versions of GTA. the game as far as reviews have said has very little else to offer in the way of game play. and the graphics are quite poor by todays standards



Well in the UK cartoon the nunchucka was cut and the name was changed to Hero turtles because ninja was to aggressive? madness, like a sword isnt aggressive

im sure i saw im using em
and i forgot about the name change

but i also remember the amount of kids in a&e after trying out a stunt they saw on a cartoon

im sure our parents didnt try whacking their friends with frying pans to see the face dented into it just cos they saw jerry do the same to tom

but in an 18 rated martial arts movie taking em out ???
"sorry you cant use a nunchucka they can be dangerous"
"that guys got a GUN!!!"

The only FPS games I have ever bothered to play thru have been:

- System Shock
- Manhunt

Both because of their unique intelligent quality.

-AF

manhunt are you sure? whats intelligent about a game thats just a more violent GTA without the cars?

I agree System shock was a great game though.

Manhunt is nothing like GTA.

I know the game what there is of it is not like GTA I ment they used the GTA engine minus the cars. Anyway I didnt enjoy it and i don't think anyone will put it even in there top 100 games.

Actually I think they used the Table Tennis engine, minus (I assume) the Table Tennis.

Manhunt is less violent than GTA. Like you said, there are no cars or other vehicles, so you can't run over pedestrials on purpose. You don't get to mug up or kill innocent civilians, like grannies. You can't go postal on a killing spree on a shopping center or snipe at people from a sky scraper. You don't get to steal, sell drugs, abuse prostitutes or in any way run a criminal empire. But that's not really the point.

The point is, unlike for example Quake or Counter Strike, Manhunt does not glorify or trivialize killing of people. On the contrary, it underlines America's macabre adoration of violence - the multi billion business of offering consumers violence as entertainment. In Manhunt you don't get the feeling that you are a good person because you kill or mug another human being (e.g. a supposed terrorist, granny or some generic evil being). You don't get to place the disgusting pleasure you get from killing people under some self-deceptive hypocritical banner of "doing the right thing".

Manhunt is satire.

It's also well done satire - characters are done with great artistic taste and some of them are very funny. For example, to this day I have not heard better voice acting in any other game.

What comes to game play, it works. But that's not what the controversy is about.

-AF

Just read some of the earlier posts.

What comes to violence and mindless brutality, strategy games are the worst. You get to kill thousands in milliseconds, simply by moving a rectangle on the map. For example in Civilization it's very common to eliminate entire nations and whole cultures go extinct.

Then there are games like Sims, where you can torture individual people in very simulated every day environment. You can deprive them of food, force them to live in closed filthy dull jail blocks, take their loved ones away and so forth, all while they are reacting in rather realistic human way - showing great pain and stress.

Still, the game that has actually caused me nightmares is Pacman. When I was a kid, I saw horrible nightmares where a big yellow ball swallowed up a smaller ball. I don't know why the game hasn't been banned.

-AF

I think that arty-farty review about tripe and pap must be satire.