Manhunt 2 Is 'Fine Art' Says Rockstar Boss

Funny interview on the radio, Spong on the ropes !

On the ropes! Did I really come across so badly? I thought I held my own with that ill-informed DJ and the child psychologist fairly well... I don't think I really got the point about the Manhunt 2 ban being a 'freedom of speech' issue across well enough though. Ah well, next time...

We have to inform non-gamers and those who feel horror games are somehow 'worse' than horror movies that this is just not the case. We also have to stress that the real issues here should be preventing retailers from selling 18-rated games to minors and educating parents that 18-rated games are just as unsuitable for their children as 18-rated movies.

I have more radio interviews lined up - how would you suggest I hone my approach?

I heard the interview too, why when things like these come up they get some smart arse American on talking away from the subject ?

To be fair, letting children play violent games is a parental issue. I agree that a grown man should have the option to buy and play whatever games they want and have the freedom to choose!

It's a human rights point to be fair. The child psychologist was just being an arse and talked as quickly as he could to avoid anyone getting another point across.

There is a classification system for things like this, that is meant to give people a guide as to what the content is like - so if they say "18" then surely people should know the title is only suitable for anyone 18 or older, or at least with the mental ability to know it is a GAME.

Look at Dead Rising, surely mowing people (albeit Zombies, but very human in form) down in a shopping mall is a terrbile image for a 6 year old ?

Seeing that disturbing image of Strauss Zelnick - the Take-Two chairman relaxing, is justification in itself for banning the game.

It was a little infuriating to hear the lack of understanding from the DJ about the fact that 18 rated games are made for adults and that children shouldn't be allowed to view them. Parents should have more responsibilty when it comes to what their children can and cannot view. Parents would not allow their children to sit and watch an 18 rated film, so why would they allow them to play an 18 rated game. There seems to be a huge lack of understanding about the age rating sytem, one I am baffled by as the information to parents is out there, www.askaboutgames.com for instance. I think it is important also though to observe that the rating system in the UK does work and that this ban comes out of this system. So although this debate is currently based around 'freedom of speech', which I totally agree with, there is a system in place to protect.

Missed the whole radio thing. What radio station where you on and is there a recording anywhere?

The whole perception by the mainstream non gaming buying public, of what a modern game can be and actually is has been challenged with Manhunt 2. To many, games are still seen as they were ten or twenty years ago, the stereotypical 8/16/32 bit graphics etc.

While games have grown and matured over time offering a greater degree of scope and content, it's always being beat down in what seems like a no win situation, by those who still consider them kiddy fodder. You could wave the best examples of gaming in your favour, in their faces, as how things have changed over time, but many still believe them so.

I still think retailers should ask to see ID or passport when selling strong adult titles like Manhunt (if retails would cover themselves like this, MPs like Keith Vaz would hopefully shut up), the same way we do in the U.K for alcohol and tobacco. Game, could make you sign a disclaimer of sorts saying ('when you buy this game you are buing a strong title for adults only, which shouldn't end up in the hands of minors, by signing this you asume full responsibility for the game). If this were to happen, the only spanner in the works would be the net, where normal retail rules don't apply much.

This game is now gonna go underground and become a collectors item. Those who can't buy a copy will seek to pirate it somehow. Lack of sales will hurt Take 2 and they could easily see job losses. Will they survive or be bought out? And if so what will they make next? Personally, I think they should try something else like The Bully 2 or something new altogether.

Is manhunt 2, the horror genres finest art in the games industry? I can't say as I haven't played it, everyone is setting fire to all the created versions, but PC. All of that means nothing in the real world unfortunately that doesn't like, appreciate or treat the games industry, the way it should. With the same equal and fair, creative respect and judgement that theatre, films, music and books etc get.

As for the free speech issue, I'd have to agree. It's double standards at play and I hope Rockstar win their appeal and take steps to ensure sales to adult gamers. Even if it went as far as court, Rockstar should fight this still because its now tunred into a rights issue. Why is Dead Rising okay and Manhunt 2 not? Why is Hostel released on DVD with scenes of torture and Manhunt 2 not allowed? More crazy nanny state crap.

The main problem is the interaction. You are in control of the killer, not just watching him (you become the killer himself) - that is the issue here.

Interesting you say that about interactivity, considering that Law and Order game that got a ban yesterday. In that you play a detective solving crimes and bring crims to justice, that never saved it from the overreactionary press monkeys though.

So in Manhunt 2 you play someone bad (at the centre of the story) and in Law and Order you play someone good would bring criminals to just (without even probably firing a gunshot too).

Both cases i feel, the offending matrerial has been taken out of their context, their reason for being present. Such disection is never so clear cut and simple.

That would be the issue had the BBFC not recently published research that claims that a game is less immersive than a film because you need to think about what you are going to do next instead of just passively absorbing the images.

cos you kill the already dead in one game and not in the other

See, I just heard the radio thing and took a bit of issue with what that psychologist was saying:

- Freedom of speech as zoydwheeler said earlier.

- Having an affect on adults and children alike is all well and good, but hasn't it already been proven that you'd have to be of a pretty vulnerable mind to actually become influenced by this as an adult? The psychologist actually uses the term 'vulnerable adults', which account for how much of the population exactly?

- On the DJ's part: material being consumed by under-age minors is the sole responsibility of the parents when there are such things as legislation around that prevent under-age purchase. You do get the odd shop that won't care and they should be prosecuted, but we have ELSPA and the BBFC on occasion, I don't see what else there needs to be done other than treating video games as more than a third class entertainment medium.

- The psychologist actually said that the effects of violent video games in adults and children were much more indirect than copycat activity. And I will agree to this, violent video games (or sometimes not even winning at a particular game) is definitely going to get you irritable and irritated, and that can be transformed into aggression towards others, but nowhere near on the scale as this guy is talking about.

The psychologist flip-flops from 'indirect influence, I don't think we should be looking at copycat situations' to the idea that a link is scientifically proven and (while this might be the case if only talking about indirect cases) at the same time sensationalising it so it sounds worse than it actually is.

The whole issue smacks of overreaction. zoydwheeler did a fine job I thought, but you know, you're always going to get this "Out Foxed" style bias - in getting some over-educated guy who can talk the arse off a donkey to say video games are nasty - when talking about this kind of stuff.

How the hell can a game be less immersive than a film? Headscratcher that one.

A Film: You want and absorb the plot, characters and their motivations, for enjoyment.

A game: You become, control and follow a character, good or bad, most of the time following a storyline, just like a film or book.

Interactivity doesn't mean you'll go out and do what you see and play. There's this thing called suspension of disbelief, which most of us can exercise well, by taking breaks for food, saving and going out or just simply switching off the console.

When following a story someone else wrote (in books, games, films, tv etc), you can't decide when to get moral, (you are there to be entertained. full stop) all that depends on the reasons and motivations of the created character and the situation they are in.

The BBFC would have to prove that this would happen beyond a reasonable doubt and I don't think they can. It's always been very pie in the sky.

what radio station was this thing on?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/southerncounties/ check Listen Again, Gordon Astley - around 1hr 33 mins in...

That's a seriously hideous portrait photie btw.
Horrible.
and why brown?
Who wants brown in 2007, seriously.

Aye, anyway.
I heard that Manhunt 2 got banned because of the Wii version since it has you doing actions.
You know like you have strangle npcs by wrapping the cord between the nunchuck and the Wiimote around something, preferable small and defenseless, optionally furry.
The BBC said so. IT MUST BE TRUE THEN!

'Since it has doing actions'. All Wii games have doing actions, but do they mean shaking and such? They have to elaborate but the news media never do, as this isn't about a film. Even if the game did, that what the Wii does and it's an adult game anyway, in mature adult hands it's not a problem.

This is kind of like saying because you use a knife to chop up veg in Cooking Mama, that you are then gonna go out to do the same to a real person. Or because you can use a frying pan in the same game, you are gonna burn someone with it. There's no evidence to back this warped thinking convincingly at all, on its own or up against other similar media.

Do you drive? Have you been driven? Everybody likes car analogies, so here goes!

Have you ever noticed that you see more of the area you are being driven through than you do when you are driving yourself? Surely you must be more invested in the experience when you choose the route to take?

Well, no. Not in my experience. As a driver you have to concentrate on the road, other drivers, where you are going and just the mechanical acts necessary to get the car from A to B, enjoyable though they may be. As a passenger, you don't have those distractions and can more easily appreciate and absorb the experience of travelling through the scenery.

Similarly, in a game you have to work out how to get close to that bloke over there in order to stab or garrotte him. You have to concentrate on the restrictions that the controls put on your actions, you have to worry about which bits of scenery are going to mask your approach and which are going to hinder you. When you do manage to kill the enemy, you just top off the long sequence of events.

In a film, the star jumps over a wall, runs down an alley, gets to his target and snaps his neck. You didn't have to think, you didn't have to wonder if he'd make it, you just sit back and absorb it.

By being interactive, games are (so the BBFC claims) less immersive than films, because reality in the form of the control mechanism intrudes on the experience.

So why'd they ban this one and not Hostel, for example?

i completely agree why violence what about hostel and hostel 2????? what about the texas chainsaw massacre films i think u are all so hipocritalcal sheesh get a grip and give the game a chance