Nick_i_am

And you are the solution Tale. Take me now. NOW

Is the problem the censors?

How the hell do you siege space anyway? There's quite a lot of it.

Manhunt 2 was developed for the Wii, that doesn't mean it's ever going to be released for it.

*forever*

http://www.ea.com/moh/airborne/index.jsp damn EA and their stream of uninnovateive sports games. If they put coop in this I would love themforever.

Nah, but you can save your energy and leave it to Volo. Or Hades, I forget which one hates this crap.

So you think the industry should be self-regulating enough that governments wouldn't have to step in?

Sam and Max made me happy in my special places.

When contextually it makes sense, then yeah, I do. Esspically since comedy > pseudo intellectual matrix crap.

Agreed, if I want to play mop the floor minigames with groovy camera angles then i'm better off mopping the floor of my kitchen. Maybe then i'd stop getting explosive diarrhea.

Shut up, I ate him and stole his face.

But pushing borderline people over the edge? That's the issue, and, if true, is the only reason I would support censorship of this or anything else on a 'domestic' level. Of course, i'd rather support getting those people off the edge.

Actually, I'm not pro-censorship, not even close, and that's the sad part, because I do agree with you (also, for the record, I wasn't calling anti-censorship blind, I was calling out against blind anti-censorship). However, most of your arguments essentially come down to 'we shouldn't censor, we should educate instead' and this is somthing I would love to agree with, but essentially touches on issues such as class and even money with its scale. At this time in history, nowhere is it practical or possible to educate the entire populous to such a level where they are all going to be 'safe' from all forms of potentially antisocial media. Safe, in this case, implying that antisocial media does not lead to antisocial behavior. People will always lie, cheat and steal, and no amount of education is going to change that without it becoming mind control. As such, people who can potentially lie, cheat and steal can still be influenced by media which glorifies lieing, cheating and stealing. For most of us, education, a strong family, a happy childhood, whatever, is the real difference between us being honest and productive members of society or being crooks, thugs or theives, and this goes far deeper into social issues than simple censorship. This feels like a middle-class centric point of view, and society is far from just being its middle class. In an ideal, there would be no laboring class (as it exists now), no bread line, no ignorance, no broken homes, no sloppy state education, no homelessness, no unemployment, and in such an ideal, there would be far less crime and far less psychiatric problems than we currently experience. But in a world where this is an ideal, not a reality, free access to overly antisocial entertainment would seem to do society as a whole little good. Now I am NOT saying we should adpot the peoples republic view on things, all I'm saying is that as western society in its current form exists, small amounts of censorship can possibly be helpful in preventing antisocial behavior. Again I reiterate this, censorship, to my view is NOT an excuse not to educate in any way, shape or form, but rather, is a sad fact of our times. I'd love to see a media with free access to all levels of the governmental process without compromising our secutary or the logistical running of the country, and I'd love to see a world where people can take all levels of entertainment in their stride with no negative effects, but I just don't see this as realistic in any way. In short, a society that had moved past the need for any form of censorship would be truly wonderful, but we are not that society which makes this an argument about trusting people, namely the 'unwashed masses', with material that could potentially lead them to harming people. You say that 'many of these are because they are a direct risk to others', but isn't that the point here? I'm not talking about censorship as a tool of the government to keep people in line 'Big Brother' style, there is no way that is ever exceptable, i'm talking about censorship as a pro-social tool to help pervent anti-social behavior. On this basis, if the links between violent media and violent behavior are disproved then I would agree that censorship in this facet is not needed. To my recollection, several studies have shown, at least in some way, that computer games are kathartic rather than violence inducing, which is why this particular game, which seems to go against that trend, comes off as a problem. 'Forced ignorance' is made to sound like a bad thing, but on this basis, is it really? I'm ignorant of much of the graphical content of Manhunt 2, and glad for it, having experienced the first. That that ignorance is forced as well as chosen is irrelevant to me, but an issue to those who would want to experience said violence. But likewise, i'm ignorant to the sound a man makes when he has a three inch nail shoved through his eyeball, but does that mean a live video of the 'real thing' should be shown on daytime TV? Even if the media is available, restricting it to certain audiences or mediums is just another form of 'forced ignorance' only, with the line drawn in a slightly different place, which would be my original argument. How extreme does a piece of media have to be that mature adults are deemed 'at risk' from it's content? Is there no limit? Or is it Manhunt 2? Or is this just an excuse not to give people all the pro social support and education that they'd really need to deal with said media? I certainly know which is cheaper and more practical. At this point it's probably worth noting that one my of favorite countries in the world is Finland, which has basically the best education system you will be able to find anywhere. Their literacy rate in their own language was recorded at 99%, and given the deep south and heavily Hispanic populations I wouldn't be suprised if their literacy rate in English (which is likewise, very impressive) was better than the US. The country also features one of the highest rates of personal satisfaction in it's populous the world over, given much to the fact that people feel like the government works for them, not the other way around. However, the same socialist policies that lead to these achievements are also leading the country further and further into debt. Which is why, seemingly supporting the positive state of censorship in the US, a country which is built off free market economics seems rather strange to me being that censorship will always be a natural alternative to education anywhere that cares more about a profit margin than the individuals who make it possible, and lack of a state funded medical system (certainly not to the scale of the NHS) would support this.

Did someone say Ninjas?

The issue here (which a few people seem not to have cottoned onto) is not the censors personal opinion of the game or of games in general, but their impression of the effect it would have on wider society, and whether that society needs to be protected from said media. Big Brotherish, yes, but the same system of government that stops games like manhunt being sold is the same government that stops us (in theory) being blown up by fanatics. Of course, this would be the same government that is the real target of said fanatics, so the whole thing goes full circle. The point is that just because society wants somthing doesn't mean it's in their best interests, and like a little kid with a lighter and a can of arasol, the individuals ability to either ignore somthing or use it sensably can't always be trusted. In an ideal world it could, but there are very good reasons that many substances are banned or restricted all over the western world, and while this isn't censorship per say, the theory is the same. Why shouldn't I be able to buy poison in a convenience store? Why can't I smoke in a pub? (not that I even smoke). This is the governing body restricting the ways in which I can 'live' supposedly for my own good. To this end, to those campaigning against 'censorship', why stop there? Should the government (the one you support every time you work, pay for something or vote) have ANY control over what you can or can't do? Your argument is essentially 'this shouldn't be banned because the only people who will be hurt by it are idiots', but this can be applied to everything and anything, and in a world of seemingly ever decreasing civil liberties, is this just one more nail in the coffin, or is it so irrelevant as to not even be worth mentioning? A crappy and totally anti-social game is banned from a country most of you don't even live in and you cry foul, and yet, are quite happy to keep on living in anything other than a state of anarchy where you can do what you want when you want. After all, whatever government you live under will be hiding a wealth of information from you. 'Sensitive information', state secrets, why shouldn't you have access to these things? You're intelligent people, you can 'handle the truth' and be trusted with it, so why not? Of course, this is being overly dramatic and censorship of the media has been a hot topic for the past 100 years or more, governments have always known that it's their responsibility to keep their populous happy and safe, mostly from themselves. So the question which Manhunt 2 seems to have brought up, as was pointed out earlier, is NOT one of 'is censorship a good or bad thing' it's where we draw the line, because like it or not, censorship might not be a positive or mature thing, but it's a nessassery thing for whatever 'free' country you live in. You blind anti-censors might not be stupid, but you're just one in millions and seemingly not thinking about the bigger picture. Which is strange because nobody has talked about caring about the game itself, but has spoken plenty about what banning the game represents, without actually thinking about what it really represents. Of course, this has little itself to do with Manhunt 2 being banned, a topic which I have no real opinion.

Not that I don't giggle every time I chainsaw someone in half in Gears of War, but Manhunts violence made me urk. It's almost nothing to do with how bloody it is, but the nature of the killing along side the presintation to the player. You're watching a warfilm, you expect someone to have his guts falling out because he fell on a grenade. You hit someone in the face with a shotgun, you expect a cloud of red mist. You run someone over, splat. But it seems that the style of anamalistic street style violance that you get in manhunt is a step too far for a lot of people. After all, it's not just the cause and effect of hitting someone in the face with a 12 guage in the middle of a firefight, you get the executions in manhunt delibrately and said executions are often prolonged and brutal, featuring nothing more than household objects. For example while the gameplay can in many ways be compared with Tenchu, the latter involves simple slice of the throat by your ninja before moving on (as expected of ninjas) as opposed to being subjected to a film of your guy locking the other dude in a hold then stabbing him in the torso repetedly, smashing his face into the floor then stabbing him a few more times for good measure. It's not just that it's a facet of the gameplay either, it's the fact that it's the reward for playing well. In Pacman you would get a high score, in Manhunt you get to see a little scene where your guy murders someones face off in all sorts of horrible ways. The better you play, the more horrible the murder. Basically, it's the fact that the brutality is 'close to home' and is somthing that is very actively encoraged by the game. It's not just that the game is horribly violent, it's that violence is the POINT of the game. I love that chainsaw, and while it would be sorely missed, it's neither the point nor the pinicle of the game. Likewise, I no less love running people over in Carmageddon, but i'm a car with circular saws where the lights should be, i'm not Joe Anybody with any object I could find around the house. I love taking Zombies heads off in Dead Rising, but they're zombies and it's a simple swipe of the blade, i'm not sneaking up behind them then subjecting them to 20 seconds of torture as I remove their vital organs for no apparant reason. These are the key differences between violence in games like Gears of War, Carmageddon, GTA or FEAR with violence in Manhunt, and while i'm not saying that people are right to ban it, it's very natural that they are completely and utterly disgusted by it. Of course, you probably already knew this.

I'm happy just as long as there are warewolves

I....wait, rofl.

and sleep with their sisters.

I'd post one if I wanted to associate with people like Llyranor!

I agree with Sand!

<3 Blank