Manhunt Controversy

Started by Kero_Co5 pages

Yes, at least until they fix the rating.

The difference, JtotheP, is really in how the violence is handled. Fighting for survival, sure, honorable enough cause. But the fact is that the game entices you to kill "creatively" to cause as much pain as possible. Done for revenge or not, that gameplay principle is decidedly sadistic and is the main issue with the ratings and banning.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Just exactly HOW violent is this game?

what's different from the first?

Originally posted by General Kaliero
The difference, JtotheP, is really in how the violence is handled. Fighting for survival, sure, honorable enough cause. But the fact is that the game entices you to kill "creatively" to cause as much pain as possible. Done for revenge or not, that gameplay principle is decidedly sadistic and is the main issue with the ratings and banning.

Gamespot played the Ps2, and Wii versions, and said the Ps2 version plays just like the first one, so it's obvious the "problem" is the Wii version. It isn't Rockstar's fault Nintendo wanted to use Motion Sensoring, and the player doing the actions with the remote and nunchuk, they shouldn't be punished on something they worked on for at least over a year and a half or longer. People need to look at film as well before doing this, Tarantino's movies are also an example, Grindhouse as well.

Hell, Grindhouse was suppose to get NC-17 the week before it came out, and somehow pops out with an R rating. So it's just people with no real hobbies in life, meanwhile the new election is next year, and the governments are worried about a ****in video game.

I don't see God Of War getting any negative attention as far as "commiting pain" goes and you can rip enemies apart before murdering them, and Prince Of Persia:Two Thrones has the timed kills as well which are pretty violent. I mean you get knives and such in Manhunt, which you can use to stab the enemy, and in Two Towers you can stick one of his blades into their neck and follow it up with a take down before they even actually die.

But then again I'm just ONE SANE chronic video game player, I don't make up a majority of people who are paranoid and love to point the finger, like millions of parents.

Originally posted by JToTheP
.....and Prince Of Persia:Two Towers has the timed kills.....
It's "The Prince of Persia: Two THRONES"

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Sorry, I read the name off my GC case in the dark.

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/manhunt2/news.html?sid=6172967&tag=topslot;title;1

They discuss how the Wii version plays, which is how everyone figured, talk about the sex club set of level(s), and their opinion of the whole situation at the end.

Is this game really that much worse than the first one?

If the first was okay then this one should be too.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

I dunno.. from what I saw manhunt 2 looked more tame than the 1st one... /shrug

but its wierd cuz no ones banned faces of death videos but they'll go after video games?... gotta love double standards

Originally posted by InnerRise
Is this game really that much worse than the first one?

If the first was okay then this one should be too.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

for real

It's all about the Wii Version's motion controls I think. I've seen no confirmations of necrophilia and such.

Just to clarify the UK situation- games such as this are not technically being banned, they are not receiving a certificate.

Without a certificate you simply can't sell it.

But it's perfectly legal to own them.

I know, it's odd.

The whole thing is ****ing dumb.

Rockstar/Take Two should just sell the game independently through their website or something as it is, with all the "controversy" and attention it's getting it would sell better than it ever would have otherwise. The game was going to come out to lukewarm reviews (like the first) and average sales, now, tons of people who would have had no interest in the game would buy it just to see what the controversy is about. Take Two should milk this for all it's worth.

Originally posted by BackFire
The whole thing is ****ing dumb.

Rockstar/Take Two should just sell the game independently through their website or something as it is, with all the "controversy" and attention it's getting it would sell better than it ever would have otherwise. The game was going to come out to lukewarm reviews (like the first) and average sales, now, tons of people who would have had no interest in the game would buy it just to see what the controversy is about. Take Two should milk this for all it's worth.

Thank you, that's what I say they do, sell it through their website, I'd buy it through there.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think that is because there was a time where Nintendo would barely allow anything past PG. They've changed that now, but there's a legacy to it.

Still, despite being a family-orientated console, I do indeed think that Nintendo has parity with Sony in what they will allow now for the Wii. It's just a matter of people making such stuff for it. Nintendo were all up for releasing Manhunt if it had an M rating, which would make it the most extreme thing Nintendo ever released.

Yeah, but people wilfully ignore the change to aid an argument, which is annoying.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I believe the basic questions are these....

Just exactly HOW violent is this game?

And...

How extreme is the violence in the game as oppose to other illustrations of violance in movies, games, comic books, tv shows, and music?

What is in the content of the game to deserve such penalty?

I think you can freeze a banana and hit a guy over the head with it, knocking him out, then you take out a knife, carve out his stomach and hang him by his intestines.

Or just crawl around inback of an enemy And then Sufocate him with a plastic bag.

Originally posted by BackFire
The whole thing is ****ing dumb.

Rockstar/Take Two should just sell the game independently through their website or something as it is, with all the "controversy" and attention it's getting it would sell better than it ever would have otherwise. The game was going to come out to lukewarm reviews (like the first) and average sales, now, tons of people who would have had no interest in the game would buy it just to see what the controversy is about. Take Two should milk this for all it's worth.

Now alot of people are gonna know that when it comes out that they arent getting the full experience, that may put people off too.

Originally posted by AstroFan
Now alot of people are gonna know that when it comes out that they arent getting the full experience, that may put people off too.

And they'll know who to blame.

I'm inbetween. I don't agree on banning it to please whiny adults, especially considering some of the other gruesome forms of media around.

But I don't believe in lowering the rating just to please whiny youth either. If it deserves a rating, that's what it should get. I'm not saying it SHOULD be AO, but rather, if it needs to be that, then it that's the rating it should get.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
I think you can freeze a banana and hit a guy over the head with it, knocking him out, then you take out a knife, carve out his stomach and hang him by his intestines.

Or just crawl around inback of an enemy And then Sufocate him with a plastic bag.

Your kidding me right?

That's in Manhunt 2?

If true, how can anybody be surpraised that it got an AO rating.

lol ninjas arent valiant characters.. they're assassins hired for peoples own selfish causes.. and as many guts they spill and heads they roll.. I never see an AO rating get thrown on them