Time to bee HEard players from the UK!

[Nick_i_am]

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.

[Xard]

^ Well said

[Deraldin]

Thank you for explaining that much clearer than my several aborted attempts ever were.

[Volourn]

Irrelevant. I don't care how violent the game,, or it makes someone sick, or whatever excuse is used. Games (like movies, books, and the liek) should not be banned and/or censored. If you don't likes oemthing; don't buy/play/watch/read it. It's really common sense. Violence is the point of the game including such popular games like God of War, Gears of War, and a host of others.

 

I don't want to live in a dictatorship that tells me what I can or cannot do when what I'm doing isn't hurting anybody else. We have enough of that with other stuff.

 

Basically, get OUT OF MY HOUSE!

[Sand]

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.

 

Let them be disgusted by it. No one is forcing them to play the game.

[Volourn]

They wouldn't be disgusted by it if they didn't play it. IMAGINE THAT!

[Tale]

Basically, get OUT OF MY HOUSE!

When did the UK become your house?

[Volourn]

I'm speaking in general terms, silly. I'ma rguing the same way non Amerikans argue about Amerikan laws or non Kanadians argue about Kanadian laws (not that anyoen cares what we Kanadians do anyways, lol).

 

It's really simple that ina country that brags about being 'free' like Britian does; they should actually follow thats entiment and TSYA OUT OF THEIR CITIZENS' HOUSES (barring actual dnagerous activity that can ahrm innocents).

 

Unless I'm mistaken, and Britian is actually a dictatorship. My bad.

 

Game over.

[Xard]

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.

 

Read this part again.

 

On ideological level I too am against censorship in all of its forms, but I can't say I'm annoyed about this game getting banned. If it would've been up to me Rockstar would've never spend resources for **** like this.

 

I agree with Hurlshot, gaming as a medium escapes from responsibility. Some developers are like childish brats who do things just because "they can" and because things they do "upset people" (which must be very funny for their point of view).

 

Like some rebellious teenagers (well, maybe gaming as a medium has reached its teen years).

Edited July 5, 2007 by Xard

[Walsingham]

Actually, gentelmen, I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that there should be limits to what can be shown, particularly in a game. Games teach attitudes and skills. This is a fact exploited by games like America's Army, and DIVE. So danger 1 is that you may be training people at a very low level to be accepting of ultra-violence. I'm not saying it's teh same as going shopping in downtown London on a summer saturday, but it's an effect.

 

The second danger is that violence, real violence, is bloody appalling. The closer we get to accurately representing it the closer the psychological impact becomes.

 

Really I guess all I'm saying is that while Manhunt may not be the line in the sand, there has to be a line. My question is where should that line be?

[Tale]

Actually, gentelmen, I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that there should be limits to what can be shown, particularly in a game. Games teach attitudes and skills. This is a fact exploited by games like America's Army, and DIVE. So danger 1 is that you may be training people at a very low level to be accepting of ultra-violence. I'm not saying it's teh same as going shopping in downtown London on a summer saturday, but it's an effect.

 

The second danger is that violence, real violence, is bloody appalling. The closer we get to accurately representing it the closer the psychological impact becomes.

 

Really I guess all I'm saying is that while Manhunt may not be the line in the sand, there has to be a line. My question is where should that line be?

It used to be believed that ideas that questioned religious doctrine would corrupt followers. In a sense it was right. Knowledge that questioned the church could cause people to question the church. But is the way for the church to fight back to be blindfolding the followers? Exiling or killing those who questioned? Perhaps just burning their books and arresting them?

 

No. The proper way to combat changes you dislike is education. Not censorship. Afraid of people being desensitized to violence? Educate people on violence. The way to develop as a society is not to try to stunt the people and prevent them from seeing what we dislike, but to try to enhance exposure to the things we do like and promote an understanding. Promote intelligent choices. Instead of simply forcing people to not make bad choices, help the people get to a point where they can make good choices. Or at least be able to properly handle bad choices.

[Xard]

That's true too.

 

However I've seen enough teenagers kicking people already on ground because it was cool in GTA's (which rock btw).

 

Though I agree with Tale (ie. education instead censorship, censorship sucks), but how exactly would this all be made. Who would fund some great education program about dangers of violence? It is done already by several folks (ugh, I've never been as eager to punch as before being on one lecture about violences. Those smashed in faces... brr)

 

Of course the problem with promoting intelligent choices is that people ain't that intelligent anyway

[Tale]

That's true too.

 

However I've seen enough teenagers kicking people already on ground because it was cool in GTA's (which rock btw).

 

Though I agree with Tale (ie. education instead censorship, censorship sucks), but how exactly would this all be made. Who would fund some great education program about dangers of violence? It is done already by several folks (ugh, I've never been as eager to punch as before being on one lecture about violences. Those smashed in faces... brr)

 

Of course the problem with promoting intelligent choices is that people ain't that intelligent anyway

We have classes in elementary, middle, and high school over science, math, and english, why none on pro-social behavior? Are we afraid we can't justify the benefits?

[Xard]

IF people want to fund such lectures, go ahead, I'm all pro for it.

 

Question is are they willing to do.

[Tale]

Question is are they willing to do.

 

I suspect they may be afraid to. Much like the church of old, when people do not challenge their beliefs, they fear they may not stand up to challenge. There may be a fear that by teaching social behavior intelligently they may introduce concepts that are a more appealing anti-social alternative.

 

Ignorance is a breeding ground for doubt and fear.

 

Hence why I detest censorship. Under it ignorance grows. An educated and intelligent belief or feeling is held to far stronger.

Edited July 5, 2007 by Tale

[Walsingham]

I do recall dimly that psychology studies of media violence provoke not more viiolence, but the way it is expressed. That is using weapons instead of fists, or guns etc. Which makes sense if you think about it.

 

 

As for ignorance being a breeding ground, that's true. But a little knowledge is a dangerous thing too. If you had games that gave you thefull stereoscopic experience of killing people it would deter most from ever considering it. BUt they don't. They have to sell, so they tart it up. Warnography, so to speak.

[Tale]

As for ignorance being a breeding ground, that's true. But a little knowledge is a dangerous thing too. If you had games that gave you thefull stereoscopic experience of killing people it would deter most from ever considering it. BUt they don't. They have to sell, so they tart it up. Warnography, so to speak.

That's where education comes in.

[Pop]

Somehow, I don't think tolerance with a healthy dose of fatherly "be careful now" is going to affect whatever impact the games have on children at all. You can have a little thing about how violence is wrong and shouldn't be practiced but it's going to be about as useful and effective as the FBI warning that you can't fast forward through before every movie. You have to have a willing audience to educate, and **** if I'm going to play Manhunt 2 to be educated, I'm going to play it to strangle people with plastic bags and **** corpses. You need to be willing to give complete and utter trust in children's judgement, comprehension and maturity to justify "education over censorship". I know kids, and they're not to be trusted in such a way.

Edited July 5, 2007 by Pop

[Hurlshort]

Somehow, I don't think tolerance with a healthy dose of fatherly "be careful now" is going to affect whatever impact the games have on children at all. You can have a little thing about how violence is wrong and shouldn't be practiced but it's going to be about as useful and effective as the FBI warning that you can't fast forward through before every movie. You have to have a willing audience to educate, and **** if I'm going to play Manhunt 2 to be educated, I'm going to play it to strangle people with plastic bags and **** corpses. You need to be willing to give complete and utter trust in children's judgement, comprehension and maturity to justify "education over censorship". I know kids, and they're not to be trusted in such a way.

 

I actually really agree with this, although I want to point out it's a very small percentage of children that would be seriously affected by the content. I mean really tiny, like fractions of a percent. But there is just no reason to make this game available to anyone at all. It lacks any redeeming quality. Art if extremely difficult to judge, but seriously, this ain't it.

 

I'd have no problem if this game was made available by some wacko who conjured it up in his basement. But the fact that a major development house has spent millions developing exploitive trash like this is a major blight on the gaming industry.

[Volourn]

You tmay think it lacks any redeemable quality; but that's just an opinion with no real facts to back it up. Why should you just whether a game (or book, or movie) is worthy or not? It's silly. That's what the old book burners thoguht too - their opinions and beliefs mattered more than others.

 

I have played violent games all my life, and while I may be soemhwat of a jerk on the 'net; I'm no violent perosn. The same goes for 99% of people who play, watch, or read violent things. And, the otehr 1% were likely already prone to violence, anyways.

 

The fact that a game company spent millions on this games is worthy of kudos. Silly dicators trying to tell other people what they can do in their OWN HOUSE.

 

Gah.

[Tale]

Somehow, I don't think tolerance with a healthy dose of fatherly "be careful now" is going to affect whatever impact the games have on children at all. You can have a little thing about how violence is wrong and shouldn't be practiced but it's going to be about as useful and effective as the FBI warning that you can't fast forward through before every movie. You have to have a willing audience to educate, and **** if I'm going to play Manhunt 2 to be educated, I'm going to play it to strangle people with plastic bags and **** corpses. You need to be willing to give complete and utter trust in children's judgement, comprehension and maturity to justify "education over censorship". I know kids, and they're not to be trusted in such a way.

Once again, what do children have to do with it? If we just assume children will get their hands on everything, we shouldn't have R-rated movies or pornography of any kind.

 

This has nothing to do with children except to the ignorant who automatically think video game = toy.

 

And you're underplaying the meaning of education. Education doesn't mean a "a healthy dose of fatherly "be careful now."" Read what I said, I talked about teaching it like we teach math and science. We don't educate people on copyright either and we see a massive tons of ignorance about what that FBI warning means. Teaching social responsibility needs to be more than just a warning label. We can expect people by the time they're 18 (assuming they don't drop out) to add 2+2 and spell 'house' we should be able to expect them to act with a remote amount of intelligence and social responsibility.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Tale

[Nick_i_am]

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.

[Tale]

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.

It does not go full circle at all. An direct attack against life is not the same as supressing media, ideas, and expression. This was recognized by many long ago. This is a belief that established the "free world."

 

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.

Many of these are because they are a direct risk to others or reasonably used as an illegal weapon.

 

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?

Ridiculous slippery slope argument. To this end, to those campaigning for 'censorship', why stop there? Should the government (the one you support every time you work, pay for something or vote) have control over EVERYTHING you can or can't do? Your argument is essentially 'the government knows what is best for everyone without flaw', but this can be applied to very little, and in a world of seemingly ever decreasing civil liberties, this is just one more nail in the coffin. To think it is not worth mentioning is to be ignorant of the bigger picture. A crappy and totally anti-social game is banned from a country most of you don't even live in and you cry yay, and yet, are quite happy to keep on living in anything other than a state of complete socialism where the government tells you what you want when they want you to want it. After all, the government knows best.

 

Your entire argument is based around the idea that control is necessary and ignorant of any concept that can achieve the same effect without limiting expression. Namely, education.

 

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers, which are cited to justify it." President John F. Kennedy

 

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.

False. Governments responsibility is not to keep them safe from themselves. Governments that proclaim that they know what is best for their people without educating and asking their people are doing only what is best for the politicians.

 

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.

It is not necessary. Education is necessary. That is a good question, where do we draw the line? What can't be censored?

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.

If you want to argue specifically about what the game represents in being banned, then you're going to have to rewrite your entire post. You are being far more general than just Manhunt 2. I think it's ironic that someone who supports censorship, which is forced ignorance, can call others blind. You're saying that people should be blind, yet declare that anti-censors are blind as an insult. To promote censorship, a form of control, over education is the true extent of being blind and promoting stupidity.

 

 

 

I have nothing against the UK deciding to ban Manhunt 2. My entire argument in this thread has been against those who claim that censorship is necessary. Censorhip is only necessary to control others. That's all it exists to do. To prevent ideas and expression. If someone is afraid of anti-social ideas and expression hurting society, then it is their responsibility to educate on the benefits of pro-social ideas and expression, not simply censor them. It is anathema to growth and the so-called "bigger picture." Europe has a different mindset in regards to freedom than America. Too many of the countries there have histories that involve fascist dictatorships. Something the US has appalled since it was created.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Tale

[Nick_i_am]

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.

[Volourn]

Unlike poison, Mnahunt 2 will not hurt anyone. It's a game. It's not real. It's not gonna drive *anyone* who plays it to violence. Just because someone plays Manhunt 2, and then commits violence doens't mean the game made them do it. Chances are soemthing else caused the person tobecome violent.

 

It be like someone watching Price Is Right then going out to commit robbery, and then someone blaming POR causing the person to commit robbery by showing others getting rich by 'playing a game' and making viewers jelaous. It's ludicrous!

 

Games do NOT turn otherwise peaceful people into violent pyschopaths. Period.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Volourn