Take Two Shelves Manhunt 2 350
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'.
Is this a surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah...so? (Score:2, Insightful)
Release it with the adult rating. If the traditional outlets won't sell it, find new ones or sell it online yourselves. If its such an awesome game, where you sell it should make absolutely no difference and buyers will beat a path to your door/website. But if it blows chunks, then the ratings really don't matter.
Oh, Hell No... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:loss (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect them to go "Huh, stealing cars landed me in jail. I don't want to do that again."
Infamy is valuable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:loss (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
Re:loss - MOD CHIPS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Gross... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
No one harmed in production (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Realism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dear Zonk (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dear Zonk (Score:3, Insightful)
Your last post offers a better explanation and is far more informative and insightful and would have been taken more seriously than:
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:loss (Score:3, Insightful)
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 things have happened.
Re:loss (Score:3, Insightful)
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:loss (Score:3, Insightful)
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. I *would* buy music there if they gave me the CHOICE of buying the edited or non-edited versions of cd's.
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 would wonder where the parents were and what types of values they were teaching their kids. I'm sick of people demanding that society shelter children to excuse lack of parenting.
If Take-Two makes the smart choice, it will be to sell the game themselves. Otherwise their only option is to tone it down to meet the ratings standards for their larger distributors. Who knows how much change that will take the to 'artwork' of the game? Probably a significant amount.
Good idea, except how do they make sure that 18+ people buy it? I guess the better question is why even publish on the WII. Most of the games I've seen on it, and to be honest I don't own one so I'm basing my opinion on the stupid WII commercials I see on TV, seem to be aimed for children.
Re:Oh, Hell No... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 things that are more politically correct, then it would be considered censorship. Whether something gets banned by a library, a bookstore, or a video game store, or an entire country, it is still censorship. You don't get to redefine what censorship is.
For more definitive definitions and explanations:
censorship [wikipedia.org]
Video game controversy [wikipedia.org]
PS: I'm not trying to pick on you (with another reply/refutation), but I thought the issue of censorship should be clarified.
Re:loss (Score:3, Insightful)
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 and computer to raise their children for them, and to continue to ignore this fact for the sake of screeching on and on about violence in video games is moronic.
Re:Punishing for previous sins (Score:3, Insightful)
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 the most awful game of all time, as would any other game that allows eating strawberries for points/health.
Sloth? If a person is playing video games to a degree where he isn't a productive member of society, there's something already wrong with him. In any case, GTA doesn't present sloth as you need to act to advance the plot. If you want a prime example of sloth, Don't shoot the puppy [rrrrthats5rs.com].
Envy? GTA's protagonist doesn't really desire the aspects of others.
Greed? Probably, but call me when someone punishes the other game developers for not breaking the "packrat" mentality.
This leaves pride. The release of this game has caused many self-important attention whores use the "video games made me do it" defence, as well as allowing the florida-lawyer-who-shall-not-be-named to perform the peacock defence. In addition, there are those that take satisifaction in bashing rockstar for releasing the violent video games. Because GTA has spread the sin of pride throughout society, I am in full agreement that Rockstar should be crushed into oblivion.
Re:it can't (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called showmanship. Foreign 'art' films have been benefiting from the mock outrage of the conservative British press in this way for years.
Re:No one harmed in production (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Realism (Score:3, Insightful)
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)That's a pretty vague statement in itself. If you are implying that people who already have schizophrenia or clinical depression are more likely to commit murder after playing a video game than not, then this seems unrealistic. From what I have read there is no evidence of this. From my own experiences with people who can't distinguish reality from fantasy, they are not likely to be the types of people to play video games in the first place. They are more likely to indulge in excessive alcohol use or just spend their time ranting at people or stalking them (granted this is anecdotal, but I have met my fair share...). I think it would be more worthwhile to prevent these people from gaining access to actual weapons than to games.There will always be anti-discrimination challenges, and so there should be. It's a matter of finding something that is fair. I don't think there are laws from banning the mentally ill from buying alcohol, but maybe there should be. There are laws discriminating against mentally ill people from making there own decisions in some cases, like in regards to taking care of their children, or even the freedom to walk the streets.
I think it would be better to focus energies on proper social support, psychiatric counseling, and medication; rather than to try to ban everything that could be considered a problem for the mentally ill. So far video games doesn't even come close, as there is no evidence that video games cause mental illness, much less murder.
It would be nice if people would just admit that they want something banned because they find it morally obscene, instead of making up FUD. I'm not sure if you are one of those people, but I hope I helped give you some insight.
Difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 thought it was a good idea? I wasn't aware that lynchings and pogroms were because of Grand Theft Auto. I'm sure the Persians hated it when Alexander the Great got that copy of Age of Empires.
Honestly, I thought the first Manhunt was a pretty fun game. Spooky, engrossing, and it honestly made me NOT want to be hunted for my life in a future dystopia. You know, because of the dying (myself). Also I probably don't want to go work at Black Mesa, enter the Mortal Kombat tournament, or vacation to the Mushroom Kingdom.
But, while we're at it, let's ban violent books, movies, and tv shows because your kids might read, or watch them. I also don't really like reading about serial killers on the newspaper we're using to make masks so let's ban that too. Let's then ban gangsta rap. You know, I think there's also a Kenny Roger's song about rape, an Elvis song about sex, and every Johnny Cash song about getting beat up that we can ban. Roots is pretty violent, so is every episode of America's Funniest Video (all those crotches being hit really culture a society of sexually violent humorists).
Also, Jokey Smurf and Woody Woodpecker are just total assholes.
Or you could, and I'm just putting it out there, not buy it if you don't like it. Somehow you've managed to get by without being forced to sell issues of Oui to kids - you can do it here too!
I'm probably not going to be very interested in Spanish Inquisition: The Game myself. Unless it's on the Wii, boy those heathens are gonna yell then!
Mature ratings (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I'm certain the only reason that this game is getting an Adults Only rating is because of "past sins"...
Re:loss (Score:4, Insightful)
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
And what
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 statement, but it's approximately correct and about the best you could expect if the guy saying it was not an engineer (precisely what you have to do is to understand or reverse-engineer the object code). The "significant and intentional" part of their statement is entirely correct, and the process of creating these things is indeed complex.
There's no lie here, just a PR spokesman who made an insignificant mistake about terminology, and a lot of anti-PR from Jack Thompson (which you apparently fell for).
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 doesn't contain anything that hasn't been in every GTA3 game, and - oh, hey - Manhunt 1. In other words, they already made this game once, and it got rated M, so they had no reason to expect that the sequel would be any different and every reason to think that it would be released in a flurry of free publicity and make a lot of money.
It is not difficult to see that this game has been rated AO for political reasons, probably related to Jack Thompson's campaign against Rockstar, not because of its content (which is nothing new).
WTF is wrong with Rockstar? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Fox hunt, once again (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:loss (Score:2, Insightful)
Studies have continually showed that parents wield more influence in thier kids lives than any other person. So yes, you can blame the parents.
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).
Right. No one ever stole cars before GTA made it "cool." People have been stealing for a long time, for the same reasons. Just because someone is trying to make money doesn't mean their rights aren't bein violated either.
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
How is that different from TT making a game about going and killing some terrorists or drug dealers? Are you going to argue that such a game would suddenly have kids trying to blow up drug dealers? What about a movie that made it look cool to blow up marines with roadside bombs? Did you happen to catch the VA Tech news stories? You don't think they made him look 'cool' to some people?