The Manhunt 2 Thread.

pspdude

http://www.nextgenireland.com/manhunt2.html

It looks as if the irish films certifications board dont like manhunt either. The called it disturbing, gross and and unacceptable.

is this going too far ? i can only imagine how bad this title is if its getting banned everywhere

Crucifix

I really wonder what it is specifically that makes it worse than other similar games. Hard to feel like IFCO aren't just following suit.

o1s1n

They are of course following suit. From what I've seen, they're nothing but an off shoot of the BBFC.

I've already emailed them. Everyone should. Whether or not they wanted to play Manhunt 2.

UPDATE*

It also looks as if France and Germany are about to follow suit, so basically an all out Pal ban on the the title. We have contacted Rockstar and the IFCO for further clarification on the matter. Its yet to be seen if Rockstar will appeal this decision or if they will submit a censored version of the title, but Next Gen Ireland will keep you posted.

Owen

PMSL. Online ordering boys, stick it to the man!

o1s1n

ned78 wrote:

PMSL. Online ordering boys, stick it to the man!

Won't work if the PAL version is completely banned. Unless you have a modded wii that is.

edit\ actually, I don't think modded Wiis can play imports at the moment.

Ciaran500

Except the Wii and PS2 aren't region free for the majoirty of people.

o1s1n

I'm still holding out for a Dutch PAL release. Holland doesn't ban anything

WetDaddy

o1s1n wrote:

Won't work if the PAL version is completely banned. Unless you have a modded wii that is.

edit\ actually, I don't think modded Wiis can play imports at the moment.

Boy, am I glad I have a Wiikey... At least that chip definitely allows you to play imports!

o1s1n

Does it? I heard the Wii key was the best on the market at the moment, but it still doesn't do imports?

To google!

pspdude

ive the wiininja and its perfect , does everything perfectly

WetDaddy

o1s1n wrote:

Does it? I heard the Wii key was the best on the market at the moment, but it still doesn't do imports?

To google!

Yep! My imported copy of Super Paper Mario certainly appears to be working... Unless I'm seeing tiny colourful plumbers again

Wiikey has a bootloader which enables you to remove the region-locking on the drive.

o1s1n

..glad to hear. So we will be able to import this then. *phew*.

Unless of course customs takes to screening all Wii games coming into Ireland! :eek:

WetDaddy

o1s1n wrote:

Unless of course customs takes to screening all Wii games coming into Ireland! :eek:

Curse those greasy buffoons! If they do that, I'll take to them with my homemade Wii/Nunchuk garrott and squeeze the life out of their throats!

That'll teach them to think they can tell *ME* what's too violent for my own good...

Ciaran500

o1s1n wrote:

Unless of course customs takes to screening all Wii games coming into Ireland! :eek:

Its illegal to sell, not to own so you will be fine.

tman

Why is everybody getting so worked up about a sequel to a stupendously crap game... I'm actually almost glad that this has happened, it'll be one less turkey that tops the charts thanks to the clueless games buying public.

projectmayhem

tman wrote:

Why is everybody getting so worked up about a sequel to a stupendously crap game... I'm actually almost glad that this has happened, it'll be one less turkey that tops the charts thanks to the clueless games buying public.

crap or not, it sold loads, and it's purpose was to be violent and gory without any real reason. the story, concept and ideology behind it is linked directly in violent behaviour that isn't set outside of our realm... it's being banned because of that

rizzla

I hate censorship, why can't we be allowed to make our own decisions on wheter we want to play it. It's going to be clearly marked 18's anyway.

MooseJam

tman wrote:

Why is everybody getting so worked up about a sequel to a stupendously crap game... I'm actually almost glad that this has happened, it'll be one less turkey that tops the charts thanks to the clueless games buying public.

well i guess you are happy having other people decide what is or isn't acceptable for you to watch

Call Me Jimmy

tman wrote:

Why is everybody getting so worked up about a sequel to a stupendously crap game... I'm actually almost glad that this has happened, it'll be one less turkey that tops the charts thanks to the clueless games buying public.

It's not the game, I won't even buy the game coz it'd probably be muck. It's the fact that it is being banned for bullsh!t reasons.

Br4tPr1nc3

will it be comin out on PC?
if it will then order it from abroad.

o1s1n

Nope, just ps2, Wii and PSP.

The PSP version hasn't actually been mentioned in any website covering the banning issue.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Sent this to the IFCO to add my 2 cents:

To whom it may concern,

I read this morning that the game Manhunt 2 has effectively been banned by the IFCO.

I truly hope that this banning does not create a dangerous precedence where censors unfavourably view all violent video games. Like films, video games can have different target audiences, a child should be allowed watch Shrek and not Saw for example.

With a wider age group now enjoying video games than say 10 years ago, a wider range of games are available. There is a market for games more targeted towards a younger audience such as the Shrek and Cars video game spin-offs, and a market for adult themed games such as Gears of War for the Xbox 360. Some people mistakenly think that games are only bought by children and are outraged to see violent games on the market. For the record, I'm a 24 year old male gamer.

Censors should realise that violent video games can be enjoyed by adults, and as long as they are given the appropriate age rating (e.g. 18+) and the law is enforced prohibiting the sales of these games to underage players, I see no reason why most games targeted to an adult audience should not be given a rating and their release allowed.

I respect the decision of the IFCO and hope a sensible, balanced view will be given to video games in the future.

Thanks,

**** ****.

koneko

tman wrote:

Why is everybody getting so worked up about a sequel to a stupendously crap game... I'm actually almost glad that this has happened, it'll be one less turkey that tops the charts thanks to the clueless games buying public.

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

I'm not particularly interested in Manhunt 2, but as an adult I'm capable of deciding what films and games I want to enjoy. I agree that children should not be playing games like this, at all, and the ratings should be enforced to prevent children from buying them, but should adults be prevented from buying the game aswell? If censorship moves like this are to protect children, then you might aswell not release anything that's intended for adults (no horror, no porn, no films that involve drug use, no violence, etc). Children can not and should not be able to buy these games/films, but adults should be able to decide this for themselves. I think this sets a precedent, and that's worrying. Now it's Manhunt 2, but how will people react when something gets banned that they are interested in? Will you be happy that someone decided on your behalf that you shouldn't play it?

Manhunt 2 has been rated Adults Only in the US, which means you won't be able to buy it in certain stores that do not carry AO (Walmart, Target). It has not been banned, adults can buy the game.

[CrimsonGhost]

"We believe that adults (i.e. persons over 18) should be free, within the law, to choose what they wish to view" - Taken directly from the IFCO website.
I quoted it in the mail I sent them saying I disagreed with their blanket censoring of the game on the grounds that it created a dangerous precedent, and would seem to go against their own stated agenda. Along with infringing on the civil liberties of myself and many other gamers.

I would re-iterate calls from others on this forum for people to contact them if they disagree with the decision, just be sure to state clearly and politely why you feel this is a bad thing(tm).

revileandy

Yes, definitely e-mail them.

I quoted this 2005 study on Video games

http://www.theesa.com/files/2005EssentialFacts.pdf

The age of the average gamer is 30!
62% of gamers are over 18!

Game's like GTA, Manhunt etc are tailor made for this specific market. Surely we can decide for ourselves?

I think they are definitely associating Video Games with children, or with children somehow getting there hands on a copy of Manhunt 2. If that's their main concern they should probably take everything of the shelves thats over 18's.

christophicus

tman wrote:

Why is everybody getting so worked up about a sequel to a stupendously crap game... I'm actually almost glad that this has happened, it'll be one less turkey that tops the charts thanks to the clueless games buying public.

supposedly manhunt 2 got over 90% in Ngamer.

FranchisePlayer

There is some good points here lads I agree with everyone saying that they should be able to buy what they want it is their decision but I personally think those manhunt games just have violence in them for violences sake and if someone mentally unhinged played it it would hev a negative effect>
But I would be royally pissed if bioshock got banned that is a game worth playing:D

crybaby

Why is everybody getting so worked up about a sequel to a stupendously crap game... I'm actually almost glad that this has happened, it'll be one less turkey that tops the charts thanks to the clueless games buying public.

except its a sequel to a really good game backed up by the good reviews it got upon its release, will be emailing IFCO on their decision later on but I have a feeling that maybe its something to do with the level of interaction involved when using the Wii remote ? I mean really how violent could it be otherwise in comparison to the first game or even stuff like GTA or Bully

SNL

http://wii.ign.com/articles/792/792012p1.html

Consider for one moment that in Manhunt 2 you can, Wii remote and nunchuk in hands, use a pair of pliers to clamp onto an enemy's testicles and literally tear them from his body in a bloody display; and if that weren't enough, you'll take one of the poor victim's vertebrae along with his manhood. Or, if you'd prefer, you can use a saw blade and cut upward into a foe's groin and buttocks, motioning forward and backward with the Wii remote as you go.

The inmates spot us and one of them leans forward and urinates through the bars. Another inmate throws his feces at us. As Danny walks farther on, a chair skids out of an open cell and when we get to it and look in, we notice that an inmate has just hung himself. We sight a guard with his back to us. "Go ahead. Try it," Leo says. "See how it feels to own a life."

On Wii, you act out the execution with a series of gestures timed to on-screen cues. If you're cutting into a man's skull with a saw, which you sometimes do, you might have to make a forward/backward motion with the Wii remote,

tbh after reading that i can see why they are worried about this increased level of interactivity,

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

this although i know people should be allowed decide if they want to see it is not neccesery for a game which builds on the senseless violence its being banned for

johnny_ultimate

The funny thing about banning is that it is usually done to keep games / films out of youngsters hands. A quote from an anonymous Florida lawyer (let's call him JT) on the game in question sums up this mindset:

to Prevent the sale of two hyperviolent video games set to be released this year and sold to anyone under 17 years of age.

.

Please bear in mind that the same anonymous lawyer attempted to ban Wendy's from running a Wii promotion because Manhunt was set to be released on the console.

The solution is not an outright ban. It is an adult rating, and a legal obligation on retailers not to let this game fall into the wrong hands. Adults can choose what they want to play, and Im sure any intelligent adult would agree that children should not be allowed to play this game. In America they have the AO rating, which means Adults Only. Unfortunately, this being right wing America, some retailers will refuse to sell said games. IMO, however, this rating sets a good example, as does the 18s - strictly 18s - rating over here. Proper use of said ratings is a vastly improved solution to dealing with controversial content.

That said, the Wii description from IGN does sound unnecessarily excessive, but I still stand by my opinion that anyone over 18 should be allowed to choose whatever the hell they want to play.

SNL

Like most i agree anybody over 18 should be entitled to the choice, but in fairness to the IFCO they know this is the only way they will actually keep from children playing the game, parents will not take responsibility and if there child who is of coursed not influenced by games at all, does accidentely rip someones balls off with a pliers it will then obviously be rockstars fault not theres from keeping the game from there kid.

Nintendo but a parentel lock on the wii for a reason will parents be arsed to use it.

koneko

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

quad_red

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

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

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

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

TEARING off testicles, ripping muscles, removing vertabrae??

WTF?

SNL

koneko wrote:

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

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

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

johnny_ultimate

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

quad_red

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

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

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

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

koneko

SNL wrote:

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

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

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

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

quad_red

johnny_ultimate wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

SNL

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

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

johnny_ultimate

quad_red wrote:

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

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

quad_red

johnny_ultimate wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

MooseJam

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

[CrimsonGhost]

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

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

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

hullaballoo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ciaran500

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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

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

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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

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

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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

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

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

hullaballoo

Ciaran500 wrote:

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

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

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

I don't remember saying that you had.

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

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

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

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

MooseJam

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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

lol no it is not

hullaballoo

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

MooseJam

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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

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

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

Tar.Aldarion

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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

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

Contradiction.

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

SNL

MooseJam wrote:

i can be a sadist and torture fish

can people be done for criminal neglect to pets