Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Maxwell on June 23, 2007, 09:05:57 pm
-
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172931.html
Take-Two Interactive Software has temporarily suspended plans to distribute Manhunt 2 for the Wii or PlayStation platforms while it reviews its options with regard to the recent decisions made by the British Board of Film Classification and Entertainment Software Rating Board
Thoughts?
-
1) Take Two kept pushing the line, the point was bound to come where they would cross it, else what is the point of the BBFC and the ESRB. It may well be that this game simply didn't match the criteria for an 'M' rating.
2) This genre of game became famous through the efforts of censors, it continues through the efforts of censors, like 'Slasher' movies, once the commotion dies down they'll sink back down to a sub-genre and other types of game will be more in public eye, leading, hopefully to a bit more diversification.
3) However, despite 1) and 2) I still think the problem in the US is the fact that there is such a massive phsychological difference between M and AO. It got banned in the UK, which DID concern me, the problem with banning something is that you have no option but accept that the game deserved banning, it's a vicious circle.
-
After having seen trailers, I convey no ill will toward the British Board of Film Classification and Entertainment Software Rating Board. Seriously, that game looked pretty ****ed up. I'm fine with ultra-violent content, but the creativity they displayed with the Wii controller just took it a bit too far, y'know?
-
I can see how manhunt 2 being AO is justified. In slasher movies, you are viewing someone else's story. As gory as it is, it's a static rendering. However, Manhunt 2 is just like a slasher film, with the exception of it being your story, and everything being interactive. This is not like the 'cop killing' debacle in San Andreas. That game was about some guy who got screwed by the police, and going through different areas to get lucrative power. You can (and should) go the entire game without so much as collateral damage. The game was not based around cop killing (with the exception of one). Manhunt 2, however, is based around brutal tortures, disturbing images, and murders. It is this kind of game that deserves an AO rating. Not only because of the content, but because of the context. If I was going to compare it to a movie, I wouldn't compare it to a slasher film, but a snuff film.
This is from someone who says San Andreas was just bad enough to get an M rating, hot coffee or not.
-
Well, to be honest, Manhunt 1's story was closer to the description that tends to be made for Manhunt 2, in Manhunt 1 you were making snuff movies. In Manhunt 2, you are trapped in an asylum with the other inmates, and everyone is trying to kill everyone else, though the periods of torture concern me, you can either make a phsychological horror or a gore-horror, but making both won't make you popular.
As for interactiveness, there's so many opinions flying in all directions that I really haven't made my mind up yet, I do know it has an effect, but how pronounced or 'real' that effect is, I couldn't even begin to say.
The thing is, I'll always see them as meshes and bitmaps, no matter how detailed they are.
-
sell it to the us :D
-
Rockstar is nothing more than a dev studio that deliberately tries to push the line as far as it can go - that's their major claim to fame. I really wouldn't mind if they got taken down a notch or two, they're giving all of gamers a bad name. That being said, I don't know anything about Manhunt 2, so I can't really comment on it's banning.
EDIT: After looking it up, I must say I am slightly disappointed that the game got banned, only because it seemed to actually take advantage of the Wiimote to immerse the player in the game (which is a bad thing when it applies to this game specifically, I'd think). It would be nice to see other games taking such advantage of the new system.
-
I think it's fair to say most of the outrage is because "none-gamers" believe games are still only for kids and to ignore age ratings shows ignorance beyond belief.
-
I think it's fair to say most of the outrage is because "none-gamers" believe games are still only for kids and to ignore age ratings shows ignorance beyond belief.
QFT
On IGN (http://au.wii.ign.com/articles/798/798779p1.html), they note the reaction to this by the National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF):
"Hopefully Take-Two has learned from its Manhunt 2 experience and will undertake preventive measures to ensure its future games, including Grand Theft Auto IV, are appropriate for families and gamers."
Excuse me? That's like saying the porn industry should be shut down because it isn't appropriate for children! The belief that games exist purely for children seems to be far too widespread for comfort.
-
Rockstar is nothing more than a dev studio that deliberately tries to push the line as far as it can go
When developers don't push the limits of content or gameplay what we end up getting is more of the same. No ones going to invest millions of dollars into adult products if theres no waiting market to offload them on.
My fear is that instead of working to sell their games through new venues, publishers will simply cull these products and favor less controversial material.
If you cant hold the attention of a mature audience it will be alot harder to sell innovation.
-
Anybody hear about that other game, Law and Order : Double or Nothing (developed by Legacy)? I heard it included a photo of Jamie Bulger being led away by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. Thank goodness they withdrew it from the market, utterly despicable! :mad:
-
Anybody hear about that other game, Law and Order : Double or Nothing (developed by Legacy)? I heard it included a photo of Jamie Bulger being led away by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. Thank goodness they withdrew it from the market, utterly despicable! :mad:
You forgot to say "Someone think of the children. Oh, won't someone please think of the children!"
-
What a lot of whinging about nothing.
What the game actually included was a screen where one of the detectives has a picture tacked to the corkboard behind him that looks similar to that photo. Nevermind that the photo was included by some game developer who probably had no clue what the picture was about. Nevermind that the game was released in 2003 and this is the first time anyone has actually noticed that fact. Nevermind that we're dealing about a maybe 60x60 pixel image that is probably barely recognisable unless you're actually told what it is.
Here you go (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23401211-details/Bulger's%20mum%20furious%20at%20computer%20game%20using%20abduction%20image/article.do). Take a look at the offending image for yourselves.
Obviously seeing that image in a game is so traumatic that the game should be noisily boycotted and banned and the story should be splashed over every newspaper in the country along with a full resolution image of the original picture. Instead of quietly explaining to the game producers what that image is and why it should be replaced. :rolleyes:
EDIT : In fact all this whole sorry debacle does is make me want to get a copy of the game. I probably would too if it weren't for the fact that I'd have to put up with the ****ty American theme tune instead of the cool Rob Dougan one that us Brits get. :D
-
Rockstar is nothing more than a dev studio that deliberately tries to push the line as far as it can go - that's their major claim to fame. I really wouldn't mind if they got taken down a notch or two, they're giving all of gamers a bad name. That being said, I don't know anything about Manhunt 2, so I can't really comment on it's banning.
I think that's an unjustified assessment (well, unless you're looking at Postal 2 anyway). The GTA games were technically marvelous for their times, and are still tremendous fun to play now. And whatever you may think of the content, it's the people buying the games that make the company so successful. If GTA offended so many sensibilities, it wouldn't be one of the largest game franchises in the world.
-
What a lot of whinging about nothing.
What the game actually included was a screen where one of the detectives has a picture tacked to the corkboard behind him that looks similar to that photo. Nevermind that the photo was included by some game developer who probably had no clue what the picture was about. Nevermind that the game was released in 2003 and this is the first time anyone has actually noticed that fact. Nevermind that we're dealing about a maybe 60x60 pixel image that is probably barely recognisable unless you're actually told what it is.
Here you go (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23401211-details/Bulger's%20mum%20furious%20at%20computer%20game%20using%20abduction%20image/article.do). Take a look at the offending image for yourselves.
Obviously seeing that image in a game is so traumatic that the game should be noisily boycotted and banned and the story should be splashed over every newspaper in the country along with a full resolution image of the original picture. Instead of quietly explaining to the game producers what that image is and why it should be replaced. :rolleyes:
EDIT : In fact all this whole sorry debacle does is make me want to get a copy of the game. I probably would too if it weren't for the fact that I'd have to put up with the ****ty American theme tune instead of the cool Rob Dougan one that us Brits get. :D
Thanks for putting my opinion into words so well.
And don't you dare speak ill of the Law and Order theme song. It is an American CLASSIC and you dirty brits don't deserve it.
-
Bring back Jan Hammer, that's what I say ;)
-
I think that's an unjustified assessment (well, unless you're looking at Postal 2 anyway). The GTA games were technically marvelous for their times, and are still tremendous fun to play now. And whatever you may think of the content, it's the people buying the games that make the company so successful. If GTA offended so many sensibilities, it wouldn't be one of the largest game franchises in the world.
Well that's GTA - what about hot coffee? Granted, that was a "hidden" feature, but they obviously meant someone to find it if it was so easy to get to. That, and this game, which they're deliberately trying to make as violent as possible, just to drum up a media blitz.
Don't get me wrong, I think that publishers should push the line and try and innovate as much as possible, but when it stops being integral to the game and being more and more about just how gory they can get, it's pretty stupid - kind of like how the wave of horror movies these days are just bloodbaths with no suspense, just gore gore gore.
-
I'd agree that giving the Playstation version an "AO" is probably overkill.
I'm still undecided on the Wii version.
-
Well, that's the thing about the Wii though, people say you can mimic real life actions on it, but the fact it, there are several broken plasma screens around that signify that this isn't the case.
I think the Wii controller is massively overblown, as Penny Arcade pointed out not too long ago, you can wave the thing around like an chimp with a flyswatter, but you don't have to, and, in fact, the art of using the Wii is learning how NOT to use it like a real bowling ball/sword etc.
-
The fact is its still a game and people WANT to pretend its a real sword or bowling ball, just like they want to pretend mouse-1 is the trigger of a real assault rifle. Kids have been waving around sticks and pretending to be knights and bandits since the beginning of time with no ill effects.
Imaginary play does not harm people.
-
Exactly, in fact, I'd be arrested nowadays if I did what I used to do as a child, we used to run around with plastic or metal gun toys that were practically indistinguishable from the real thing, often they fired those little rolls of 'caps'.
If you did that nowadays, there'd be a public outcry for 'training children to use guns' and almost no doubt 'Terrorism' would be mentioned at some point or another.
-
Exactly, in fact, I'd be arrested nowadays if I did what I used to do as a child, we used to run around with plastic or metal gun toys that were practically indistinguishable from the real thing, often they fired those little rolls of 'caps'.
:nod:
My brother's still got one of those, but we can't find the caps for it. :sigh:
-
Well actually cap guns are not illegal, provided they are bright green with a red tip on the barrel. I remember playing with one of those not 3 years ago.
-
I gotta say I agree with the AO rating the game received. Like any artistic undertaking (well, the parts of game development that are artistic/creative, like concept and graphic design (the main culprits here) I believe that there should only the most extreme application of complete bans. In my mind this would apply to games that say, put you in the role of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, and set you to find, as your primary aim, the most efficient and quickest way to exterminate the relevant (in the case of these people) race/social class.
I gotta say though, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, a game like Manhunt, where the primary gameplay, if not plot aspect, is to butcher people and aspire to do it in the most gruesome possible way, is in my opinion, very close to that ban.
I mean (and this spreads across to the ol' parenting issue) even if a game is given the highest rating, it will still, somehow, find its way into the hands of young kids somewhere, and it's definately not suitable material. In a perfect world with a 100% reliable Adults Only rating there'd be no problem, but the possibility of children playing this is pretty dodgey to me.
And I would also think that Rockstar purposely pushed the limits with Manhunt to get publicity. That their plan worked too well is something they'll have to accept. Some might say 'justice'.
-
If the UK had rated it 18+ or even 'Restricted', I would have been more prepared to accept the rating.
I suppose the problem is that the rating system in the UK is broken, the Trading Standards offices do their best, but the fact is that it is simple to get 18 certificate, and even pirate videos from market stalls across the country.
The simple fact that people are prepared to pay for movies someone else downloaded shows the kind of uphill struggle faced.
The thing is, if they banned this game because they couldn't be sure that, even with an 18+ certificate, that children wouldn't get their hands on it, then that isn't R*'s fault, it's a question of enforcement at their end.
-
Double Post, but...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/arts/25manh.html?%23038;adxnnlx=1182795068-Z5i6Ykvcdx5EAUL6ZvwFuw&%23038;ex=1340424000&ei=5088&en=ec4fd372982463d3&adxnnl=1&%23038;emc=rss&%23038;partner=rssnyt&adxnnlx=1182924839-cp+x5fU7Cs0R1YCdBAg8eQ&%23038;adxnnl=1
-
It's rated for adults only. So what? The rating is justified. If people want the game they will buy it, regardless of boycotts imposed by the chain stores. If there's a market for games like this then the big stores will see the smaller outlets who stock it making a profit and be more likely to stock a similar game next time. Take Two / Rockstar shuold get on with releasing it and let the market economy do it's thing.
-
The rating system itself is not a problem, its how retailers respond to it. Some people would have still bought the game but, with less access to storefronts, the publisher feels they wont meet the needed number of sales to justify shipping it as things are.
That means the developers would be forced to go back in and cut out any trouble making content or features then resubmit it for a better review... Which means whatever ships will be less than what they intended to deliver, and less of an experience to the paying fans.
Of course this still works for the publishers. They can say: "We have found for you a spectacle of gore, violence, and horror that you absolutely must play to believe! ...but, darn those censors, you'll never get to see THAT version.".
Even if the game turns out to be crap they score points towards future legal action and for free advertising. The only ones who lose out are players.
-
The main problem is that neither Sony nor Nintendo will ever allow the release of AO rated games on their hardware, it's a vicious circle.
-
They should not have that control.
-
Why? It's their product, and to protect themselves from legal action by idiots like J*ck T*omps*n (so he doesn't Google search his name and find me :p ), they have to say "no" to something. It's the same reason DVDs come with "content of the commentaries does not reflect the views of Paramount/20th Cent. Fox/etc." as a disclaimer.
-
But why shouldn't the game simply carry a disclaimer similar to the one you mention? Remember that Sony invented the compact disc too. What if they'd decided not to allow any CDs to be created with content they considered questionable?
That said if there is a market for AO games they'll find out to their cost when people buy them on other platforms.
-
It's the same reason DVDs come with "content of the commentaries does not reflect the views of Paramount/20th Cent. Fox/etc." as a disclaimer.
Actually no. Your argument is more akin to the people producing DVD players determining what DVDs other companies are allowed to release. Or for that matter manufacturers of CD players determining what CDs can and cannot be released. Do you see where I'm going here? I would be very, very surprised if this stood up in court. It just takes somone to challenge it - and win.
-
This is completely different from those examples, IPAndrews. Game developers who release games on a console do so for a proprietary, closed standard controlled by a single private company, not for a universal industry-wide open format standard. Rockstar was making this game specifically for the PS3 and Wii consoles, owned by Sony and Nintendo, not for a "console game" standard for which any company can build a compatible player. Both companies control the certification and compatibility of games released on their respective consoles; it's completely within their rights to deny use of their console to a game they choose not to support.
As for the game itself, the whole story gets a royal "meh" from me. I'm with those who say that Rockstar seems to "push the limit" for the pure sake of doing so, and I find it rather annoying. They obviously have a ton of game development talent; why can't they utilize it on games not seemingly solely intended to piss off as many soccer moms as possible?
-
Thing is, if it wasn't Rockstar they were targetting, it would be Runs with Scissors, or whoever made Resident Evil 4 etc. Unfortunately, bandwagon-jumpers really do love the slogan 'Protect the Children', it gives you an excuse to do almost anything.
I'm pretty much 'Meh' about the game itself too, but then, I approach Hitman 2 like Unreal Tournament, it's odd, I like strategies and building games, but don't have the patience to stand outside a door for ten minutes looking like a pillock with a bottle of Chloroform in my hand.
I fully agree with the AO rating, though I'm not so certain about the banning in the UK, but I don't really think this is really so much about Rockstar (except for one person, who does have a personal vendetta) as it is about the whole idea of accepting the idea that many gamers are in their 20's and 30's.
-
Both companies control the certification and compatibility of games released on their respective consoles; it's completely within their rights to deny use of their console to a game they choose not to support.
Legally it's different because Sony and N made it clear that they want to control the content on their machines.
Morally it's not. Like I said Sony did invent the CD. They could legally have done the exact same thing there. Would you consider it acceptable if Sony controlled which CDs were available to buy and everything they didn't like came out on Vinyl?
-
i reckon it's a safe bet that it'll be a while before it makes it past the australian censor board.
-
Both companies control the certification and compatibility of games released on their respective consoles; it's completely within their rights to deny use of their console to a game they choose not to support.
Legally it's different because Sony and N made it clear that they want to control the content on their machines.
Morally it's not. Like I said Sony did invent the CD. They could legally have done the exact same thing there. Would you consider it acceptable if Sony controlled which CDs were available to buy and everything they didn't like came out on Vinyl?
A console and a CD are two very different pieces of technology with two very different purposes. Many people also have very different perspectives on CDs compared to gaming consoles. Technology, people's familiarity with it, and people's views on it, have also radically changed since the advent of the CD.
Morally, it is very different.
-
i reckon it's a safe bet that it'll be a while before it makes it past the australian censor board.
Hell, i'm surprised light can make it past the Australian censor board. :doubt: