Manhunt 2 illegal

[Killerkebab]

of course not everyone is the same so why are we then treated as such by the BBFC. Why should we all have to suffer because one person could be affected by playing such a game?

Simply because no one can tell who will be affected in such a way and who won't just on word alone. Besides, you're not 'suffering', I found the first Manhunt game to be boring after I'd done a 'red kill' with every weapon, I'd seen my share of what I could do and decided to stop there. The game didn't have enough of a plot to keep me in and had no multiplayer.

LMFAO. It's a computer game there is no killing.

If there is no killing, then what exactly are you doing?

Hands up who's played Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Now, how many of the following have you done?

• Paid a hooker for sex and then blew her brains out to recover your monies?
• Been approached by a cop only to unload a shotgun in his face?
• Decided you like that cool looking car so much that you'll throw the owner to the floor, shoot them in the head and casually mow down any witnesses with your newly aquired motor?
• Walked up to a random stranger and cooly put them out of their misery with a pair of Uzi's?

The point isn't whether you have done it or not. The point is some people claim that video games are an influence to violent behaviour in certain people. Whether you are a part of these people or not is irrelevant.

This is silly. It really grinds me a game I'd like to play is getting censored because of an incredibly small amount of people, who might get slightly stimulated to do something they're likely to eventually do anyway. All these cases of where young people have been 'influenced' to commit murders by playing computer games could have easily been prevented by half-decent parenting. Firstly not to raise such a sadistic child and secondly not to allow their under aged children to play 18 certified material. If you do allow it, moaning about the game influencing your child when something does happen is just stupid.

Idiots, the lot of them.

I agree entirely here, but we need to realise that the issue here is indeed parenting, and not 'oh I never murdered anyone, why can't I play?'. Now most people here tend to argue that the state need to get out of the household and that bad parenting is not something we can police, which is another very fair point.

Thus, if we cannot police bad parenting which brings these negative influences into the household's of susceptible minds, we need to take the negative influence out of the picture. This can be done either by banning it completely (never a good idea), or by imposing far stricter restrictions on sale such as those seen with alcohol.

Or you could decide to argue that the negative influence isn't all it is cracked up to be by the parents of victims, in which case age ratings on video games should be scrapped entirely. After all, if there is no link between violent behaviour and video games, where is the issue?

 

[weringo]

Simply because no one can tell who will be affected in such a way and who won't just on word alone. Besides, you're not 'suffering', I found the first Manhunt game to be boring after I'd done a 'red kill' with every weapon, I'd seen my share of what I could do and decided to stop there. The game didn't have enough of a plot to keep me in and had no multiplayer.

Whether or not the game is good doesn't matter, once they ban one game it won't be so hard to ban the next, imagine if they ban GTA.

If there is no killing, then what exactly are you doing?

Clicking a mouse & pressing keys, nothing more, nothing less.

The point isn't whether you have done it or not. The point is some people claim that video games are an influence to violent behaviour in certain people. Whether you are a part of these people or not is irrelevant.

Exactly, people "claim" that these video games are influential, there is no solid proof that they actually are, therefore why should everyone else suffer?

 

[Killerkebab]

Whether or not the game is good doesn't matter, once they ban one game it won't be so hard to ban the next, imagine if they ban GTA.

Oh I agree with you that this is a terrible idea, I am just saying that maybe a link between video games and violent behaviour could exist...

Clicking a mouse & pressing keys, nothing more, nothing less.

You click a mouse and press keys on this forum. Why buy Manhunt when you can click a mouse and press keys in Internet Explorer?

Exactly, people "claim" that these video games are influential, there is no solid proof that they actually are, therefore why should everyone else suffer?

Of course there is no solid proof that they are. There was no solid proof that the Earth went around the sun once upon a time, and look what happened to the first to 'claim' that was the case

I am just trying to say that if video games are so benign, why do we slap age restrictions on them? If bad parenting is to blame, how can we 'fix' the problem?

 

[BlairH]

Actually there was a study done a while back which showed that the gun murder rates over 200 years were five times higher in new york compared to london (and yes, guns were available in both places), which suggests it's cultural rather than due to availability.

Bingo!

Guns are not the problem, culture is. The cities and states within the US that have the highest murder rates, the highest violent crime rates also have strict gun control measures (and they don't work very well!) Other states, the states that allow concealed carry permits see much lower violent crime rates.

If you look at states like Vermont (which has NO gun laws at the State level) and compare them to the likes of California (which has very "comprehensive" gun control legislation) you'll see a world of difference.

Look at Switzerland, more or less everybody has a Sig550 in their attic, and you don't see nearly the same levels of violent crime over there as you do in the US, or even over here. The country hasn't even been attacked in over 800 years.

 

[DampCat]

If I "skipped your point", you're clearly not making your clear enough, because as far as I can see, you're comparing a weapon which was invented for killing people with a video game which (allegedly) influences people to kill, which are completely different matters.

Ok, just because you're being purposefully irritating i'm going to bullet point the important parts here. It isn't possible to disagree with them because they are not based upon speculation. It is simply the way it is. Wether you would do the same thing is neither here nor there.

• There is a link between videogames and real world violence. See point 2.
• There is a game that exists that has an actual murder associated with it. The prequal to this very game.
• -SOME PEOPLE- (and i stress, not ALL people. SOME. I know none of you understand that concept but believe me there are OTHER people living in this world) can be described as "socially unstable" and/or "mentally challenged" and there is a *very strong* possibility that their twisted minds are sucseptable to influence of violent computer games. There are documented cases of "copycat killings" where people have mimic'd (spelling?) what they have seen in films whilst carrying out a murder. why should that link not exist for computer games. Regardless of wether you have proof, it is an entirely plausible situation.
• It is 100% likely that there are people (yet again, not neccesarily you, or anyone you know. Certainly not any normal person) who will be influenced by this game in a negative way. It is 100% impossible to know who they are. The police or government cannot find those people and single them out and stop them owning such games. the only option they have is to prevent the game being released at all
• Yes, it is unfair that you should all suffer for the sake of a few crazy weirdies. I'd like you to show me an alternative way to procure the safety of the general public from the 1 or 2 woofters that *could* be negatively affected by the game. If you DO come up with a viable alternative, btw, you should probably tell someone, because you're a genuis and are in line to become the leader of the country, since you are obviously more qualified than those currently doing it.

 

[Psymonkee]

• There is a link between videogames and real world violence. See point 2.
• There is a game that exists that has an actual murder associated with it. The prequal to this very game.
  

Well thats just not true right there - the murder in question was robbery based and the VICTIM (14) owned the game.

Police said robbery was the motive behind the attack on Stefan in Stokes Wood Park on 26 February 2004 - and not the video game blamed by Stefan's parents.

BBC News - 4th paragraph from the bottom if you need to know....

 

[tsgray70]

Hi all

Firstly I will admit that I haven't read all of the thread, but living in Leicester this story is in our local paper (Leicester Mercury) all the time. There are just a couple of points that I wanted to highlight.

1. It was the victim that had Manhunter and not the killer, (the police have said this numerous times but have also said that the media aren't interested in this point).

2. The parents have tried to blame Rockstar for this tragedy but the court dismissed it, (I would imagine because of point 1).

3. Manhunter was a 2nd rate game. It wasn't selling a lot until they tried to ban it, at which point I did what a lot of other people did and went out and bought it. The hysteria paid for the sequel. Gotta love the irony.

4. The Keith Vaz factor. In my opinion Keith Vaz (the Leicester MP) is the driving force behind this whole thing. Having lived in Leicester my whole life I know that Mr Vaz is in the paper constantly for just about any bandwagon he can find. If a streetlight goes out you can guarantee there will be a picture of him the next day pointing at it. (He was also the guy that so publically jumped on the Shilpa Shetty - Big Brother bandwagon). Now he has something to get his teeth into, the facts of the case aren't important to him. It's the media attention he wants. He will keep pushing this until it pervades the whole video games industry and it is already becoming a personal crusade. I dont doubt that Keith Vaz exerted a lot of influence to get this game banned, and no doubt as someone mentioned GTA4 will be next on his list.

I dont think it will be long before everyone that enjoys gaming will be familiar with his name.

 

[DampCat]

Well thats just not true right there - the murder in question was robbery based and the VICTIM (14) owned the game.

Conceeded. The rest remain.

 

[perc]

Ok, just because you're being purposefully irritating i'm going to bullet point the important parts here. It isn't possible to disagree with them because they are not based upon speculation. It is simply the way it is. Wether you would do the same thing is neither here nor there.

• There is a link between videogames and real world violence. See point 2.
• There is a game that exists that has an actual murder associated with it. The prequal to this very game.
• -SOME PEOPLE- (and i stress, not ALL people. SOME. I know none of you understand that concept but believe me there are OTHER people living in this world) can be described as "socially unstable" and/or "mentally challenged" and there is a *very strong* possibility that their twisted minds are sucseptable to influence of violent computer games. There are documented cases of "copycat killings" where people have mimic'd (spelling?) what they have seen in films whilst carrying out a murder. why should that link not exist for computer games. Regardless of wether you have proof, it is an entirely plausible situation.
• It is 100% likely that there are people (yet again, not neccesarily you, or anyone you know. Certainly not any normal person) who will be influenced by this game in a negative way. It is 100% impossible to know who they are. The police or government cannot find those people and single them out and stop them owning such games. the only option they have is to prevent the game being released at all
  

What are you basing "100% likely" on? Please show me your research as me, as well as the games industry and worldwide media would love to see this.

Yes there are sick people out there, but banning a game to the general population will not stop them acting out their fantasies I am afraid. Now that is a fact.

And just because someone disagrees with your view point does not make them "purposefully irritating." Its called living in a free world.

 

[squiffy]

Can you buy child porn in UK shops legally? No.
Do paedophiles exist? Yes.

I rest my case.

 

[Admiral Huddy]

Hi all

Firstly I will admit that I haven't read all of the thread, but living in Leicester this story is in our local paper (Leicester Mercury) all the time. There are just a couple of points that I wanted to highlight.

1. It was the victim that had Manhunter and not the killer, (the police have said this numerous times but have also said that the media aren't interested in this point).

2. The parents have tried to blame Rockstar for this tragedy but the court dismissed it, (I would imagine because of point 1).

3. Manhunter was a 2nd rate game. It wasn't selling a lot until they tried to ban it, at which point I did what a lot of other people did and went out and bought it. The hysteria paid for the sequel. Gotta love the irony.

4. The Keith Vaz factor. In my opinion Keith Vaz (the Leicester MP) is the driving force behind this whole thing. Having lived in Leicester my whole life I know that Mr Vaz is in the paper constantly for just about any bandwagon he can find. If a streetlight goes out you can guarantee there will be a picture of him the next day pointing at it. (He was also the guy that so publically jumped on the Shilpa Shetty - Big Brother bandwagon). Now he has something to get his teeth into, the facts of the case aren't important to him. It's the media attention he wants. He will keep pushing this until it pervades the whole video games industry and it is already becoming a personal crusade. I dont doubt that Keith Vaz exerted a lot of influence to get this game banned, and no doubt as someone mentioned GTA4 will be next on his list.

I dont think it will be long before everyone that enjoys gaming will be familiar with his name.

Some interesting point there..

To be honest, the way I feel, is that to be a cold blooded murderer, it’s something you’ve got to have inside you already. It’s something that’s part of you, like a pit-bull.

The victims, media and politicians need a scapegoat and the games industry is just that. Just the same way that during the 70s football was blamed for violence at matches but it was society that was the problem, not football. People seem to forget that and burry their heads in the sands rather than accept that there are problems in society.

Mans instinct and nature is a violent and has been since the stone age. It’s just unfortunate that some can’t control the level of violence they harness

 

[DampCat]

What are you basing "100% likely" on? Please show me your research as me, as well as the games industry and worldwide media would love to see this.

Um. OK. you're right. I have no research. There are no sick people in the world, we live in a Utopia where everyone rides rainbow coloured unicorns whilst eating ice cream and holding hands.

What do you think i'm basing it on? Universal fact. The way of the world. Human endeavour. History. Life. Everybody is influenced by everything, and if you actually think you can justify a statement that says there are no people who could ever possibly be influenced by it then you are a fool.

I'd like to see your counter-research that suggests it is UNLIKELY that this game will not influence people. My statement is based on the fact that there are emotionally unstable, mentally disturbed and clinically insane people living in this society. If you are suggesting otherwise, i'd like to see proof that everybody is in a perfect frame of mind that could not lift a finger to harm or hurt another person. Of course, you would also have to dismiss every murder ever to be reported, every rape, every abduction, every burglary, every traffic offence, everyone that has ever claimed to have been bullied...

And since i know and you know that you cant do that, i think we're going to have to agree that aside from your nitpicking, you havent managed to imply that this game is completely harmless, even to the most deranged and impressionable of minds.

And until you "prove" otherwise, you, and everyone else here who doesn't understand why the game has been pulled, will continue to wonder.

I can give you the addresses of some asylums if you'd like to take a copy of manhunt down and entertain some previously convicted murderers or rapists.

Alternatively, we can stop being ridiculous.

And just because someone disagrees with your view point does not make them "purposefully irritating." Its called living in a free world.

No but misquoting, avoiding questions and answers and editing out poignant parts of conversation in order to sustain some kind of irrelevant argument is.

And in this free world, if i want to call someone purposefully irritating, i will. Wotcha gonna do? :/

 

[benjo plz.]

• There is a link between videogames and real world violence.

You er got some evidence of this? Cause all the research I've seen fails to show any significant link, and there's a severe lack of empirical evidence for either side of the argument, and no longitudinal evidence at all.

 

[DampCat]

almost fell victim to my own complaints there! i left this bit out. I'll reply for continuity's sake.

Yes there are sick people out there, but banning a game to the general population will not stop them acting out their fantasies I am afraid. Now that is a fact.

No. You are right. it probably wont. But banning that game from the general public will help stop THOSE sick people getting there hands on it. And that will at least be seen as a step in the right direction.

It will never be a perfect world. There will always be murder and killing and war. Some call it human nature. But we dont need to encourage it any more than we already do.

As i said, you cannot remove these people from society, it's almost impossible to police a society of people. The only way of doing it is to restrict that society's access to certain things. Drugs. Guns. Alcohol. no one can stop a 16 year old doing coke, but you can make that drug much harder to get hold of, and you cant deny that there are a lot fewer smacked up 16 year olds than there would be if it was sold in Woolworths for general consumption.

Like it was said in a famous film, The People are the Mob. You cant please all of them, but you have to adhere to what is "The Greater Good". If the government did nothing about games like these then what would happen? Parents, Christians, Schoolteachers and do-good-ers the world over would erupt in anger. Ok there probably wouldnt be riots but lots of people would be cheesed off.

The game has been banned and parents all over the country can be heard exhaling an enormous sigh of relief. But we all know that the game will still find its way to our bedrooms. Illegally, legally, downloaded, imported... whatever.

The BBFC did the "right" thing and the -majority- of people were happy with that. We know that gamers are still a minority as the elders of society and government are not part of that generation. We saw the same thing in the 70's and 80's when they banned films. As society has progressed, films are not being banned anymore. The same will happen with games, but right now we're not at that stage.

Sorry about the anger.

 

[DampCat]

You er got some evidence of this? Cause all the research I've seen fails to show any significant link, and there's a severe lack of empirical evidence for either side of the argument, and no longitudinal evidence at all.

See above.

 

[squiffy]

So by that logic only "U" films and games should be released? Eastenders should be banned too, as that has fighting.

 

[zytok]

almost fell victim to my own complaints there! i left this bit out. I'll reply for continuity's sake.



No. You are right. it probably wont. But banning that game from the general public will help stop THOSE sick people getting there hands on it. And that will at least be seen as a step in the right direction.

But the game is not banned. It is merely being prohibited from general sale in the UK. It will no tbe illegal to own a copy or import one from elsewhere. Let's face it, how many people are gonna torrent this now it's got this much hype. Everyone's going to want to see what all the fuss is about.

 

[DampCat]

But the game is not banned. It is merely being prohibited from general sale in the UK. It will no tbe illegal to own a copy or import one from elsewhere. Let's face it, how many people are gonna torrent this now it's got this much hype. Everyone's going to want to see what all the fuss is about.

Indeed. poor choice of words on my behalf. The point remains however. They have removed it from general "legal" sale, which is good enough to appease the older generation.

Im not sure, but i think it's prohibited to import something into the UK if its banned from general sale here. A bit like FM transmitters were (iTrip's etc) although i'd need someone to double check.

And yeah, Rockstar deliberately release controversial games that create media frenzy. They're really good at it

 

[DampCat]

So by that logic only "U" films and games should be released? Eastenders should be banned too, as that has fighting.

Edit: nevermind.

 

[benjo plz.]

See above.

not really evidence is it?