Sony Nintendo and Microsoft say AO rated games won't be on their consoles (Manhunt 2)
- Thread starter Posty
- Start date
There are numerous films which are banned so your suggestion that the banning of video games is somehow unique is mistaken.queamin said:
There is also a difference between a movie which is 'passive' entertainment, and a realistic video game whereby the player actively participates in extremely violent and sick acts.
Just to add, the rationale of banning this type of game (or movie) is that it has no redeeming qualities morally. The player is cast in the role of someone who enjoys and is gratified by such depravity. That cannot be right especially when we all know that young children will inevitably play it, despite its rating.
Last edited:
I know i old enough to remember spit on your grave and clockwork orange when they first came out
Not if your going to be effected by it and some of the films i have seen are quite bad and there is a lot of things what are a lot worst and are legal maybe it is because the goverment arenot making money out of it.
dirtydog said:
Although I can't think of any books that are banned, or even age restricted. American Psycho is one book that I wouldn't want a child to read and yet a child could walk into a book store and buy it no questions asked.
I see your point about actively engaging in violence, but with a book you have to use your imagination to create a scene and surely that is worse than having it set out for you.
The only reason I can see that books of this nature are not banned and video games and films are, is historic. Why if a game or film has an 18 rating should they be banned ? Can adults not decide for themselves, and should we allow Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to dictate what games we can and cannot play ?
Last edited:
Last House on the Left and Night Train Murders also spring to mindqueamin said:
They have the right to decide what is played on their proprietary systems, yes. Any game on the system reflects on their whole brand.WIBSBOT said:
It's rather different isn't it. AFAIK all console games have to be licensed and certified as acceptable by the console manufacturer before being able to be released.WIBSBOT said:
Music is released in many formats but console games are released in ONE, proprietary, format only. The console manufacturer has certain legal rights over that format.
dirtydog said:
It is, but I don't want a company deciding what I can and cannot play, watch or listen to. I think our elected representatives and bodies setup to specifically monitor ratings etc are better placed to make these decisions. I'm unaware of the legal ramifications to these companies of allowing material to be released, but is it not the games publisher and developer the responsible party ?
I dont agree with censorship in any form as nobody has the right to decide what I watch or play, that is my decision.As for age ratings I believe that they do serve a purpose.Banning this game is the worst thing they could do as it will make people want it all the more.If drugs were legal they become less glamorous to the persons who would normally take them.If they want to ban things ban films like crossroads starring the beautiful and extremely talented actress Britney Spears
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 3,955
- Location
- guildford, surrey
I really dont see what the big deal is, i played manhunt 1 when i was 12/13ish, and completed it 3 times. Its violent yes, but no more than GTA or something, i didnt pay much attention to the violence i was just playing a fun and and entertaining stealth game which was actually pretty good. The Violence level is smilar to Hitman imo, for example in Blood Money you can sneak up behind people and stick a hammer in the back of their heads, you hear the crack and spurt and everything, manhunt is not worse than that. And if its similar to the first game, the Killing is not pointless like most people do in GTA, its for a reason, you kill or be killed, GTA you can go up behind people in the streets and slit there throats and beat old people to death and steal there money for no reason, that is imo more violent as its a more realistic setting.
Its pathetic that its getting banned, because underneath all this hype about violence which isnt even more violent than a game like GTA, its actually a fun stealth game which i was looking forward to playing.
Its pathetic that its getting banned, because underneath all this hype about violence which isnt even more violent than a game like GTA, its actually a fun stealth game which i was looking forward to playing.
tomanders91 said:
The fact that Rockstar aren't even willing to compromise the game by removing or toning down the violence speaks volumes about the quality of the gameplay to me. If it was a genuinely good game then the inclusion of super-violent sadistic cutscenes wouldn't be necessary.
It's about PR and reputation, which is why the big 3 don't want AO games - they don't want a precendent of allowing any morally dubious games to be made available in their association, I'm sure there would be a load of cheap pron-based games and things if it was allowed. They have a reputation and shareholders to think about, Manhunt 2 just isn't worth it for them.
Personally I sort of dislike Manhunt because it sets gaming back years - it gives the zealots like Jack Thompson evidence that games can be sadistic and needlessly violent. It's also pretty juvenile.
What I dislike about censorship is that I'm an adult. If Manhunt 2 really is that dark and glorifies violence in such a bleak way, why can't I be trusted to find it as depressing and morbid as the raters, and dislike it for myself? I've got a strong enough mind that a game is not going to warp me in any way. It might make me think, but that's a long way from "Hey this killing business seems like fun!" Because hell, it seems that's the exact opposite of the message that the raters are getting from Manhunt. It seems to them, the killing just isn't nice. Heaven forbid, a game attempts to go beyond "fun" in its design!
I agree Rockstar milks controversy a bit too much for my liking, but to say their games aren't any good is nonsense. That's precisely what annoys me about them. Because there games are good enough that it negates the desire for attention-seeking they have.
Oh give over. The GTA series is fantastic, and while taking away the shocking stuff (what do we count as shocking here? Gunfights and illegal driving is pretty standard in games these days) might limit the freedom somewhat, it would still be a quality game. Bully wasn't nearly as bad as everyone assumed it would be. Neither Table Tennis or Midnight Club were particularly horrible.NokkonWud said:
I agree Rockstar milks controversy a bit too much for my liking, but to say their games aren't any good is nonsense. That's precisely what annoys me about them. Because there games are good enough that it negates the desire for attention-seeking they have.
Weebull said:
No one playing Manhunt is playing it to think about the serious consequences of violence. No one playing Manhunt is playing it with a view to finding it "as depressing and morbid as the raters". No one playing Manhunt is playing it to find that killing isn't nice.
The people playing Manhunt are - I'll wager - 13 year olds getting off on the gore.