it continues: Manhunt 2 given AO rating in the U.S.

[quote name='dopa345']Please. This is not some major blow to free speech.[/quote]
That's not my point.
[quote name='dopa345']The fact that an AO label may harm distribution and sales of the game is immaterial to how the ESRB should do their job.[/QUOTE]
That's my point; playing their cards to block the distribution of the title, in its intended form.

It's kind of like the bending of the laws that traffic cops use to their advantage.

"A suspicious minority driving at night? I better check if his license plate light is out."

All of that amounts to a greater point, where it goes on for so long that it's entirely abused.
 
[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']Whatever, I think this is awesome news. Games like Manhunt are disgusting and quite clearly serve no purpose other than sick sadistic murder and I don't think they should be allowed to play by anyone, 6 or 60. At least other violent games (GTA, GOW, etc.) are clearly entertainment/fantasy. Manhunt is trying to be a realistic snuff film, and if that's our idea of fun nowadays, this society is completely fucked.

EDIT:
And don't give that bullshit "censored art" excuse; as a society we SHOULD censor certain things if they provide no actual benefits whatsoever and promote horrible imagery and murder. It's not fucking art, there's no redeeming or thought-provoking values to it at all.[/QUOTE]
How are we supposed to make moral judgements on that? And how is it our business to?

Battle Royale is sick and twisted and provides no redeaming values, but it's objective objectional content is pretty much the same as Lord of the Flies, which is one of the best pieces of 20th century litterature ever.

Whether or not it is my opinion that something has "artistic merit", I must admit that something with the exact same patently offensive content COULD have "artistic merit". It is not my position to decide it does not.

There are several great critiques of the miller test and cencorship, however I cannot find links to any of them.
 
[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']Whatever, I think this is awesome news. Games like Manhunt are disgusting and quite clearly serve no purpose other than sick sadistic murder and I don't think they should be allowed to play by anyone, 6 or 60. At least other violent games (GTA, GOW, etc.) are clearly entertainment/fantasy. Manhunt is trying to be a realistic snuff film, and if that's our idea of fun nowadays, this society is completely fucked.

EDIT:
And don't give that bullshit "censored art" excuse; as a society we SHOULD censor certain things if they provide no actual benefits whatsoever and promote horrible imagery and murder. It's not fucking art, there's no redeeming or thought-provoking values to it at all.[/QUOTE]

hitler_salute.jpg
.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Please. This is not some major blow to free speech. An AO designation is not censorship. It's simply an assessment of the content of the game. The fact that an AO label may harm distribution and sales of the game is immaterial to how the ESRB should do their job. Frankly, I think the AO label isn't used enough; perhaps if it were, it may carry less of a stigma and this wouldn't be as much of an issue. Don't be mad at the ESRB, be mad at the retailers that won't distribute it.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget that the console makers won't let you publish an AO-rated game on their systems. Just adding that in.

Again, I agree. It's not censorship, having a game rated AO. That's simply content assessment. And the console makers won't let you have AO-rated games on their systems. That's not censorship; it's corporate policy. I mean, Sony Pictures won't distribute porno films. Are they censoring potential "art" by refusing to distribute a porno film? Again, no, because that's against their policies.
 
[quote name='Brak']
Secondly, and this is my opinion (which I've mentioned a few times): I believe that this game, no matter what, would have received an Ao rating.

The Ao is a proverbial "cock block". Either they appropriate the title, for a lower rating, or it doesn't get sold in stores. Both of those options, in their own way, are censorship, no?

Your credibility in this argument drops further.[/quote]
You're telling me my credibility has dropped when your whole argument is based on the notion that perhaps by some off-chance the ESRB had it in for this game? See any holes there, Zorak?
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']Censorship is harmful to art. Maybe not that many titles have had to be edited that you can say its "ruining" the industry, but there have been some. Most notably in my mind Indigo Prophecy (Farenheit).[/quote]The removal of small sex scenes that had nearly nothing to do with the main game is hardly "ruining" the industry. Not that I agree with censorship, but you cited a poor example for your argument.
 
[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']I've seen Battle Royale also and loved it, but that movie also essentially made the same point I made, i.e. violence is senseless and depraved and increasingly more prevalent in culture.[/QUOTE]
The same could easily be argued for Manhunt 2.

Certainly that is a huge part of the social-commentary in the Grand Theft Auto games. Manhunt simply removes all the comedic releif.
 
[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']You're telling me my credibility has dropped when your whole argument is based on the notion that perhaps by some off-chance the ESRB had it in for this game? See any holes there, Zorak?[/QUOTE]
Now, hold on.

"Zorak"? That ate ass. Fail.

As for why you've completely lost all credibility, I want you to reread everything you've posted, where you're acting like the dictator of what is art, what is bad for society, what should be purchased and consumed by the people, etc.

Which leads to this question:

Who in the fuck are you?

That's all that needs to be asked, and what needs to be asked to those with the position (which isn't God-given) who tell us what we can and can't consume, etc., etc.

See where I'm going with this? Probably not, as you're previous posts are insanely ignorant.

... Zorak. Wow.
 
[quote name='Brak']As for why you've completely lost all credibility, I want you to reread everything you've posted, where you're acting like the dictator of what is art, what is bad for society, what should be purchased and consumed by the people, etc.

Which leads to this question:

Who in the fuck are you?

That's all that needs to be asked, and what needs to be asked to those with the position (which isn't God-given) who tell us what we can and can't consume, etc., etc.[/QUOTE]:applause:

Great post, sums up my feelings on the subject of censorship.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']How are we supposed to make moral judgements on that? And how is it our business to?

Battle Royale is sick and twisted and provides no redeaming values, but it's objective objectional content is pretty much the same as Lord of the Flies, which is one of the best pieces of 20th century litterature ever.

Whether or not it is my opinion that something has "artistic merit", I must admit that something with the exact same patently offensive content COULD have "artistic merit". It is not my position to decide it does not.

There are several great critiques of the miller test and cencorship, however I cannot find links to any of them.[/quote] Well generally speaking, it's usually fairly easy to tell what is trying to be art and what is not; obviously a movie like "The Condemned" is not trying to be art, it's trying to entertain and possibly succeeds at that, while, say a book like "Lord of the Flies" may also entertain, but was written to make some sort of statement, to make people think. You can agree that any rational-minded person would assume this. And which of those categories do you think Manhunt 2 falls under? If we censor things that have no real value and do practically nothing but harm, we help out our society so that the more naive and easily influenced don't get ahold of them and fuck others up (if they fuck themselves up, fine, I don't mind that, I'm all for legalizing drugs, but when there's a chance it'll lead to other's harm, that's when it starts crossing the line a civilized society does not want to cross)
 
[quote name='Brak']That's all that needs to be asked, and what needs to be asked to those with the position (which isn't God-given) who tell us what we can and can't consume, etc., etc.[/QUOTE]
No one is telling you what you can and cannot have. Console makers are simply setting rules for what can be developed using their SDKs and libraries and documentation, as is their right and prerogative. If you need AO games, you're welcome to them on PC, which isn't regulated by anyone.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']:applause:

Great post, sums up my feelings on the subject of censorship.[/QUOTE]
Wow, your feelings on censorship sure are over-reactionary and overly-simple.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']No one is telling you what you can and cannot have. Console makers are simply setting rules for what can be developed using their SDKs and libraries and documentation, as is their right and prerogative. If you need AO games, you're welcome to them on PC, which isn't regulated by anyone.[/QUOTE]
My censorship war isn't with the consoles (not entirely, anyway); It's with the ESRB who is, and will be, using the console manufacturers' policies to their advantage.

Wait 'til GTAIV comes out.
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Wow, your feelings on censorship sure are over-reactionary and overly-simple.[/QUOTE]
Simple is as simple does -- read Macy's posts and reasonings, and you will see why what I've said is simplistic.
 
[quote name='Brak']Now, hold on.

"Zorak"? That ate ass. Fail.

As for why you've completely lost all credibility, I want you to reread everything you've posted, where you're acting like the dictator of what is art, what is bad for society, what should be purchased and consumed by the people, etc.

Which leads to this question:

Who in the fuck are you?

That's all that needs to be asked, and what needs to be asked to those with the position (which isn't God-given) who tell us what we can and can't consume, etc., etc.

See where I'm going with this? Probably not, as you're previous posts are insanely ignorant.

... Zorak. Wow.[/quote] Heh okay yeah the Zorak part was lame, sorry about that, I just saw your name and was reminded of Space Ghost. I think I came off a bit too strong in my argument; I'm not trying to say I am any important scholar in the subject, I'm just saying sometimes censorship is okay, in my opinion. People differ on the point where the line is crossed and mine is crossed at Manhunt 2, while others, such as yourself, may differ in opinion and believe that there is no line to be crossed. That's okay, that's your opinion and that's what's great about the country, I'm just saying I disagree, but you're right, I don't have a ton of knowledge on this, just my thoughts and observations
 
[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']Well generally speaking, it's usually fairly easy to tell what is trying to be art and what is not; obviously a movie like "The Condemned" is not trying to be art, it's trying to entertain and possibly succeeds at that, while, say a book like "Lord of the Flies" may also entertain, but was written to make some sort of statement, to make people think. You can agree that any rational-minded person would assume this. And which of those categories do you think Manhunt 2 falls under?[/QUOTE]
http://cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3036398&postcount=206


Here's a good example: Quentin Tarantino freely admits his goal is to appeal to puerile interests and simply entertain, and yet his work is widely recognized as some of the best art of the last twenty years.

[quote name='CoffeeEdge']No one is telling you what you can and cannot have. Console makers are simply setting rules for what can be developed using their SDKs and libraries and documentation, as is their right and prerogative. If you need AO games, you're welcome to them on PC, which isn't regulated by anyone.[/QUOTE]
Brak wasn't talking about soft free-market self-regulation. He's talking about William H. Macy's support of pure nazi-esque big-brother control of the populace.
 
[quote name='Brak']My censorship war isn't with the consoles (not entirely, anyway); It's with the ESRB who is, and will be, using the console manufacturers' policies to their advantage.[/QUOTE]
Using the policies to their advantage? Prey tell, what does the ESRB stand to gain here?

Judging from the rest of your conspiracy theories, I assume you think it involves large sums of money, the mafia, and possibly Martians?
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']http://cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3036398&postcount=206


Here's a good example: Quentin Tarantino freely admits his goal is to appeal to puerile interests and simply entertain, and yet his work is widely recognized as some of the best art of the last twenty years.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I'd probably say that it falls under both categories, art and entertainment, and he has created art, whether intentionally or unintentionally
 
[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']Heh okay yeah the Zorak part was lame, sorry about that, I just saw your name and was reminded of Space Ghost. I think I came off a bit too strong in my argument; I'm not trying to say I am any important scholar in the subject, I'm just saying sometimes censorship is okay, in my opinion. People differ on the point where the line is crossed and mine is crossed at Manhunt 2, while others, such as yourself, may differ in opinion and believe that there is no line to be crossed. That's okay, that's your opinion and that's what's great about the country, I'm just saying I disagree, but you're right, I don't have a ton of knowledge on this, just my thoughts and observations[/QUOTE]
That was... unexpected.
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Using the policies to their advantage? Prey tell, what does the ESRB stand to gain here?

Judging from the rest of your conspiracy theories, I assume you think it involves large sums of money, the mafia, and possibly Martians?[/quote]
:roll: Come on...

What do they have to lose?

Remember the thunder they received because of Hot Coffee? Not Rockstar; The ESRB.

What they have to gain is credibility amongst those who fund them, and support them... and those who support them are their biggest critic, for better or worse.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']Here's a good example: Quentin Tarantino freely admits his goal is to appeal to puerile interests and simply entertain, and yet his work is widely recognized as some of the best art of the last twenty years.[/QUOTE]
Uh, sure, he may try to "appeal to puerile interests and simply entertain," but his work honestly isn't that horribly violent. It fits well within established "rated R" limits, that's for sure.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']The best thing that could possibly happen here is that Rockstar cuts its loses, and the game releases as an AO title, Nintendo allowing an exception.[/quote]

I thank you sincerely and without a hidden meaning for that very sentence. I agree with it completely, despite my deep rooted belief that this will not happen.


[quote name='Brak']The Ao is a proverbial "cock block". Either they appropriate the title, for a lower rating, or it doesn't get sold in stores. Both of those options, in their own way, are censorship, no?[/quote]

Yes, but when it comes to content control, the individuals who make the call are all business owners. If Nintendo would choose NOT to publish an AO game for whatever reason, that is up to them (a company is entitled to its policy, you can rebel by modding the shit out of hardware you purchased - perfectly legal to do so - or not buying their system in the first place). Stores and companies which choose not to carry AO titles do so at their own discretion while protecting their very own business interests. There is no practical marketplace system without quality control and content control being in there somewhere.
 
[quote name='Brak']Remember the thunder they received because of Hot Coffee? Not Rockstar; The ESRB.[/QUOTE]
Uh, I definitely remember Rockstar getting some hell, themselves.

They got in trouble because they didn't rate a game AO, for "AO" content that is impossible to normally access in the game, content that they had no idea existed, and couldn't have known existed. It wasn't their fault, and they deserved no criticism in that situation. If they do their jobs and rate games as they see fit, then everyone will be fine.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']Yes, but when it comes to content control, the individuals who make the call are all business owners. If Nintendo would choose NOT to publish an AO game for whatever reason, that is up to them (a company is entitled to its policy, you can rebel by modding the shit out of hardware you purchased - perfectly legal to do so - or not buying their system in the first place). Stores and companies which choose not to carry AO titles do so at their own discretion while protecting their very own business interests. There is no practical marketplace system without quality control and content control being in there somewhere.[/QUOTE]
That's my point, to which I've mentioned and elaborated upon a few dozen times already.

That was the intent of this rating, so it rolls over all of those factors and becomes unaccessible.

[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Uh, I definitely remember Rockstar getting some hell, themselves.

They got in trouble because they didn't rate a game AO, for "AO" content that is impossible to normally access in the game, content that they had no idea existed, and couldn't have known existed. It wasn't their fault, and they deserved no criticism in that situation. If they do their jobs and rate games as they see fit, then everyone will be fine.[/QUOTE]
Uh..? Developers don't... rate their own games...

I don't see where you were going with your thought, but it completely neglected what I said right above it.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Using the policies to their advantage? Prey tell, what does the ESRB stand to gain here?[/quote]They get to keep control over the rating of video games, instead of having to give it up to the government when enough people with money and influence complain.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']Yes, but when it comes to content control, the individuals who make the call are all business owners. If Nintendo would choose NOT to publish an AO game for whatever reason, that is up to them (a company is entitled to its policy, you can rebel by modding the shit out of hardware you purchased - perfectly legal to do so - or not buying their system in the first place). Stores and companies which choose not to carry AO titles do so at their own discretion while protecting their very own business interests. There is no practical marketplace system without quality control and content control being in there somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for that excellent and level-headed post. I agree, it IS up to the console maker. Thanks.
 
[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']I don't know, I'd probably say that it falls under both categories, art and entertainment, and he has created art, whether intentionally or unintentionally[/QUOTE]
You said that "you can easily tell the difference between what tries to be art and what is just entertainment" (I paraphrase).

Unintentionally or intentionally he has created art, even though many many many many many people think it is not art, but simply a scourge to our society.



The right to ownership over one's thoughts and mind is even more fundamental to american civil liberties than the ownership of ones body. It's intrinsically fundamental to the freedom of choice. Controlling what goes on in one's own mind is a fundamental right of all human beings. Controlling what you consume and what you don't consume is intrinsically related to controlling one's thoughts and beliefs. Censorship is not only suppresion of our god-given freedom-of-speech, but also our freedom of thought.

Whether or not someone is one of the "most valued members of society", they are fucking human beings with fucking human rights. Your moral world-view has quite the same moral-fiber as the agenda of the holocaust and Action T4. Your sick ideal of some "most valued members of society" conjours up images of star-of-David armbands and Action T4 posters.

[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']That was a fun little mini-debate BTW, hope we can have it again sometime[/QUOTE]
It quite was (and I hope will continue to be, if you'd like to respond to this post).
 
[quote name='Brak'][quote name='Coffeeedge']Uh, I definitely remember Rockstar getting some hell, themselves.

They got in trouble because they didn't rate a game AO, for "AO" content that is impossible to normally access in the game, content that they had no idea existed, and couldn't have known existed. It wasn't their fault, and they deserved no criticism in that situation. If they do their jobs and rate games as they see fit, then everyone will be fine.[/quote]Uh..? Developers don't... rate their own games...

I don't see where you were going with your thought, but it completely neglected what I said right above it.[/QUOTE]
Uh, in case it wasn't completely obvious, I was talking about the ESRB in that second paragraph. Now that you know this, re-read it.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Uh, in case it wasn't completely obvious, I was talking about the ESRB in that second paragraph. Now that you know this, re-read it.[/QUOTE]
I see that now. The reason I didn't before was because you misread what I said, with "Not Rockstar; The ESRB", where I presume you thought I was saying that Rockstar received no flack, when I was elaborating that I was speaking of the ESRB, exclusively, in that instance.
 
There is no way Manhunt 2 deserves this much discussion.
The game will be forgotten by next year.

The first one was forgotten even quicker.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Uh, in case it wasn't completely obvious, I was talking about the ESRB in that second paragraph. Now that you know this, re-read it.[/QUOTE]
People hate the ESRB because it effectively blocks most censorship.

If they can take a scandal like the Hot Coffee Mod and use it in ANY way to fling mud at the integrity of the ESRB, they will.

[quote name='dallow']There is no way Manhunt 2 deserves this much discussion.
The game will be forgotten by next year.

The first one was forgotten even quicker.[/QUOTE]
In case you missed out on the last... 12 pages of this thread, the discussion has mostly had little to do with Manhunt 2, but were about the ESRB, censorship, and the game industry in general.
 
[quote name='dallow']There is no way Manhunt 2 deserves this much discussion.
The game will be forgotten by next year.

The first one was forgotten even quicker.[/QUOTE]
It would have been an exciting step for the Nintendo scene, but all is lost.
 
[quote name='dallow']There is no way Manhunt 2 deserves this much discussion.
The game will be forgotten by next year.

The first one was forgotten even quicker.[/QUOTE]
All they need is to sell at least one more copy because of this scandal that they wouldn't have sold otherwise, and it'll be worth it to Rockstar's PR department.
 
HOLD THE fuck UP.


Society DOES censor the content of shit it despises. By not purchasing and supporting those that do. Why do we need a help of a governing body to "ease the pain?" Whatever the fuck happened to "I may disaree with what you're saying, but I'll die for your right to say it?" I guess that's "oldschool." We don't need to protect our own freedom of choice. I guess while we're at it, let's ban the Wii Dancing game because the religious sects that see dancing as a sin are offended by it. Probably moreso than you guys are offended by Manhunt 2's violence.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']HOLD THE fuck UP.


Society DOES censor the content of shit it despises. By not purchasing and supporting those that do. Why do we need a help of a governing body to "ease the pain?" Whatever the fuck happened to "I may disaree with what you're saying, but I'll die for your right to say it?" I guess that's "oldschool." We don't need to protect our own freedom of choice. I guess while we're at it, let's ban the Wii Dancing game because the religious sects that see dancing as a sin are offended by it. Probably moreso than you guys are offended by Manhunt 2's violence.[/QUOTE]
Where did this suddenly come from?

Although I agree with it, entirely, it's very sudden.

So sudden that I'm not sure if it's sarcastic or not. That may be because I'm tired.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']You said that "you can easily tell the difference between what tries to be art and what is just entertainment" (I paraphrase).

Unintentionally or intentionally he has created art, even though many many many many many people think it is not art, but simply a scourge to our society.



The right to ownership over one's thoughts and mind is even more fundamental to american civil liberties than the ownership of ones body. It's intrinsically fundamental to the freedom of choice. Controlling what goes on in one's own mind is a fundamental right of all human beings. Controlling what you consume and what you don't consume is intrinsically related to controlling one's thoughts and beliefs. Censorship is not only suppresion of our god-given freedom-of-speech, but also our freedom of thought.

Whether or not someone is one of the "most valued members of society", they are fucking human beings with fucking human rights. Your moral world-view has quite the same moral-fiber as the agenda of the holocaust and Action T4. Your sick ideal of some "most valued members of society" conjours up images of star-of-David armbands and Action T4 posters.


It quite was (and I hope will continue to be, if you'd like to respond to this post).[/quote] Whoa I wasn't saying most valued members of society, I was just saying all the ones who aren't complete idiots (which is about 70-80% of us). I think most intelligent, rational-minded people would agree that a game like Manhunt 2, whether or not it detriments society, is probably not going to improve it positively either, and as that is my opinion too, I'm just saying that I don't mind it or things as bad or worse being censored. I think in cases like that, censorship helps for the greater good; if it even stopped just one death from someone playing it, it would be worth it to not have it.
Again, just my opinion, I'm not trying to argue that I'm correct
 
[quote name='Brak']Where did this suddenly come from?

Although I agree with it, entirely, it's very sudden.

So sudden that I'm not sure if it's sarcastic or not. That may be because I'm tired.[/QUOTE]
Let me elaborate on this before I go to work:

The ESRB should be a guideline, which society uses as - you know - a guideline.

My point is that it seems as though the ESRB, with ulterior motives, is abusing its "authority", and hindering the release / intended content of a video game.

Indirectly (and ulteriorly), they're making it near impossible for me, someone of age, to acquire the intended video game, let alone simply acquire the video game.

"Adults Only"? Why can't I play it?
 
[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']Whoa I wasn't saying most valued members of society, I was just saying all the ones who aren't complete idiots (which is about 70-80% of us). I think most intelligent, rational-minded people would agree that a game like Manhunt 2, whether or not it detriments society, is probably not going to improve it positively either, and as that is my opinion too, I'm just saying that I don't mind it or things as bad or worse being censored. I think in cases like that, censorship helps for the greater good; if it even stopped just one death from someone playing it, it would be worth it to not have it.
Again, just my opinion, I'm not trying to argue that I'm correct[/QUOTE]
To be quite clear: I respect your opinion, and I infinitely respect you civility in divulging it. This thread has remained suprisingly civil (despite my prevelant use of the f-word, which appears to offend alot of peopl).


While I cannot say whether or not Manhunt 2 could be a detriment to our society, or even if it will not benefit our society (as I have never played it), I know for certain that censoring it WOULD be a detriment to our society, a terrible detriment whose impact would be immeasurable.

I consider Britney Spear's CD's a detriment to our society, but to ban them would do much to absolutely destroy the very fabric of our nation and our civil liberties.

[quote name='Brak']Let me elaborate on this before I go to work:

The ESRB should be a guideline, which society uses as - you know - a guideline.[/quote]And that's how it's being used. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft's sacred right to free enterprise is being excercised. Now, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are not following the guidelines of the ESRB word for word (rather than "should be played by adults only" the big three are saying "cannot be played by anyone"), but that's their sacred right.
 
[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']Whoa I wasn't saying most valued members of society, I was just saying all the ones who aren't complete idiots (which is about 70-80% of us). I think most intelligent, rational-minded people would agree that a game like Manhunt 2 has no societal benefits, and as that is my opinion too, I'm just saying that I don't mind it or things as bad or worse being censored. I think in cases like that, censorship helps for the greater good; if it even stopped just one death from someone playing it, it would be worth it to not have it.
Again, just my opinion, I'm not trying to argue that I'm correct[/quote]

Hello. Your definition of art sucks balls.

By your token, abstract, dadist, nonsense, futurist, and surrealist art serves no purpose, because there isn't a biblical allusion to 10 commandments being discussed in there somewhere.

You don't mind things as bad or worse being cencored. What do YOU know? Have you played it? Where the fuck do both sides get these presumptious wankers spouting extreme opinions of a product that they've never experienced by themselves?


If you think I contradict myself in here, do try to make a complete dumbass of yourself trying to point this out. Ignorance is and has been on both sides of this "debate." If more people spoke like PyroGamer (see way above), this thread would be more sensible (and obviously less fun).
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']Hello. Your definition of art sucks balls.

By your token, abstract, dadist, nonsense, futurist, and surrealist art serves no purpose, because there isn't a biblical allusion to 10 commandments being discussed in there somewhere.

You don't mind things as bad or worse being cencored. What do YOU know? Have you played it? Where the fuck do both sides get these presumptious wankers spouting extreme opinions of a product that they've never experienced by themselves?


If you think I contradict myself in here, do try to make a complete dumbass of yourself trying to point this out. Ignorance is and has been on both sides of this "debate." If more people spoke like PyroGamer (see way above), this thread would be more sensible (and obviously less fun).[/quote] Okay, fair enough, I haven't played it and am not yet fully aware of the content. I do have a fairly good idea of what it will be though, judging by the first game (which I have played) and what I've seen in previews for the second one.

And why exactly could what I was saying be interpreted as "I hate non-conformist works of art"? I dabble in some of those categories myself (in short films and writing) and have nothing against free expression; hell, even ultra-violent movies, sometimes, if they are entertaining, can be good, if they are just mindless entertainment that will likely not be a huge detriment. What I'm against are forms of media that promote and practically endorse horrible, horrible crimes that in the real world would be thought of as, well, unthinkable, such as Manhunt 2. Again, something like Lord of the Flies would not endorse this type violence, while it's possible that something like the Saw movies (I'm not saying they do necessarily, I'm just saying that it's not entirely clear) might endorse this type of violence. Basically, it crosses the line, IMO, and at that point it's time to stop.

Once again, it's just my opinion, and I think any civilized society needs some censorship; we already do it to ourselves, in that we don't act like the animals we naturally are, we don't jump at every innappropriate impulse, we control ourselves. We need to protect children and the easily influenced potential murderers from getting ahold of things that are mass-marketed and readily available, that seem appealing to them, that would promote and possibly lead to life imitating Manhunt 2.

I suppose, just because I don't believe in censorship, that if an adult wanted to play Manhunt 2, and he/she was proven to be of sound mental state, I suppose I'll go back on what I said and say that they should be allowed to play it, and they can, with an AO rating.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']In case you missed out on the last... 12 pages of this thread, the discussion has mostly had little to do with Manhunt 2, but were about the ESRB, censorship, and the game industry in general.[/quote]

Glad to hear it, as I'd never read a thread dedicated to Manhunt.

And if this thread has indeed turned into a purile debate on censorship, and art in general....... I'm going to back away slowly.
 
[quote name='dallow']And if this thread has indeed turned into a purile debate on censorship, and art in general....... I'm going to back away slowly.[/quote]

It's "puerile" if you want to sound smart. :]

I suppose, just because I don't believe in censorship, that if an adult wanted to play Manhunt 2, and he/she was proven to be of sound mental state, I suppose I'll go back on what I said and say that they should be allowed to play it, and they can, with an AO rating.
Click to expand...

I think I have misunderstood your original post regarding the game. Thanks for posting this bit. The "sound mental state" thing is a bit of a slippery slope, but I don't think this thread is ready for any more poop slinging than we've already experienced.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']It's "puerile" if you want to sound smart. :][/quote]

Oh you'll get yours Colbert! ::shakes fist::
 
[quote name='KaneRobot']Oh for christsake...I'm not reading 12 pages.

But really, fuck Nintendo. Sony too, since they also apparently backed out.[/quote] It would be stupid for Nintendo and Sony to allow AO games on their systems. It is really bad publicity and Nintendo and Sony don't want it associated with their brand names.

Might as well be mad at Microsoft too, they don't allow AO games. Actually, lets go a little further, plenty of stores don't carry AO games. fuck them too, right?!
 
What they need to do is find someplace to release it, make it region-free, make it NTSC and PAL compatible, and release it. Importing FTW!
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Maybe it will be a Phantom exclusive?[/quote]

That quote is civilization.


Well, it seems we didn't have to wait too long on the official stance of Nintendo in this:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/original/nintendo-nixes-ao-manhunt-270741.php

Games made for Nintendo systems enjoy a broad variety of styles, genres and ratings. These are some of the reasons our Wii and Nintendo DS systems appeal to such a broad range of people. But as with books, television and movies, different content is meant for different audiences. That's why the ESRB provides ratings to help consumers understand the content of a game before they purchase it. As stated on Nintendo.com, Nintendo does not allow any AO-rated content on its systems.
Click to expand...

I could not help myself with the bold marking. Sorry, guys, but I told you so.
 
In the end, I guess it's a good thing that Manhunt 2 (in its current state) won't see the light of day on the Wii, as tacked-on motion controls are more gruesome than ripping someone's testicles out with wire cutters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top