Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 350 +-   Take Two Shelves Manhunt 2 on Saturday June 23 2007, @04:19PM

Posted by Zonk on Saturday June 23 2007, @04:19PM
from the not-surprising dept.
politics
government
entertainment
games
If you've been following this story so far, it shouldn't come as a shock that Take-Two has shelved Manhunt 2 for the moment, while they decide what to do next. The company is considering its options, and still fully supports the game as a 'work of art'. "Take-Two Interactive Software has temporarily suspended plans to distribute Manhunt 2 for the Wii or PlayStation platforms while it reviews its options with regard to the recent decisions made by the British Board of Film Classification and Entertainment Software Rating Board ... We continue to stand behind this extraordinary game. We believe in freedom of creative expression, as well as responsible marketing, both of which are essential to our business of making great entertainment." Analysts have already started weighing in, with some seeing this as unfairly targeting the GTA-maker for previous 'sins'.
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • loss (Score:5, Funny)

    by mastershake_phd (1050150) on Saturday June 23 2007, @04:24PM (#19622945) Homepage
    If take-two takes a loss on this game it could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech for years to come, and companies willingness to push the envelope.
    • This is not about freedom of speech. This is about freedom to choose what you want to sell. Many 'family' companies don't want to sell games that depict this degree of realisitc violence.

      There were some kids that stole cars after playing GTA because they thought it was cool. What kind of things could we expect those kids to do after playing this game?

      I'm not saying I think this game itself should be banned from the open market and country. THAT would be an issue of freedom of speech. But I understand t
      • Re:loss (Score:5, Informative)

        by VJ42 (860241) * on Saturday June 23 2007, @04:37PM (#19623043)

        If Take-Two makes the smart choice, it will be to sell the game themselves.
        Unfortunately both Sony and Nintendo have declined to licence it, so they can't do that.
        • Unfortunately both Sony and Nintendo have declined to licence it, so they can't do that.

          If there was ever an argument for Mod Chips, this is it! Once I purchase a console it's mine, d@mn it! I should be able to play whatever games I purchase for it, and shouldn't need Sony's or Nintendo's blessing first. That's like buying a Mustang, and then finding that only Ford Brand Gasoline service station nozzles will fit the weird shape of my fuel filler tube.

          I wonder if you could win an anti-trust suit over this? Imagine if your Dell PC would only run software resold through Dell stores. Where does it say on the outside of the PS3 box -- This unit only runs software licensed by Sony. Any other use of this equipment violates the Sony Playstation 3 License Agreement.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2007, @07:15PM (#19624147)

            Once I purchase a console it's mine, d@mn it! I should be able to play whatever games I purchase for it
            It is like buying an operating system and being able to run it only on designated hardware! Wait, shit, I am going to be eaten alive here.

        • Re:loss (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Stellian (673475) on Sunday June 24 2007, @02:41AM (#19626225)

          Unfortunately both Sony and Nintendo have declined to licence it, so they can't do that.
          If they are smart, they can turn this into something big.
          Imagine the promotional campaign:

          Sony won't let you play it... (BANNED on the PS3)
          Microsoft won't let you touch it... (BANNED on the XBox)
          What are they afraid of ?
          www.manhunt2.com

          The sheer curiosity for the forbidden fruit can propel the game in the history books.
            • You can't use it period, at least so far. The DRM for this generation's consoles hasn't been effectively broken yet. It has been worked around from the piracy standpoint, but you still can't run unsigned code. Modchips don't help.

              It's a shame that (almost) the entire console industry consists of closed systems (and this generation it looks increasingly complex to crack). I was hoping that this generation I'd be able to form part of the homebrew community, but it looks like it isn't going to happen anytime soon. Anyone willing to form an *open* team dedicated to opening up the Wii? I'm sure there are ways, but if either no one tries or those who do keep their findings to themselves, nothing gets done.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Just hope that the games for windows branding doesn't take off or you'll see a very similar situation with windows games. Which could always leave us Linux and Mac gamers, but I don't think we've got the numbers (even if all of us bought multiple copies) to support a game costing multiple millions (if not tens of millions) of dollars to develop.

            You'll probably scoff at the idea of games for windows becoming a serious force in PC gaming, especially with so few publishers signing on so far, but stranger thin
      • Re:loss (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Saturday June 23 2007, @04:59PM (#19623215)
        "There were some kids that stole cars after playing GTA because they thought it was cool. What kind of things could we expect those kids to do after playing this game?"

        I expect them to go "Huh, stealing cars landed me in jail. I don't want to do that again."
      • Re:loss (Score:5, Insightful)

        by aztektum (170569) on Saturday June 23 2007, @05:10PM (#19623325)
        There were some kids that stole cars after playing GTA because they thought it was cool.

        So it's GTA's fault these kids were never properly raised? Hm so what happens if they watch on the news that more soldiers in Iraq were hurt/killed by a roadside bomb, decide it sounds cool and took a stab at that action.

        Truth is, this had nothing to do with the game and everything to do with them being irresponsible idiots with irresponsible idiot parents. We have to quit blaming everyone else for our failures otherwise we keep perpetuating the need for a nanny state.
        • Re:loss (Score:4, Insightful)

          by IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496) on Sunday June 24 2007, @01:47AM (#19626057)
          *Sigh*.

          1. Yes, parents are responsible for their kids (I'm a parent myself). However, even the best and the best raised boy in the world *will*, from time to time, come to completely and utterly idiotic ideas, especially if there are some girls standing around, watching and cheering. You can't just blame it ALL to the parents, you know. Being a parent is challanging enough even without having companies like - in this case - Take Two making it even harder by raising car theft to the "cool" level.

          2. If I were the owner of a stolen car, I wouldn't CARE who is to blame - parents of the thief or the company that brought the thief to the idea. You can't just throw away all moral responsibility under the cover of "freedom of speach" (let's be honest here: it's not the freedom of speech Take Two is trying to excercise here, it's the money they are after).

          3. "iraq roadside bomb in the news" is such an inappropriate example that I am wondering how in the world can it be that you found somebody to mod you UP for that! If Take Two made a game where the main objective of the game was to place a roadside bomb in order to kill some marines, THAT would be a good example (although in a direction you wouldn't like). And I can very well imagine the (rightfull!) outcry on the /. against such a "game"!

          And what /. *really* thinks of "freedom of speech" will become obvious within a few minutes after I press the "Submit" button - I'm ready to bet this will be modded down into oblivion! :-)
      • Re:loss (Score:5, Insightful)

        by chanrobi (944359) on Saturday June 23 2007, @05:12PM (#19623345)

        There were some kids that stole cars after playing GTA because they thought it was cool. What kind of things could we expect those kids to do after playing this game?
        There were also kids who stole cars before playing GTA.
        • I'm not even going to bother replying to him. People who don't like something will think up any excuse to get rid of it. His argument has no weight what-so-ever except to those who agree with him. The same with any other logical fallacies. They make good rhetoric for persuading the naive, but nothing more.
        • Re:loss (Score:5, Funny)

          by Anpheus (908711) on Saturday June 23 2007, @11:35PM (#19625497)
          I steal cars WHILE playing GTA!
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        This is not about freedom of speech. This is about freedom to choose what you want to sell. Many 'family' companies don't want to sell games that depict this degree of realisitc violence.

        Well yes, except what happens when "family" companies stop carrying a book because it has bad language, or god forbid sex in it. As it is I specifically avoid stores like Wal-Mart because as an adult I don't want them making choices about what language I should listen to. I don't need someone foisting their beliefes on me
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "There were some kids that stole cars after playing GTA because they thought it was cool. What kind of things could we expect those kids to do after playing this game"

        this kind of rubbish has been debunked many many times... but *sigh* here we go again.

        blaming the present day medium for childrens behavour is FLAWED logic, as this kind of behavour was present prior to video games, and till continue to be there if video games never depicted such acts.

        the problem lays squarely with parents who allow the tv

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Wait a second... the "Diagnosed Mental Disorders" that you mention... do those include the crap like ADD? Or are you talking actual disorders, you know, the ones that don't sound suspiciously like: "drug the kids, they'll behave then!"?

              Also... I assume you actually have a source for the claim that there is a rising occurrence?

              Nephilium... avoiding modding to post...

            • Some assumptions:

              Rising occurrences of Diagnosed Mental Disorders in western civilizations

              1) "Rising occurrences of Diagnosed mental disorders" does not equal "a rising occurrence of mental disorders"
              2) People are living longer in Western civilizations, so one would expect a rise in age related mental disorders (if in fact this is occurring)

              susceptible to the negative imagery and psychological effects of simulation?

              That's a pretty vague statement in itself. If you are implying that people who already have s

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I don't understand how the issue of free speech enters into the equation.

      1) Rockstar makes incredibly violent video game
      2) ESRB does its job and rates the game AO
      3) Sony and Nintendo reaffirm their licensing agreement, saying no AO game will be on their consoles
      4) Rockstar halts production of incredibly violent game

      Could you show me the step where somebody's rights were violated?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Is "punishing for previous sins" unfair?

        In particular, you need to state which one of the sins [wikipedia.org] is being punished.

        Is it Wrath? Attempting to kill everything in GTA will not advance the plot - perhaps even set back the player as he gets reduced back to what's considered the absolute basic equipment and stuff.

        Is it Lust? While it is true that GTA III had a dry-humping sex scene that cannot be obtained through normal in-game means, it's still considered an isolated incident.

        Is it gluttony? Probably not, since Pacman would obviously be considered

  • XBox 360 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Saturday June 23 2007, @04:27PM (#19622967) Homepage

    This whole thing is rather interesting. The Wii version is the one that really catches my interest because of what the controls "add" to the game. I was rather surprised at first when I saw what they were doing. While it fits well, it's rather visceral compared to just pushing a button so I wondered if they would have a tough time.

    Nintendo banning an AO game doesn't surprise me. Sony banning it does surprise me some. But what all of this has really made me wonder is... does Microsoft have an anti-AO game policy? If Manhunt 2 was developed for the 360, would they be able to release it (problems with Target, Wal*Mart, etc selling it aside)?

    The computer is really the only platform where this isn't a problem. If you look at the list of AO games, most of them are on the PC, even if you remove the "Virtual Jenna" type games. Since no-one can stop a game from being published on the PC (you can sell it mail order or download if you have to), this wouldn't be a problem.

    Of course, Take-Two has put already had a target on their heads (unfairly). I can see the outrage over a game like this, seeing as how it makes GTA look tame. As adult as this is, I was really looking forward to reading the reviews of what the Wii controls added to it. There are previews out now, but previews are always positive so it's a bit hard to tell based on that. People called GTA a "murder simulator".. heh.

    Porting consoles isn't easy. But maybe MS could agree to let them publish and get PR win with the mature crowd. But that would probably cause them problems with the family crowd they want.

  • show some goddamn spine and stick to their guns! :)
  • by DrXym (126579) on Saturday June 23 2007, @04:50PM (#19623149)
    While I love Rockstar games as much as the next person, I don't see how they possibly thought they could get away with this game. It's almost as if they're are determined to go bust.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I don't see how they possibly thought they could get away with this game. It's almost as if they're are determined to go bust.

      They must not have seen it coming.

      Think about it. If they suspected it, they would never have developed the game -- what company would voluntarily lose money? Or, for that matter, what company would want to waste their creative energy -- the developers are very creative people who want to get credit for a game being produced. Everyone must have thought they were going to get an M rating.

      Maybe we could do an Ask Slashdot about this -- an interview with Manhunt 2's head of development. Imagine how angr

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      While I love Rockstar games as much as the next person, I don't see how they possibly thought they could get away with this game. It's almost as if they're are determined to go bust.

      Never before has any level of violence, no matter how explicit or gruesome, been reason for an AO rating. Let me repeat that again, in bold and capitals:

      BEFORE NOW, VIOLENCE HAS NEVER BEEN A REASON FOR AN AO RATING

      The only reasons for AO ratings are sex and politics. This game contains neither (as far as I know), and anyway, it

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        it's no surprise if the ESRB were more cautious over a Rockstar product this time, considering what happened over the Hot Coffee issue and how Rockstar lied about it afterwards. Specifically, they said you needed to reverse-engineer the source code, yet you could access it via an Action Replay code on the PS2 version.

        Do you realise that "reverse-engineer the source code" is a reasonably accurate layman's description of the process needed to create an Action Replay code? It's not a perfectly accurate stateme

  • Oh, Hell No... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by moehoward (668736) on Saturday June 23 2007, @04:58PM (#19623201)

    Hell no. Political Correctness(tm) was NEVER a slippery slop to censorship. Gosh. Those Chinese sure do suck for their Censorship(tm). We don't suck. We have REAL reasons!!!! I mean, Think About the Children(tm).

    Un-frickin-believeable. For you purist-morons, yes, this was both governmental and economic censorship. My belief will always be that pornography is the line. That is to say, sexual contact and insinuated sexual contact when one or both sides' "stuff" is involved. And, it even has to be REAL for that. Not animated.

    I am a parent. I am a parent to my kids and I take responsibility for what they see and experience. I have the power to control a heck of a lot of what they are exposed to and I exercise that power. Sucks for the parents who don't, but don't put that on me via government. I'll handle my own situation and you handle yours.

    If stuff happens to be viewed or experienced by my kids out of my control "area", then we'll deal with it. But, my kids absolutely 100% won't be "damaged" because of it. Show me one person of us 6 billion who hasn't had a perfect go of it. I can only say that now after Paris Hilton got sent away, but before that, I was 99.999999% sure.

    Moe
      • It is censorship because it is not being released because of its content. This censorship comes from both political and market forces. The British government is censoring it (through its ratings system), and the console manufacturers are censoring it by not allowing it to be licensed on their machines.

        It may not be popularly known as censorship by people who don't like the game (and I can presume have never played the game), but yes it is censorship.

        I'm sure if this topic involved something about banning th
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Saturday June 23 2007, @04:59PM (#19623219)
    Release it on the PC.
     
  • Do somthing about it (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tainek (912325) on Saturday June 23 2007, @05:45PM (#19623545)
    If your British, let the goverment know, right here : http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/videogames/ [pm.gov.uk]

    England Prevails!
  • by bakura121 (1117149) on Saturday June 23 2007, @05:59PM (#19623669) Homepage
    Here are the definitions of M and AO from the ESRB Ratings Guide [esrb.org]:

    "MATURE Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language."

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


    I find it hard to believe that this game could not be classified as an M rated game. Both games require you to be at least 17 years old (18 in the case of AO). I highly doubt this game has "graphic sexual content", so it all comes down to whether the violence is "intense violence", or "prolonged scenes of intense violence".

    The rating system is really not very well thought out. There should be some kind of process to appeal the decision and have it re-reviewed by a different group.

    Come on... IT'S A GAME! They need to lighten up. I probably wouldn't want my kids playing this game, but if it's rated M then that means that you have to be 17 to play it anyways. Hold the stores responsible for upholding that responsibility, just as movie theaters are responsible for upholding the movie ratings by not allowing minors in to see R rated movies.

    And for all those articles that talk about the game not being for 'families'.... those people need to get a life. Nobody is trying to claim that 'Manhunt 2' is a 'family friendly' game. It's a game for adults, and it should be available for adults to purchase. I hate it when other people decide what is best for me.
  • So, seriously... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dave Parrish (1050926) <wizardmon5dude@hotmail.com> on Saturday June 23 2007, @06:05PM (#19623713) Homepage
    What is everyone so upset about? Half of the comments on here are either anti-ESRB or anti-USA. Why?

    Last I checked, the US hadn't banned the game. So there's no reason for that.

    And the ESRB didn't ban it, either. The ESRB's website says a game gets an AO is it has "prolonged scenes of intense violence," and, from my understanding, if you "charge up" (presumably hold a button or something) for a kill, it will take longer to do (it will be more complex, or brutal). In other words, it will be PROLONGED.

    If you have hostility for this game not being released, blame either Nintendo, Sony, or the countries that are banning it. The ESRB rated the game appropriately and were not directly involved in it not hitting shelves.
  • by jshriverWVU (810740) on Saturday June 23 2007, @07:03PM (#19624055)
    I'm guessing they were just in the the design phase and not in full production. I can't imagine ANY company going through R&D, prototyping, full development, testing, and have a product at production quality then stop right before the software get's pressed.

    That would be like an automotive company spending 100million to develop a new car, have the parts done and the factory with the ON switch just waiting to be pressed and then throwing in the towel. That kind of stuff doesn't happen, and as a shareholder I'm sure someone is going to be upset with them for this.

  • Thrill Kill, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)

    by NorQue (1000887) on Sunday June 24 2007, @03:46AM (#19626411)
    I'm surprised you people are so upset about Manhunt 2 being canned. Anyone remembers Thrill Kill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrill_Kill [wikipedia.org] ? Same old, same old... and I bet a lot of you people played it anyways. Anyone wants to bet when Manhunt 2 hits the internet, should it *really* not be published? You'll all be playing it by the end of this year, most likely.
  • by 7Prime (871679) on Sunday June 24 2007, @06:26PM (#19630825) Homepage Journal
    They whine about freedom of expression, creativity, and being free to push the bounderies... but I don't buy it. All they've ever done is push ONE VERY SPECIFIC, and incredibly OBVIOUS social boundery. It's not original, creative, or anything of the sort. It's simply sensationalistic. If they REALLY were a creative company, one game would feature horrific violence, and the other would be an incrediblely innocent game, the next would be something completely different. But no, everything we've seen out of them at least has this looming undertone of mass violence. Even Bully (which I consider completely acceptable) could be defined as an alegory to criminal human nature. Why are Rockstar so intent on pushing the concept that humans are so evil? If they're trying to tell us some moral lesson, then they've done a VERY BAD JOB in getting it across.

    This isn't about creativity, it's the opposite... it's chosing one really divisive topic and sticking with it, without any given reason, other than it being purely sensationalistic. Fuck em, as far as I'm concerned, I really fucking hate this kind of unthinking, lazy, sensationalism. I'm a very strong supporter of Civil Liberties, and that's actually WHY I'm so upset... it's companies like this that are almost TRYING to get limits put on our civil liberties.

    No sense of class, no sense of taste, just pick the most divisive things you can think of, and make big $$$$. Why are Slashdotters so quick to put up with this line of thinking? Sure, maybe you can defend it on principal, but you have to admit that what Rockstar ARE is really against everything that slashdot stands for.
  • by jandersen (462034) on Monday June 25 2007, @03:44AM (#19633461)
    This is like the British debate about fox hunting. First a bit of background - the traditional fox hunt in Britain was performed by a large number of people on horses and a large number of beagle hounds chasing after a fox until it was so physically exhausted that it simply gave up, at which point the dog would tear it apart while it was still alive. This was, I believe, the last remnant of the 'Royal Hunt', which was something European kings enjoyed doing; only, they would chase a stag, which would at the end just stand there, waiting for the sword to cut it down. It is said that the carcass was more or less just discarded, because the meat wouldn't be any good to eat after a chase like that. In other words, this was a kind of sport that was not only cruelty just for the fun of it, but also utterly pointless. The same could be said about the fox hunt - it was cruelty for fun, and it was pointless, because it had no discernible effect on the number of foxes.

    A lot of stupid nonsense has been said in that debate; those in favour of fox hunting would say 'It's traditional', and 'It's necessary to regulate the number of foxes', whereas the other side would have their own, rather emotional nonsense. But what it boils down to in the end is: do we, as society, want to encourage the kind of mentality that sees meaningless cruelty as 'fun'?

    The same goes for violent games, especially a thing like Manhunt 2. Yes, 'Freedom of speech' is important, and 'Simply don't buy it if you can't stomach it' - that all sounds very convincing, but at the end of the say - do we, as society, want to encourage the kind of mentality that enjoys meaningless cruelty and casual murder? I know that I don't; and although it is important to allow people to make up their own mind and to protect minorities, it doesn't make sense to protect minorities to the extent that it harms the majority. And it does harm the majority - the majority of parents don't want their children to be lured into that kind of mindset, just like they don't want their children to get into contact with other things they consider harmful; and as a parent YOU are the one that is responsible for your children, and therefore YOU have the right to decide what your children are exposed to.

    So what is more important: 'Freedom of Speech' used as an excuse by a company out to make money, or the right to bring up our children according to what we believe is best? A company like Take Two willing to go right to the limit of what is legal and acceptable, and if we don't show where that limit is, they are not going to stop; they'll just wade on, as long as it makes a buck for them.
      • The post is tagged as "games" and "politics". Manhunt 2 is a game, and the decision to suspend it's marketing is based on the political decisions made in Britain. Relevant IMHO.
          • This should have been your first post:

            The British Board of Film Classification isn't a government agency.

            Look, every human decision that affects other people is political. This is a deep insight, as it opens new avenues to study the way society functions. But it can be easily abused if used shallowly. Let's keep the politics section focused on governments and their agents, lest it becomes inundated with trivial X-Makes-A-Decision-That-Affects-Others type stories.

            Your last post offers a better explanation an

      • Re:Dear Zonk (Score:5, Insightful)

        This story has nothing to do with politics.

        Actually it does have to do with politics, particularly with free speech. Manhunt 2 is being shelved because of an AO rating which some believe to be based more on politicals than actual content. So, in that sense, Politics is a more appropriate section than games. Just as if a studio were targetted with a controversial NC-17 rating and stopped distribution of the film as a result.

        If I wanted to read about games, I wouldn't have set my preferences to hide all the stories.

        Then don't read it. You are actually NOT udner any obligation to read every story that appears on your slashdot page. No, no, really, its true. You can choose to skip over a story.

        You're constant misclassifications circumvent my preference.

        You do realize that, based on your UID alone that there are 841,676 other users, right? And that most would find this to be an appropriate classification? In other words, slashdot as a whole is more important than your preferences.

        You are a douche bag.

        While that could well be true, based on the little interaction I've had with him, I'd doubt it.

        I hope you die,

        In hindsight, I bet you're thinking that this might be a bit harsh. If not, well, ironically enough, you are actually the target audience for Manhunt 2!

        but barring that, I hope you stop foisting your obsession with video games on the clearly uninterested.

        Based on the number of comments this and related stories have garnered, I'd have to say that the interested outweigh the uninterested.

      • From the IGN preview of Manhunt 2 for the Wii:

        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. But believe i

    • Re:Yeah...so? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chandon Seldon (43083) on Saturday June 23 2007, @05:13PM (#19623357) Homepage

      The problem is that it's illegal for them to release it. Both Sony and Nintendo require that all gamees released on their platforms be approved by them (it's part of the contract a developer must sign to get a dev kit). In some countries it's even more illegal because selling an unrated game is prohibited.

      All I really have to say is "Ha, Ha! That's what you get for developing for a proprietary platform".

    • Re:Gross... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by matthewcraig (68187) on Saturday June 23 2007, @05:39PM (#19623503)
      You don't understand the "freedom of speech issue" about this game, because it falls on the dark side of YOUR morality line. What if someone saw your Quake or your Doom game in the same way that you presently see Manhunt 2? Would you still be so unconcerned with a decision to ban the Quake? Of course you would be outraged, and yet there would be someone else saying the ban is justified because Quake is a murder simulator.

      Freedom of speech doesn't become an "issue" only when something you like is banned, it becomes an issue when the things you don't like are banned and precedence is made. When someone else is making the decision on what is appropriate and not appropriate for your viewing, you are living in a non-free society.

      I'm not defending the game. It sounds gross to me, too, and I wouldn't even consider purchasing it. However, I defend people's RIGHT to purchase it. Whether this is a true censorship issue is questionable, because people purchasing PS or Wii know these systems will not play Adult Only content. It's just one more example why it's better to purchase only open standards.
    • by akintayo (17599) on Saturday June 23 2007, @05:42PM (#19623521)
      The local library stocks subject matter that I find offensive, including material that project certain people as subhuman. I find this as offensive as child abuse dvds, but I do realize that unlike child abuse dvds no one was actually harmed in producing these movies. And I think that is the distinction we must make, this is why a movie depicting the rape of a child is not equivalent to a child porn video. As in the latter case an actual crime is being committed. Since these games do not require the recreation of actual scenes they deserve more leeway in their depictions, as no one is being harmed. The images projected in Manhunt 2 and other games are merely pictures, and not particularly realistic ones. There is no actual difference between Manhunt 2 where one slaughters oddly shaped representations of people and Space Invaders.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The images projected in Manhunt 2 and other games are merely pictures, and not particularly realistic ones. There is no actual difference between Manhunt 2 where one slaughters oddly shaped representations of people and Space Invaders.

        Let's be honest here.

        The graphics of Manhunt 2 are not the graphics of Custer's Revenge.

        The Wii controller manipulated as a pair of pliers to rip out a man's testicles is not the same experience as the adolescent button-mashing sex play of Hot Coffee.

    • How is this any different from watching Hostel, or playing Resident Evil? What makes escaping from a mental facility different from Ryu Hayabusa killing ninjas? There were hockey mask wearing enemies in that game...

      A game isn't a cause for a culture, it's the effect of a culture. Despite what people think, the culture isn't all that different now than it once was. Was there a point in time where there wasn't violent crime? When was that super special time that we didn't kill each other whenever we thou
      • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Columcille (88542) * on Saturday June 23 2007, @06:11PM (#19623749) Homepage
        What if you are a video game distributor or a video game producer and you decide you don't want to be associated with this game? What if you are part of a ratings board and you decide the violence in the game warrants a high rating? Do any of these have the power to say and do the things they say and do? Should the ratings board give the game a lower rating just because of a silly claim that the game is fine art? Should game distributors be forced to sell games they don't want to sell? Should stores be forced to sell games they don't want to sell or games that will make customers exercise a free choice to shop elsewhere? Nothing in this instance has anything to do with censorship. It's all about organizations and companies making their own decisions in response to this game.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Throw in a few suicide bombers and it will be a smash hit.

      I dunno, it might bomb.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Why do I have this weird feeling that, in the long rung, it will be released internationally? The extra publicity will make up for lack of UK sales (which will probably still be considerable via import). Maybe, they'll get around it in the UK with slightly different in game art (see Carmageddon or Fallout).

        It's called showmanship. Foreign 'art' films have been benefiting from the mock outrage of the conservative British press in this way for years.
Truth can wait; he's used to it.