NYT: Manhunt 2 Hands-on "can't hold a gutbucket to top-notch movie gore"

[PyroGamer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/arts/25manh.html?ei=5088&en=ec4fd372982463d3&ex=1340424000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1182795068-Z5i6Ykvcdx5EAUL6ZvwFuw

According to the New York Times movies like SAW and Hostel are "way ahead" of any of the gore seen in Manhunt 2.

I did not find Manhunt 2 particularly frightening or sickening, more like a violent interactive cartoon.
He goes on to describe far more realistic and gruesome scenes in the latest "torture porn" films, of which "manhunt 2 can't hold a gutbucket to".

The game is aimed at players 17 and older, Mr. Zelnick said, noting that the average age of consumers who play the company’s games was 33.

“This is still animation,” he added. “It’s not photo-realistic. It’s not live action. And compared to an R-rated movie, which is intended for 17 and above, like ‘Saw’ or ‘Hostel,’ it’s actually pretty tame. But you make your own conclusions when you play the game.”

I did. American raters, somewhat surprisingly, don’t actually play the games. Instead they base their decisions on a videotape compilation, a kind of highlight reel, of the bloodiest or raciest scenes. But after playing I found the Adult Only rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board, an independent industry group, entirely reasonable. The rating essentially killed Manhunt 2, because Sony and Nintendo have said they won’t allow AO games on their systems. (In Britain the film classification board, citing extreme violence, refused to rate it. The denial of a rating makes it illegal to sell the game there.) The first Manhunt game, which also drew attention for violent scenes, was released in 2003.

But given the structure of Manhunt 2 it should be fairly simple for Take-Two and the boards to reach an accommodation and release a redacted version rated M for Mature in time for the December holiday season. Whenever it does ship, Manhunt 2 is likely to enjoy a level of public awareness (and potentially sales) that it could never have attained without the ban. That of course may well have been what its makers intended all along.

The idea in Manhunt 2 is that you, the player, control Dr. Daniel Lamb, a young doctor who once worked for something called the Project. At the start of the game you wake up under mysterious circumstances as an inmate in an insane asylum where the security system has malfunctioned. Your job is to avoid the guards searching for you, escape and figure out how you got there.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the game is how conventional most of it is. You look around for tools like a crowbar to open a door, and figure out small puzzles (like throwing a brick through a window to enter a building). Of course there’s creepy music and wacky leather fetish outfits, but that’s de rigueur. The story was suitably interesting though not overly creative.

The problem is that in addition to just hitting a bad guy a couple of times with a bat, there are other options, like slitting his throat, sticking a scythe in his nose and yanking his head back. Rather than stab him with a shard of glass, you can stab him, wrap a cord around his neck, stuff his head in a toilet and smash him on the back of the head. With the motion-sensitive controller on Nintendo’s Wii, that means jerking and shaking the controllers around in vague imitation of the mutilations on screen. There are three levels of executions, with escalating levels of savagery: Hasty, Violent and Gruesome.

But these execution scenes are optional and don’t seem to last more than 10 seconds. If a highlight reel was largely made up of such clips, it could give a skewed impression of the overall game. Instead players spend most of their time thinking about how to move and avoid being swarmed by guards.

The intensity of the execution scenes seems to warrant the AO rating. Then again, simply eliminating the top tier or two of executions might go a long way toward reconciling Take-Two with the ratings boards.

I did not find Manhunt 2 particularly frightening or sickening, more like a violent interactive cartoon. But I’m used to games. As Mr. Zelnick suggested, I wanted to see how the game stood up against the latest horror films.

After visits to two Manhattan DVD stores I found an R-rated version of “Saw II.” (For “Hostel and “Saw III” I could find only the more extreme unrated cuts.) With some trepidation I put it on and the first scene was of a young man in a bleak cell being taunted to find a key by digging into his own oozing eye socket. If he does not yank out the key in 60 seconds, his head will be crushed in a spiked metal “death mask” around his neck.

Later, after someone else is burned to death in an industrial oven, a character cuts a hole into the back of his own neck. As the camera cut in for a loving view of the gaping wound, it was clear why the genre is sometimes called “torture porn.” Unlike the digital models in Manhunt 2, these were real people.

Banning the original version of Manhunt 2 may be a good way to demonstrate that the industry can police itself. Side by side, though, movies seem to be way ahead of games in delivering top-notch gore.

[Puffa469]

I remember in a recent interview that an ESRB rep even admitted that games are held to a higher/tougher standard than movies. They admitted that what would earn a game an AO rating, would only be rated an 'R' if it were a movie. Which is total bullshit.

[trq]

I remember in a recent interview that an ESRB rep even admitted that games are held to a higher/tougher standard than movies. They admitted that what would earn a game an AO rating, would only be rated an 'R' if it were a movie. Which is total bullshit.

That's absolutely true, especially when it comes to sex. Real boobies? R, or maybe even a PG-13 if played for laughs. Virtual boobies? M, flirting with an AO.

[mwynn]

I remember in a recent interview that an ESRB rep even admitted that games are held to a higher/tougher standard than movies. They admitted that what would earn a game an AO rating, would only be rated an 'R' if it were a movie. Which is total bullshit.
That would be because games are interactive. A movie is watching a violent act, a game performing a violent act.

[botticus]

Seriously, the average age of people who play Take Two games is 33? I know the mythical "average gamer's" age is increasing, but I still know few enough people my age (26) that play video games, let alone those old enough to boost the average age that high.

[Scrubking]

The sad part is that even though the ESRB has set the gaming industry back 20 years for banning Manhunt 2 and censoring trailers no one seems to give a shit.

Destructoid started the gamers for gaming thing, but no one else has even attempted to do anything. All the publications talk crap, but never ask the tough questions or get after people like the head of the ESRB for doing shit that is clearly biased against the industry she is supposed to be helping.

I guess gamers will care when it's too late and M rated games are a thing of the past. All those "hardcore" gamers who are constantly bitching about mature games are going to be shit out of luck in the near future. And Sony and Microsoft are going to have to change their "gaming geared towards a mature audience" bullshit too. They should just change it now since they don't allow AO games, but they will have to change it eventually.

It sucks to sit here and feel so helpless watching the hobby you love go to shit because the powers that be would rather give in to the fear mongers than stand up for themselves.

[the3rdkey]

That would be because games are interactive. A movie is watching a violent act, a game performing a violent act.

Blah, blah, blah. Stupid argument.

[schuerm26]

Blah, blah, blah. Stupid argument.

Stupid argument? How about stupid comment. That IS the argument.

One you are watching, one you are virtually doing. BIG difference.

[the3rdkey]

Stupid argument? How about stupid comment. That IS the argument.

One you are watching, one you are virtually doing. BIG difference.

So what is the affect of watching porn and beating the old chimp? There is no difference.

[Strell]

So what is the affect of watching porn and beating the old chimp? There is no difference.

Somehow it's ironic this is your retort.

And funny. It's also funny.

[Zen Davis]

PVance@esrb.org

As I've said, I'm personally boycotting any new games and will only buy used stuff until the ESRB comes off this power trip.

[mwynn]

PVance@esrb.org

As I've said, I'm personally boycotting any new games and will only buy used stuff until the ESRB comes off this power trip.
How would that change anything?

[Vegan]

That would be because games are interactive. A movie is watching a violent act, a game performing a violent act.

Playing a game is NOT performing a violent act, it's pushing buttons. It's this line of thinking that gets us into these messes in the first place.

[Apossum]

Stupid argument? How about stupid comment. That IS the argument.

One you are watching, one you are virtually doing. BIG difference.


and the word "virtually" completely nullifies the argument you're getting at. sounds like you're about to align yourself with good 'ol Jack thompson by saying that these "murder simulators" are going to cause average Joe and little Timmy to freak out and commit the real thing.


there's little difference between virtually shooting people to reach your goal than watching the glorious, virtuous, all American action hero shoot people to solve his problem.

Bottom Line: if you play Manhunt 2 and don't understand the concept of "anti-hero" and believe that this is the right way to proceed with things in daily life, even though the game takes place in an abandoned mental institution, then you were probably pre-disposed to fuck up society somehow beforehand.

Games don't convince rational people to do stupid shit, because they understand it's a game.


ON TOPIC: great article, this needs exposure. if there was some kind of focused movement to get the ESRB to change its ways, I'd be all over that. (no, I don't mean petitions and 'lol boycott')

[mwynn]

Playing a game is NOT performing a violent act, it's pushing buttons. It's this line of thinking that gets us into these messes in the first place.
No what starts these messes is people not voting, and not standing up for themselves.

To me and only speaking for myself there is a difference between watching a movie or a sport. Then playing a video game.

It has nothing to do with what someone may or may not do in the real world.

In the gaming world my actions have an affect on the game. In a movie things play out no matter what I do.

[MarioColbert]

Since there is no solid medical evidence suggesting either possibility, we can argue these hypotheticals into oblivion. Yes, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that video games are capable of increasing agression in children and young adults. There have been studies that also connected video game with agresson in adults. However there isn't one that attempts to analyze long-term effects.

Considering how many Americans (in particular) are attempting to excuse every single character flaw with a "condition" or blame towards some "exterior source," I can not see that I'm surprised with the fact that the video game industry will have a target painted upon it sooner rather than later. Until I see some decisive medical evidence that swinging a Wiimote and a nunchuck is in some way different than pressing buttons when anger and violent tendencies are concerned, I'll keep my skepticism.

However, do keep in mind that there is more to the health and safety debate than what a few of pro-gamer websites will have you believe. Before you start making claims about how juvinile crime rate went down in the past ten years, or how inconclusive studies somehow diminish the conclusive ones, you might wanna look all that shit up. The one thing we don't need is to set up our arguments like Jack Thompson does, and by that I mean: with clearly fabricated and untrue statements throughout.

[botticus]

Did everyone overlook the part where the writer says the AO rating is reasonable? The only issue here is the different standards for different mediums.

And I don't think anyone was arguing that the interactive nature of video games are going to make you more violent and try to kill someone, its just an added level of immersion that can make things more "real" than watching them on TV, therefore stricter ratings.

Is it strange that whenever a Jack Thompson topic comes up, people argue against him by mentioning the fact that the industry polices itself with the ESRB so his arguments are irrelevant, but now that the ESRB does things we don't agree with, we accuse people who support the ESRB of being Jacko-lovers?

[MarioColbert]

And I don't think anyone was arguing that the interactive nature of video games are going to make you more violent and try to kill someone, its just an added level of immersion that can make things more "real" than watching them on TV.
Uh... Did you miss the recent news about Wii being the world first "true" murder simulator with Manhunt 2 running on it? You STAB and you CHOP and you MAKE THE GESTURES. It is dark, sinister, and evil. It will turn kids into zombies. It will cause mass genocide accross the USA. Remember Columbine? And that Virginia Tech? What about, uh, that Georgian dude who tried to assasinate president Bush? No? Well, those all happened. And with Manhunt 2 on a Wii, it'll be worse. Expect nazis riding on the dinosaurs with laser guns attached to their heads. Whose heads? Dinosaurs. Nazis. Everyone. It'll be nine rings of hell on earth, and Rockstar will be there, in the deepest Bolgia, nonchalantly microwaving animals.

The horror. The HORROR.


Is it strange that whenever a Jack Thompson topic comes up, people argue against him by mentioning the fact that the industry polices itself with the ESRB so his arguments are irrelevant, but now that the ESRB does things we don't agree with, we accuse people who support the ESRB of being Jacko-lovers?

Yes, it is. (Bravo.)

[PyroGamer]

A movie is watching a violent act, a game performing a violent act.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.

I do hope you're fucking joking.


Playing a game is "performing a violent act". You have got to be kidding me.

Is it strange that whenever a Jack Thompson topic comes up, people argue against him by mentioning the fact that the industry polices itself with the ESRB so his arguments are irrelevant, but now that the ESRB does things we don't agree with, we accuse people who support the ESRB of being Jacko-lovers?
No, it's not at all. Critisizing what the ESRB did is perfectly reasonable.

The ESRB's job isn't to censor games, it's to rate them appropriately. Giving a game an AO rating when comparable content in other mediums is well within an R rating, is not doing its job.

[mwynn]

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

I do hope you're fucking joking.


Playing a game is "performing a violent act". You have got to be kidding me.
So you are telling me, that in GTA blowing up cars and planes is not a violent act within the gaming world?

[daminion]

The real villian here is Nintendo, Sony & Microsoft.

The ESRB is just doing their self-proclaimed job and rating the games that they are given. You can complain all you want that they hold games to a higher standard than movies, but that's their choice.

Instead write your letters to Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Make the letters mature and tell them that as an adult you would like to play the same types of games on your consoles that PC users do.

Tell them that you do not need them to police what you can play. That as an adult you can do this by yourselves.

I'm more upset that they don't feel that I'm a good enough parent to keep these titles out of my kid's hands.

Zen Davis had the best comment. Stop buying new games. Tell them with your pocketbook that you do not agree with their policy of banning AO games. In the end, that's the only thing that will make them listen.

[Apossum]

Is it strange that whenever a Jack Thompson topic comes up, people argue against him by mentioning the fact that the industry polices itself with the ESRB so his arguments are irrelevant, but now that the ESRB does things we don't agree with, we accuse people who support the ESRB of being Jacko-lovers?


are they not after the same thing in this case? c'mon, "torture porn" is fine for audiences 17 or older, but when you have to hold a button for 3 seconds in order to view it first, it's suddenly too far. you have to hit the play button on a dvd player, as well as fast forward and rewind, is that interactive as well?

what reason is there for limiting the content of games so much more than movies other than fear of imitation? I think that's the slippery slope that this all points to. either that or a really screwed up and contradictory moral view. the whole "boob in a game/dry humping minigame = AO" thing is just as bad, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it...again.

Just wondering what so called "interactivity" brings to the table. maybe the Wii version is close to actually simulating the act, but the standard controller is not what I'd consider a simulation.




sure the writer agreed with the AO rating, but also worked in a nice argument against it into his article (which was not very clear because of this.)

[Scrubking]

Did everyone overlook the part where the writer says the AO rating is reasonable? The only issue here is the different standards for different mediums.

And I don't think anyone was arguing that the interactive nature of video games are going to make you more violent and try to kill someone, its just an added level of immersion that can make things more "real" than watching them on TV.

Is it strange that whenever a Jack Thompson topic comes up, people argue against him by mentioning the fact that the industry polices itself with the ESRB so his arguments are irrelevant, but now that the ESRB does things we don't agree with, we accuse people who support the ESRB of being Jacko-lovers?

AO reasonable? In a perfect world where AO doesn't mean insta-Ban or dirty filthy hardcore pornography, yes. Of course we know what kind of world we live in. Besides that guy sounded like he wanted to have it both ways. AO being reasonable while pointing out the obvious double standard. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

And the " bu bu bu it's Teh Interactive" argument that people seem to want to throw at this and which the ESRB uses to justify it's censorship is indeed stupid. First of all the ESRB doesn't play games - they watch them on a video in order to rate them. Secondly, there is not a shred of evidence that proves content in a game is more impactful than in a movie. I don't know about anyone else, but I've never been playing a game and said "Wow, killing this guy is more disturbing than in a movie."

And the ESRB may not love Jack Thompson, but can you honestly tell me that they aren't pandering to him and groups like the NIMF? Anyway, you don't need to bring up the ESRB to argue against Jack - his arguments defeat themselves.

[botticus]

If JT and the ESRB were after the same thing, Bully and GTA:SA would have AO ratings and you wouldn't have had the chance to play them.

[mwynn]

are they not after the same thing in this case? c'mon, "torture porn" is fine for audiences 17 or older, but when you have to hold a button for 3 seconds in order to view it first, it's suddenly too far. you have to hit the play button on a dvd player, as well as fast forward and rewind, is that interactive as well?

what reason is there for limiting the content of games so much more than movies other than fear of imitation? I think that's the slippery slope that this all points to. either that or a really screwed up and contradictory moral view. the whole "boob in a game/dry humping minigame = AO" thing is just as bad, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it...again.

Just wondering what so called "interactivity" brings to the table. maybe the Wii version is close to actually simulating the act, but the standard controller is not what I'd consider a simulation.




sure the writer agreed with the AO rating, but also worked in a nice argument against it into his article (which was not very clear because of this.)
The simple fact that the on screen character is useless without your input makes it interactive. Unless you press the buttons, CJ will not steal that car. Or Peyton will not throw that TD.

Flip that to the big screen or small screen, and those actions take place without you doing a thing.

[Brak]

The simple fact that the on screen character is useless without your input makes it interactive. Unless you press the buttons, CJ will not steal that car. Or Peyton will not throw that TD.

Flip that to the big screen or small screen, and those actions take place without you doing a thing.
So the actors in these films are committing acts of violence, then? Because, by your Stretch Armstrong logic, they are.

[Apossum]

The simple fact that the on screen character is useless without your input makes it interactive. Unless you press the buttons, CJ will not steal that car. Or Peyton will not throw that TD.

Flip that to the big screen or small screen, and those actions take place without you doing a thing.


without pressing play, schwarzenegger will not kill the Predator.

*someone* has to "interact" with the violence in order to make it happen. that's kind of a minor technicality that I don't place too much importance in, I'm more concerned with the double standard at hand.

[dragonreborn23]

Since there is no solid medical evidence suggesting either possibility, we can argue these hypotheticals into oblivion. Yes, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that video games are capable of increasing agression in children and young adults. There have been studies that also connected video game with agresson in adults. However there isn't one that attempts to analyze long-term effects.

Considering how many Americans (in particular) are attempting to excuse every single character flaw with a "condition" or blame towards some "exterior source," I can not see that I'm surprised with the fact that the video game industry will have a target painted upon it sooner rather than later. Until I see some decisive medical evidence that swinging a Wiimote and a nunchuck is in some way different than pressing buttons when anger and violent tendencies are concerned, I'll keep my skepticism.

However, do keep in mind that there is more to the health and safety debate than what a few of pro-gamer websites will have you believe. Before you start making claims about how juvinile crime rate went down in the past ten years, or how inconclusive studies somehow diminish the conclusive ones, you might wanna look all that shit up. The one thing we don't need is to set up our arguments like Jack Thompson does, and by that I mean: with clearly fabricated and untrue statements throughout.

I understand your skepticism. I feel that way as well. The funniest thing about this thread and others like it, is all the people comparing movies and videogames. Essentially what most gamers are saying is that because all the violence and porn in movies isn't policed, then videogames shouldn't be policed either. I just think we should be holding the movie industry to a harsher standard, rather than lowering our standards for videogames. I guess that sounds pretty stupid in a culture that promotes free speech over common sense.

I know I'll get destroyed for that last line, but I'm not saying ban everything. I'm just saying that their is a line that's crossed when violence to progress the story simply becomes snuff.

[mwynn]

And the " bu bu bu it's Teh Interactive" argument that people seem to want to throw at this and which the ESRB uses to justify it's censorship is indeed stupid. First of all the ESRB doesn't play games - they watch them on a video in order to rate them. Secondly, there is not a shred of evidence that proves content in a game is more impactful than in a movie. I don't know about anyone else, but I've never been playing a game and said "Wow, killing this guy is more disturbing than in a movie."

No one said anything about the impact of the situation. You just pinpointed my entire point, the ESRB looks at the interactive qualities of the game. Since no one has played Manhunt 2, there is no way to judge if the rating is justified or not.

[mwynn]

So the actors in these films are committing acts of violence, then? Because, by your Stretch Armstrong logic, they are.
Of course they are within the world of the movie. Or maybe Brandon Lee was playing dead.

[botticus]

without pressing play, schwarzenegger will not kill the Predator.Ah, but if you press play and leave the room, the Predator will still die. If you press start on your PS2 and leave, it will sit there waiting for you to choose your save file.

Not sure where to take that one, so enjoy. :D

[Brak]

Of course they are within the world of the movie. Or maybe Brandon Lee was playing dead.
No, no. I'm correlating their fictional actions to the real world, much like you are.

[mwynn]

Ah, but if you press play and leave the room, the Predator will still die. If you press start on your PS2 and leave, it will sit there waiting for you to choose your save file.

Not sure where to take that one, so enjoy. :D
I got stuck on that one also. The movie will still progress rather you are in the room or not. Maybe it is on cable or network tv, then all you can do is change the channel. Yet the predator still blows up.

[Apossum]

Ah, but if you press play and leave the room, the Predator will still die. If you press start on your PS2 and leave, it will sit there waiting for you to choose your save file.

Not sure where to take that one, so enjoy. :D


if you press start twice, someone comes to kill you and you die :lol: yeah, that point is kind of a dead end. I just don't understand where the ESRB (and more so, MS, Nintendo, and Sony with their bans on AO games) are coming from. there's no justification given for the harsher ratings, and it's "interactive" is not good enough.

Of course they are within the world of the movie. Or maybe Brandon Lee was playing dead.


what? what are you alluding to with that...

[mwynn]

No, no. I'm correlating their fictional actions to the real world, much like you are.
I did not compare anything to the real world.

[mwynn]

if you press start twice, someone comes to kill you and you die :lol: yeah, that point is kind of a dead end. I just don't understand where the ESRB (and more so, MS, Nintendo, and Sony with their bans on AO games) are coming from. there's no justification given for the harsher ratings, and it's "interactive" is not good enough.





Then you need to get in touch with MS, Nintendo and Sony.

[Apossum]

Then you need to get in touch with MS, Nintendo and Sony.


'kay, thx. I'll just do what I'm told and not question any thing, because that's good.

[Brak]

I did not compare anything to the real world.
Well, to be fair, you said that committing an act of violence in a video game is committing an act of violence.

What do you mean, then? Is committing a digital act of violence detrimental to society? More so than watching violence in a film?

If you ask me, both allow a viewer to live vicariously -- film should not be an exception.

You've drawn comparisons to film, so I ask: Do actors commit acts of violence when they act out acts of violence?

You said, "Of course they are within the world of the movie."

What's the difference?
what? what are you alluding to with that...
I was wondering that, myself. Or, at least, hoping that he was kidding.

[mwynn]

Well, to be fair, you said that committing an act of violence in a video game is committing an act of violence.

You've drawn comparisons to film, so I ask: Do actors commit acts of violence when they act out acts of violence?

You said, "Of course they are within the world of the movie."

What's the difference?

I was wondering that, myself. Or, at least, hoping that he was kidding.
I should not have to hold your hand through that, I meant within the gaming world.

[Brak]

I should not have to hold your hand through that, I meant within the gaming world.
Alright. Then why was that worth mentioning?

[mwynn]

'kay, thx. I'll just do what I'm told and not question any thing, because that's good.
How is contacting the companies, doing what you are told. Typing on a message board will not do anything.

[mwynn]

Alright. Then why was that worth mentioning?
I am not even sure what you are typing about now.

[MarioColbert]

The funniest thing about this thread and others like it, is all the people comparing movies and videogames. Essentially what most gamers are saying is that because all the violence and porn in movies isn't policed, then videogames shouldn't be policed either.

I don't see how the movies against games debate is inherently funny. It can be, as can any discussion, whether meaningful or not, can sometimes be due to witty retorts. It can be unfunny to those who really hate speculative conversation, except in this case there is nothing but speculation that is possible.

I just think we should be holding the movie industry to a harsher standard, rather than lowering our standards for videogames. I guess that sounds pretty stupid in a culture that promotes free speech over common sense.

Interesting. What do you mean by a "harsher standard"? Currently, there is no "standard" for video games, short of "No Boobs Allowed." My answer will have to be long, so forgive me... I don't lust for violence, and I could not care less for it. I'm not bothered by it, however, which makes my experience of films such as 28 Days Later joyous and enlightening. However, that film deals with a lot of "adult" issues: rape, violence, murder, and survival.

In 28 Days Later, the murder which occurs is only slightly subdued with the fact that people are "zombified" - they are nonetheless human beings, which adds to the horror of the situation. Furthermore, the protagonist kills a big group of non-infected human beings to save a woman and a girl from getting raped. The film's theme however is morality, and removal of immoral acts would hinder one's ability to represent this notion. You may argue that questions regarding murder for self-protection and morality of "rape to save humanity" have been debated in book form before. But by that token, there is no need to make anything anymore, since the literary world would more than cover for any story that a film (or videogame) would tell.

To say that we should not study war and violence because they are awful is comparable to saying that we ought not study disease, for that is awful, too. An individual's exposure to these "awful things" is likely to develop a response, which is the important thing here.

To compare films like Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, 28 Days Later, and many others to Manhunt 2 is, according to some, a "travesty." It seems that video games are labeled as inherently UN-artistic, despite the fact that the basis for ideas and images are there. That opinion, if applicable, is yours to celebrate, and need not to be attacked. But do keep in mind that someone may disagree even about something as "mindless" as Manhunt 2.

I can not say that I share your enthusiasm for any rating body to be smart enough to understand the deeper implications of specific works. If they were to use their standard accross the board, they would have to destroy staggering amounts of paintings, films, musical recordings, and books. By the guidelines written on the ESRB page, 28 Days Later ought to be rated AO due to presence of sexuality, violence, and gore. However, most young adults would benefit from seeing the picture, especially under guidance of a responsible guardian willing to discuss moral implications of murder, and the "absolute immorality" of the despicable act of rape.

Things that offend people aren't even accross the board - they are ideas and thoughts. Christians ought to be offended more by Thus Spoke Zarathustra than by The Last Temptation of Christ. Mozart lovers ought to be more offended by John Cage than by the "devilish" Rock and Roll music. A body which regulates ideas and thoughts (which is what you are indirectly arguing towards) is about as far from common-sense as you can get.

I know I'll get destroyed for that last line, but I'm not saying ban everything. I'm just saying that their is a line that's crossed when violence to progress the story simply becomes snuff.

If you wish to give up your right to make up your own mind regarding mental worth of a piece of work, I can send you emails telling you what to watch and what not to watch. (I'll do a very good job, just let me know what Biblical passage is your favorite.) That kills two birds with the same stone: it sets up a good system of checks and balances to protect you from snuff films, and it still allows me to exercise freedoms that I believe are inherent to me when it comes to experiencing, uh, THE WORLD.

[Brak]

I'm typing about how you've indirectly stated that there's no difference between violence in film and violence in video games.

Let me clarify some things:

I know that you're not saying that gamers are ticking time bombs because they commit violent acts within the realm of a video game. (Although some people firmly believe that.) Neither are actors who, in film, physically - and most importantly - emotionally depict these acts.

If I had to pick one of those two positions, as to which one is more violent, I'd hands-down choose the actor -- that is, if I had to pick.

Joe Nobody, who plays GTA III, is a potential cold-blooded killer in the eyes of the square. Conversely, Jack Nicholson's performance in The Shining is touted as one of cinema's finest works. But, according to what you've said earlier, they've both committed acts of violence. Whassupwitdat?

Now, in terms of the viewer interactivity of these to mediums:

Both mediums, for the viewers, allow for, in their own ways, a level of vicariousness. Naturally, you one would believe that directly controlling a character in a video game would be as vicarious as it comes -- but I disagree. And so would John Lennon.

As I mention John Lennon: Does Mark David Chapman's murder of Lennon make "The Catcher in the Rye" any less of a classic and important novel?

I really don't see how committing violent acts in a game is more detrimental than viewing violent acts in a film, or reading violent acts in a book, etc. (These mediums don't even need to be violent for them to be misinterpreted by an impressionable maniac.)

[mwynn]

That is why I am not getting what you are saying. You are still adding words that I did not type.

I did not say one was worse then the other.
These are two different rating systems, in two separate mediums. You may think that Games and Movies/TV are comparable yet I do not.

[Brak]

That is why I am not getting what you are saying. You are still adding words that I did not type.

I did not say one was worse then the other.
These are two different rating systems, in two separate mediums. You may think that Games and Movies/TV are comparable yet I do not.
That's not what I'm saying, either.

You said that committing an act of violence in a video game is committing an act of violence.

Where does that weigh in the scheme of things?

I compare it to other mediums of entertainment, and I say your statement weighs 0 lbs.

That's why I asked earlier:
Why was that worth mentioning?

[mwynn]

That's not what I'm saying, either.

You said that committing an act of violence in a video game is committing an act of violence. Within the video game.


Are you just selectively reading some post?

[Brak]

That would be because games are interactive. A movie is watching a violent act, a game performing a violent act.
Well, to be fair, you said that committing an act of violence in a video game is committing an act of violence.

What do you mean, then? Is committing a digital act of violence detrimental to society? More so than watching violence in a film?

If you ask me, both allow a viewer to live vicariously -- film should not be an exception.

You've drawn comparisons to film, so I ask: Do actors commit acts of violence when they act out acts of violence?

You said, "Of course they are within the world of the movie."

What's the difference?

I should not have to hold your hand through that, I meant within the gaming world.
So, because you either back-tracked or missed a few words earlier, and I've been trying to get an answer as to why you even mentioned it, to begin with. I'll ask again:

Why was that worth mentioning?

[MarioColbert]

Yeah, Brak, whatcha smoking? All he said is:

Committing an act of violence in a video game is comparable to committing an act of violence in a video game.

Watch me elevate his sentiment further:

Committing an act of violence in a video game is BASICALLY JUST LIKE comitting an act of violence in a video game.


You guys watch out, 'cuz somebody might come in here saying that committing an act of violence in a video game IS committing an act of vioence in a video game. I hope they don't, because I'm rather enjoying this.

[Brak]

Yeah, Brak, whatcha smoking? All he said is:

Committing an act of violence in a video game is comparable to committing an act of violence in a video game.

Watch me elevate his sentiment further:

Committing an act of violence in a video game is BASICALLY JUST LIKE comitting an act of violence in a video game.


You guys watch out, 'cuz somebody might come in here saying that committing an act of violence in a video game IS committing an act of vioence in a video game. I hope they don't, because I'm rather enjoying this.
Thank God I'm not the one who saw that for what it's worth.

We most be smokin' the same stuff.

[mwynn]

So, because you either back-tracked or missed a few words earlier, and I've been trying to get an answer as to why you even mentioned it, to begin with. I'll ask again:

Why was that worth mentioning?
I am starting to think you have a hard time comprehending, the words typed on the screen. You should go back to the first post. Read everything that was typed, then take notes. There could be a test later.

[trq]

MarioColbert's long-ass post

Bravo, sir.

[Strell]

You know what I like?

Grape drink.

I was the kid in the Sunny D commercials that wanted the purple stuff. Sugar. Water. Purple.

Hot damn.

[mwynn]

You know what I like?

Grape drink.

I was the kid in the Sunny D commercials that wanted the purple stuff. Sugar. Water. Purple.

Hot damn.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K_5D92PPZPk

[Strell]

Drinking the purple stuff in a commercial is like drinking the purple stuff in real life.

Delicious.

[mwynn]

Drinking the purple stuff in a commercial is like drinking the purple stuff in real life.

Delicious.
The hell it is. If you drink the purple stuff in real life, you will want to drink it in game. It will lead to the downfall of video games as we know it.

[Brak]

Your comment,That would be because games are interactive. A movie is watching a violent act, a game performing a violent act.was worth mentioning because it sums up everything that's wrong with the ESRB:

They really don't know what they're talking about.

You're supporting the ESRB's logic to rate video games more harshly than film, as video games are interactive.

I'm stating, and believe, that film is just as interactive as the video game medium.

Why do you believe that video games are more interactive? More importantly, why do you think that films are less interactive?

[Strell]

Why do you believe that video games are more interactive? More importantly, why do you think that films are less interactive?

Well my arms are tired after playing Guitar Hero a lot.

...

Actually the same thing happens if I watch certain movies. Particularly where donkeys are involved.

...

I guess there's no difference then.

[mwynn]

Your comment,was worth mentioning because it sums up everything that's wrong with the ESRB:

They really don't know what they're talking about.

You're supporting the ESRB's logic to rate video games more harshly than film, as video games are interactive.

I'm stating, and believe, that film is just as interactive as the video game medium.

Why do you believe that video games are more interactive? More importantly, why do you think that films are less interactive?
I really do not have anymore more to type that I already have. If you look back you will find all your answers. If not sorry I am just not that interested in this anymore.

[PyroGamer]

I think we've gained something from this thread.

Both mwynn and Brak are dumbasses.

mwynn for claiming that playing a videogame is equivalent to committing acts of violence, and Brak for claiming films are as interactive as videogames.

Exhibit A: http://cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3056524&postcount=42
http://cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3056250&postcount=15

Exhibit B: http://cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3056876&postcount=57

[Brak]

At least neither of us have been banned for being a dumbass.

[PyroGamer]

Fact:

Videogames are being censored.

Fact:

Given reason for censorship is objectional violent content.

Fact:

Films with far more gruesome and violent content than said banned videogames can be bought/rent/watched by four-year-old Jimmy.

Implication:

The USA sucks.

[mwynn]

Fact:

Videogames are being censored.

Fact:

Given reason for censorship is objectional violent content.

Fact:

Films with far more gruesome and violent content than said banned videogames can be bought/rent/watched by four-year-old Jimmy.

Implication:

The USA sucks.
Do you vote?

[itachiitachi]

Uh... Did you miss the recent news about Wii being the world first "true" murder simulator with Manhunt 2 running on it? You STAB and you CHOP and you MAKE THE GESTURES.


wait wouldn't allthoughs games in the arcade where you shoot people with imitation guns or those few where you hold that imitation sword and chop people up with swords be the first true murder simulators?

[MarioColbert]

wait wouldn't allthoughs games in the arcade where you shoot people with imitation guns or those few where you hold that imitation sword and chop people up with swords be the first true murder simulators?

I don't know, man. I was channeling Jack Thompson when I wrote that. Hence, you know, the Nazi reference.

[Apossum]

I understand your skepticism. I feel that way as well. The funniest thing about this thread and others like it, is all the people comparing movies and videogames. Essentially what most gamers are saying is that because all the violence and porn in movies isn't policed, then videogames shouldn't be policed either. I just think we should be holding the movie industry to a harsher standard, rather than lowering our standards for videogames. I guess that sounds pretty stupid in a culture that promotes free speech over common sense.

I know I'll get destroyed for that last line, but I'm not saying ban everything. I'm just saying that their is a line that's crossed when violence to progress the story simply becomes snuff.


yeah, wow to that last line. some real 1984 shit right there :D

there's an important distinction-- it's not that movies and porn aren't policed (a scary verb for the process, imho,) it's that the MPAA or whoever, actually does a good job rating things. if a movie has a boob, it isn't automatically XXX porn. If it has murder, it's R, and kids under 17 are carded, and that's that. all else is up to the parents. but when it comes to video games, apparently the system has no faith in a parent's ability to decide.

the game industry has controls on both ends-- ESRB has the equivalent of "XXX" but it has a pretty low threshold, apparently. (It doesn't sound like a very objective process either-- gruesome murders should just be under "intense violence and gore" ideally.) That AO rating seals the game's fate from ever being available on the commercial console market because of the companies. it's effectively a wild card for any game that they deem as "unsuitable" for their wholly un-objective opinions and need to play mommy to a group of gamers. The process of carding for M and over games should preclude the worry about all this.

Basically, things will be much better when the current older generation is out of here, because the generation gap is about as wide it has ever been in the history of the world :lol:


On a side note, they worry about lawsuits, but whatever, if they aren't sticking up for their right to publish these games, they're just setting themselves up for guaranteed losses in court-- each specific case is that much more emphasized since they are trying to limit the content. If they would open the flood gates, they could get a regulated defense and swat the lawsuits like flies (kinda like what Disney world does with people who get hurt daily there.)

[Scrubking]

We are aware there are interactivity elements and you can control what is actually going on. You can repeat play - if you're watching a film, you have to watch it from the beginning to end in a cinema. You can obviously do that on video, but there's not much more you can do - it becomes a bit tedious watching a scene over and over again. We might say 'Okay, if that had been a film, it would be okay in a linear format but with the element of interactivity in games, with the ability to do it over and over again, we might bump the rating up to a higher category.'".
http://uk.ps2.ign.com/articles/799/799493p1.html

:puke:

[Apossum]

- it becomes a bit tedious watching a scene over and over again. We might say 'Okay, if that had been a film, it would be okay in a linear format but with the element of interactivity in games, with the ability to do it over and over again, we might bump the rating up to a higher category.'"


they think it doesn't get tedious watching the same animations over and over in a game? these arguments just get weaker and weaker.

[Vegan]

without pressing play, schwarzenegger will not kill the Predator.

If I don't turn the page, Dumbledore lives!!

Greystache!!!! Nooooo!!!

[itachiitachi]

there's an important distinction-- it's not that movies and porn aren't policed (a scary verb for the process, imho,) it's that the MPAA or whoever, actually does a good job rating things.
I wouldn't say that they(mpaa) does a good job (read up on them or watch This Movie is Not Yet Rated), they are pretty tyrannical, arbitrary and partial.

The problem with the ESRB is its threshold most PG-13 movies would be M-games would be. While many of the elements that make a movie R rated (American pie(sexuality),saw III (Very graphic violence)) would earn a game AO no questions asked. And it probably won't get any less strict with all the media atention it gets.

[furyk]

The irony is that the ESRB doesn't actually play the games. They just watch a demo reel of the game's most violent and sexual scenes.

I honestly don't know if interactivity should make games get rated higher and more strictly then movies. I think "maybe" might be the best answer for that. It's a case by case scenario. I think a "sandbox" game that presents itself comically like a Crackdown might be in a better position then something with more "realistic" violence. I do think the ESRB needs to sit everyone in a room, gamers, developers, and legislators alike, for a debate on where this all should fall. Unfortunately, that's a fantasy scenario.

[Apossum]

I wouldn't say that they(mpaa) does a good job (read up on them or watch This Movie is Not Yet Rated), they are pretty tyrannical, arbitrary and partial.

The problem with the ESRB is its threshold most PG-13 movies would be M-games would be. While many of the elements that make a movie R rated (American pie(sexuality),saw III (Very graphic violence)) would earn a game AO no questions asked. And it probably won't get any less strict with all the media atention it gets.


maybe I'm just not paying attention, but I haven't seen many qualms over movie ratings. I'll check out This Movie is not Yet Rated though :)

yeah, so it's an inconsistency across two formats which would ideally have the same restrictions. it's ridiculous that it's bumped up for supposed "interaction." after being denied by a console company, it effectively tells all adults 17 or older who play games that R movies are okay for them, but AO is a no-no. Not to mention that the term "adults only" carries heavy pornographic connotations in our society, which sets off the harsh-morality police like nothing else. If it were called, "Mature Plus" or something benign, it would not be such a big deal.

[furyk]

They really do need a rating between AO and M. I mean Super Smash Brothers Melee was given a Teen for christsakes.

[Vegan]

maybe I'm just not paying attention, but I haven't seen many qualms over movie ratings. I'll check out This Movie is not Yet Rated though :)

The documentary is about the MPAA's power to effectively "ban" a movie by rating it NC-17 or X because they know that theaters will not show a movie with that rating. What rating did This Film is Not Yet Rated receive? NC-17! How convenient!

[MarioColbert]

The documentary is about the MPAA's power to effectively "ban" a movie by rating it NC-17 or X because they know that theaters will not show a movie with that rating. What rating did This Film is Not Yet Rated receive? NC-17! How convenient!

Desipte the fact that I support the film, the rating was given for explicit sexual content. I would not be surprised if the filmmakers did this on purpose in order to "promote" the film, especially since they've since cut that very footage out in order to make it "Not Rated" in the states.

[botticus]

maybe I'm just not paying attention, but I haven't seen many qualms over movie ratings. I'll check out This Movie is not Yet Rated though :)

yeah, so it's an inconsistency across two formats which would ideally have the same restrictions. it's ridiculous that it's bumped up for supposed "interaction." after being denied by a console company, it effectively tells all adults 17 or older who play games that R movies are okay for them, but AO is a no-no. Not to mention that the term "adults only" carries heavy pornographic connotations in our society, which sets off the harsh-morality police like nothing else. If it were called, "Mature Plus" or something benign, it would not be such a big deal.I posted this in one of the other threads because I too had not really paid attention before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpaa#Rating_system

Some of the MPAA's actions have been controversial. One example is the film rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system). Many believe that the intent of the various ratings has been subverted. For example, there is widespread access to R-rated movies even for those under 17, while the NC-17 rating spells commercial death for a film, undermining its purpose. Film critic Roger Ebert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert) has called for an entirely new system of ratings designed to address these issues. Some people criticize film-makers for editing their works to conform to the various ratings. For example, they might excise some extreme violence or sex to avoid an NC-17, or even "spice up" a children's movie so as to move from G to PG and appeal to older children. The ratings system itself is attacked as de facto censorship by free-speech activists, and conversely as too lenient in its content standards by some conservative critics, priest, lawyers, and parental review sites. A criticism that has come from both sides is that the MPAA tends to be considered more complacent with violent content than sexual one. Other criticisms have included that there is more bias against homosexual sexual content than heterosexual. Also, movies with male genitalia tend to get a "harsher" rating than those with female genitalia.Its pretty much exactly the same situation as the ESRB is dealing with now, in terms of ratings, leniency, etc.

[defiance_17]

I've seen Hostel, and I can't imagine Manhunt 2 being any worse. I'm not just talking about the gore, either; if that piece of shit managed to see the light of day, one would think that anything goes.

That being said, I've always felt that the ratings systems, especially for video games, have been a little off. How have the Zelda games avoided, up until last year, to avoid the T rating, while dozens upon dozens of similar games (such as FF:CC) are "slapped" with it? How does Advance Wars 2 end up with an E rating, while the Army Men titles were rated T? Does Gears of War honestly justify a Mature rating, when Call of Duty 3 is Teen?
Clearly, much of it is arbitrary, but all age restrictions are. As long as kids keep killing each other, don't count on anything changing. Everyone's quick to point the finger.

[whiptcracker]

NIt has nothing to do with what someone may or may not do in the real world.

In the gaming world my actions have an affect on the game. In a movie things play out no matter what I do.

However with both the 'gaming world' and 'movie world' you speak of one thing remains the same in both, they're fictional. The choose your own adventure books shouldn't be banned because you can choose how to respond to fictional events.

Video game media in some respects is tamer because of the level of interactivity. Sure you can steal a car and go on violent rampages, but you can choose to just drive a taxi or deliver pizza. Additionally some games also show the consequenses of these actions, you do crime in GTA and the cops come after you. Movies often fail to show any consequences and for violent films there's no options to decide to watch someone deliver pizza instead.

But mainly the reason the arguement fails is that it's a fictional enviroment. If a person is unable to seperate fiction from reality, then a game might be dangerous for them, but then again such a person would be mentally disturbed already.

Statistically crime in youth has dropped as videogames get more popular, not grown.

If you encourage lawmakers to restrict people from interacting in fictional violence in a fictional enviroment, you might as well take every toy any boy has ever had away. I know growing up I had my action figures fight with each other, and play with toy guns in fake wars we made up.

On a seperate note, Manhunt 2 is not for kids. Sony is pretty hypocritical to not allow AO games on the PS3 since they've markets the system towards a market that can afford the system and HDTV's. Which would be adults.

[MarioColbert]

Statistically crime in youth has dropped as videogames get more popular, not grown.
This is a huge argument that both sides attempt to appropriate for the debate. Before I continue, I'd like to put a disclaimer, that since we are talking about games that are intended for adults, we should be looking at the adult crime rate, more specifically the one for young adult square bracket - 20 to 30. However, the claim about video game violence seems to be pigeonholed for kids and kids only.

I'll begin with a wonderful thing from a canadian publication: (source (http://www.doj.ca/en/ps/yj/information/mythreal.html))


Myth: Most youth crime involves violence
Reality: Around 75% of all youth crime is non-violent.




If this holds true in the United States or the world, the argument is defeated on arrival. Youth Crime and Youth Violence are not one and the same. Statistics that show drops in youth crime may not correlate an overall rise in youth violence. (If that's true, of course).

Before you start talking about "definitive proof" I'll illustrate how cluttered and full of shit research of this topic can be. Consider this article (http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames) from gamerevolution.com against this "myths and truths (http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html)" by some Dr. Craig Anderson. To make matters worse, an inspection of the youth crime (and violence) in 2000-2007 shows a decline in youth violence, but even with that decline some claim that it is still 7% above the rate it was in the 90s.

Although a bit out-of-date, the Surgeon General's Report on Youth Violence in 2001 has a bit that tickled my fancy: (MYTHS PAGE (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/facts.htm)) (FULL REPORT (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/youvioreport.htm))

Myth: Most violent youths will end up being arrested for a violent crime.
Fact: Most youths involved in violent behavior will never be arrested for a violent crime
I'll let you interpret that one as you will. This is a "can of worms" due to its engimatic nature - does this mean that most of the violent youth is not dangerous / criminal? Or does it mean that kids commit violent crimes and get away with it all the time?

Now, I got my math degree from Texas A&M University, and I can assure you all they are a conservative batch over there. Nonetheless: (Source (http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/19/researcher-finds-scant-evidence-linking-violent-games-with-aggressive-behavior/#comments) - this one is a treat to all the Scrubkings and Pyrogamers, and anyone else really wanting ammunition)

Part of the problem may be that video game researchers have adopted unreliable methodologies from media violence research in general… Most of the research (particularly laboratory research) employs unvalidated ad-hoc measures of “aggression”.
But I also found a lot of shit regarding this topic that the other side is pushing. Let's see how mad you get at this Nicky Cruz lady, who sites Jack Thompson as one of her sources here (http://esp.nickycruz.org/features/five_myths.htm). Don't forget to read what she recommends that the parents do. If you're still mad, go ahead and tell us why, because I support everything she says that the parents ought to do. In video game section, that is. She also says:
With your teen, destroy violent CDs and music videos.

To summarize: I believe that what you said is true. However, it is a point that requires a shitload of unnecessary argumentation. And I also believe that it is a diversionary tactic, since if video games do affect agression and violence, we need to look at the study with adults, since that's who the games are there for. And so far, in everything that I've read, I see no difinitive proof that any violent material is dangerous enough to warrant a "special interest" rating such as AO.

[yukine]

I just love reading all of the intelligent posts that my fellow CAGs are making to discuss this subject, and no I'm not being sarcastic. If you go to any other gaming forum, you're only going to find posts like "THE ESRB IS fucking LAME haahbhasflsdjbhahshasfhr!!!1" it just makes me proud to be apart of this community. ;)