Issue 138 | The Hound: Manhunt 2: The Verdict Page 1

Issue 138 | The Hound: Manhunt 2: The Verdict

James Temperton :: Issue 138 :: 21st March 2008
Industry analysis with added bite.

Was the decision to lift the ban on Manhunt 2 a victory for videogames? This is a big question that I've been tossing around in my mind for the last few days. Whilst on the face of things it is great news, I do have some fairly major reservations. We'll all get to play an interesting and unique title and make our own minds up about it, even if it has now been edited twice. The 18 certificate handed out to the title basically now means that anyone can and will play it. If you're thirteen get a mate to go and buy it for you or borrow your mum's credit card and nab it off Amazon. If you're sixteen put on your 'old person clothes', squeeze all those spots and walk confidently into GAME and hope they don't ID. So, the game will go on general sale...but should it?

Whilst I think censorship is a bit of a pain in the bum, it is there for a reason. I was at a BBFC conference a few years back and an interesting point came up: the context of the act. This is an idea that a malicious or evil deed in a film or videogame is acceptable so long as it is in the correct context. The example given was a film that had a hideous rape and murder scene in it. It was highly sexualised and extremely violent but after some editing on behalf of the production company the BBFC awarded it an 18 certificate. When the special edition DVD was release, the rape and murder scene was a 'bonus feature' as a standalone segment that you could watch out of the context of the film. The DVD was banned from release.

So what's the difference? As you might have guessed, it is the context in which the clip is presented. In the film the rape and murder was seen as nasty and mean and utterly disgusting. In the separate segment it almost seemed 'cool', it was there for the sheer pleasure of watching someone getting brutally killed. Manhunt 2 slips rather awkwardly between these two points into what I'm going to snazilly dub 'a morally ambiguous area'. Fancy...

You see, in a game like Manhunt, what you're doing isn't discouraged, it isn't scorned upon and what's more you get reward points for brutally killing people. Now, before you start to accuse me of being Keith Vaz or Jack Thompson in a cunning disguise, allow me to elaborate. Violence, blood, murder, drugs and cock-fighting in your basement any other vice you can think of are all well and good, providing they aren't glamorised to excess. Not only does Manhunt 2 make them 'glamorous' (not the lip-stick and high-heels sort of glamour you understand), it rewards you for killing someone in style. You become 'the hero'. I know it won't turn me into a psychopathic killer but you never know. Chances are nobody is going to go and kill someone using a penknife to slit their throat before drowning them in a toilet in a blaze of sour grapes, but it doesn't exactly discourage the act.

It all depends which side of the fence you sit on. Is violence in a videogame worse than violence in a film? When you consider you're actually involved in the act of violence rather than submissive to it...but does that make it worse? Clever science people have shown that we're most susceptible when submissive and sitting there doing nothing (the logic behind TV advertising). When playing a videogame the mind is a bit more active and if you're thinking and not a total nut-case you'll surely decide that doing what happens in Manhunt 2 isn't the best of ideas when you're bored on a rainy Sunday afternoon. In my opinion there is sod all difference and films have been a lot more violent than games for a very long time and before films came along people were getting shot, killed, raped and cocks were being fought with remarkable frequency. Heck, why not ban books? Dr. Faustus (go look it up if you're pulling a face) is hugely controversial and that was written when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth...

Fact is, people will always be violent and people will always be fascinated by violence. It is damn good fun to blow stuff up and it is only reasonable that in the creative world companies should be able to create things that contain the violence that is prevalent in modern society and in our very human nature. Schadenfreude is a rather fun word that springs to mind: pleasure from the pain of others. Going back to that conference that I was talking about at the beginning of this article, another interesting point springs to mind.

According to the bloke speaking, the BBFC is present to protect us from things that we simply shouldn't see. Apparently they get a lot of stuff through their doors that they simply reject on the very principle of its vulgarity. What's interesting though, is the BBFCs rating system is based on public opinion. They are constantly surveying the public and changing the way they rate things, hence the introduction of the 12A rating a few years back. Were Manhunt 2 that shocking and that terrible it would never have been released here in the UK, no matter how well it was edited and fiddled around with. As it stands, the title has an 18+ certificate and that is what it deserves. Cut the uproar, just because it is a violence game and not a violent film doesn't mean it is evil. Hands up who's seen any of the Saw films or the quite frankly revolting Hostel? Not too many people better an eye-lid about them and they are very much a part of mainstream culture. Films have always pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable whilst games have been somewhat forced into a conservative and well censored stupor. Embrace a now more daring and exciting videogame industry, don't try and censor it further.

Hound: "One Man and his dog went to a meadow, the dog got bored, ran back home and became a journo."

>> Hound Archive: Do the timewarp on previous issues of this column.

Comment on this article

Comments

«s previous1next »

Mandown 21.03.2008#1

Nice to see it return and great article. I all honesty I am sick of talking about that game, but on the question of it being good for the Videogames industry I think there are positives and negatives on this.

The negative for me is the fact the game was cut considerably in all regions, and also that it had to undergo the appeals despite the many alterations to the game, which I think ultimately made it a entirely different game. Some say the game is crap, maybe so, but in fairness to Rockstar when such a focal point of the game is bleached like that it can only result in it being a much poorer version of what was initially intended.

When you look at games like Condemned 2 I wonder if button pressing is OK yet any replication of the movement of your character via the Wii Remote is not.

The positive for me was that the BBFC failed in their attempt to block the release. I never want to see such content restricted from adults, I hate censorship of that kind. If the BBFC want to protect the public and other such organisations around the world they should make sure they have the law on their side to make sure that retailers and parents do not willing allow such content to get in the hands of minors. Adults should be fully allowed to make decisions on all the content they wish to see.

The games industry for me is not being treated in the same way the film industry is. It seems that such organizations think that because the experience of videogames is more immersive they have more of a likelihood to affect people negatively. They see that immersion as negative in respect to violence . The fact is both can be equally powerful mediums when displaying violence, as well as terribly weak and one sided in their use of violence. We have crap like SAW and Hostel released so why not videogame content of the same nature. Manhunt 2 violence was said to be \"casual sadism\", yet according to those that played that initial build they said it was initiated by events within the story. It was also said to be too bleak by the BBFC, and watching eyes getting cut out and people being tortured in Hostel was not. I have nothing against that film or any other of that kind, it just seems like there are clear double standards here and I would like to see that exposed by decisions like this in future as they come about.

EDIT: Condemned 2 looks great Smilie

( Edited 21.03.2008 21:48 by Linkyshinks )

Edit this post:

When you look at games like Condemned 2 I wonder if button pressing is OK yet any replication of the movement of your character via the Wii Remote is not.

The games industry for me is not being treated in the same way the film industry is. It seems that such organizations think that because the experience of videogames is more immersive they have more of a likelihood to affect people negatively. They see that immersion as negative in respect to violence . The fact is both can be equally powerful mediums when displaying violence, as well as terribly weak and one sided in their use of violence. We have crap like SAW and Hostel released so why not videogame content of the same nature. Manhunt 2 violence was said to be "casual sadism", yet according to those that played that initial build they said it was initiated by events within the story. It was also said to be too bleak by the BBFC, and watching eyes getting cut out and people being tortured in Hostel was not. I have nothing against that film or any other of that kind, it just seems like there are clear double standards here and I would like to see that exposed by decisions like this in future as they come about.

EDIT: Condemned 2 looks great :D

<p/>

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

Modplan Man 21.03.2008#2

Games are being treated exactly the same as films, at least in how the BBFC treats them. It's the media that needs to grow up.

Simes 21.03.2008#3

Hostel was way more violent than Manhunt, and I didn't hear any controversy over that film. I cringed with Hostels chopping fingers and slicing ankles, not with Manhunt "executions".

Mandown 21.03.2008#4

The BBFC have a long history of being influenced by the media.

EDIT:

The media will always do what they do because it makes money for them, but the BBFC can have no excuse for being influenced.

Condemned 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHloJ1ImkuI

( Edited 21.03.2008 22:12 by Linkyshinks )

Modplan Man 21.03.2008#5

Simez said:
Hostel was way more violent than Manhunt, and I didn't hear any controversy over that film. I cringed with Hostels chopping fingers and slicing ankles, not with Manhunt "executions".

Funnily enough my sister (In her late twenties_ could barely watch them, and that was even Youtube quality video.

The BBFC haven't shown any sign of influence whatsoever. They've done what whey always do, base it on context.

I've been saying this for MONTHS.

Darkflame 21.03.2008#6

Context is infinitely more important then content.

The same principle makes censorship of swear words stupid.

You might dissagree with the BBFCs choice, but they are open and theres no sign whatsoever of media bias.
(especialy given how much the media hates videogames, vs only around 1 a decade are banned :p)

( Edited 21.03.2008 22:48 by Darkflame )

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+.

Mandown 22.03.2008#7

Darkflame said:
Context is infinitely more important then content.
The same principle makes censorship of swear words stupid.
You might dissagree with the BBFCs choice, but they are open and theres no sign whatsoever of media bias.
(especialy given how much the media hates videogames, vs only around 1 a decade are banned :p)

I am talking about films, if their decisions can be swayed there they can be swayed in respect to videogames also. Like I say there is a long history of them being influenced into decisions directly by the media, the Manhunt 2 decision is one prime example

Do you really think the media storm concerning this case had no impact in the decision Smilie

"Stefan Pakeerah, from Leicester, was murdered when he visited a local park in February with a friend, Warren Le Blanc. Le Blanc, 17, admitted in court last week that he had beaten the younger boy to death with a claw hammer and stabbed him repeatedly with a knife.

According to Reuters, he told police, "I didn't intend to kill him at first, but when I saw the blood I just let go and hit more times," he told police.

Le Blanc was said to be obsessed with the PlayStation 2 game Manhunt, a "blood sport" game that awards points in proportion to the brutality of killings.

Stefan's father told Reuters, "Stefan's murder compares to how the game is set out, using weapons like hammers and knives. If games like this influence kids, they should be taken off the shelves."

Darkflame 22.03.2008#8

"Do you really think the media storm concerning this case had no impact in the decision "

This "case" happened AFTER they banned it.
Also, there was a media storm around the first game which they DIDNT ban.

Your logic seems to be just because theres a media fuss there has to be bias.

Theres been newstorys about dozens if not hundreds of violent games in the last decade. All of which they didnt ban. GTA specificaly gets a lot of flack.

Whatever game they banned at whatever point, you could claim media bias caused it.
That dosnt mean its true.

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+.

Martin_ 23.03.2008#9

Excellent article. I usually think C3 writing is really pants, but that was great. I agree, really. As with all things- it\'s to do with the context. Say if I kill Linkyshinks because he\'s a paki, then that\'s just murder. If I kill Linkyshinks because he\'s holding a knife to my throat, then that\'s self-defense (bare with me). Now, in both of those instances, I have committed the same act. I have killed Linkyshinks in both instances. Obviously though, the latter is totally different to the former, because of the context. It\'s not the act, it\'s the context. The intention.

Now moving this over to video games, which have become the scapegoat of terrible parenting (has there ever been a truer sentence than that?). I\'m glad things like Manhunt, GTA, most FPS games, etc exist. They give me an outlet for all the things I (and all of us, whether you want to admit it or not) fantasize about being able to do. Murdering someone in cold blood, driving dangerously, and basically conducting yourself with reckless abandon. It\'s that morbid curiosity we all have. It\'s why people go on Snuffx.com and watch videos of Muslims cutting people\'s heads off.

It\'s a good thing we can excise these fantasies in a virtual environment, where there are no consequences. Along with being able to fly and do all sorts of unrealistic fantasy stuff. It\'s not real. Most self-proclaimed \'realistic\' games are so far from actually being realistic, it\'s absurd. How many games actually make you die after only getting hit with a single bullet, for instance? All I can think of is Rainbow Six, and Contra. The latter obviously is still not realistic at all.

It\'s that detachment from reality that allows me to do that, and not transfer those acts into reality. I can\'t move in bullet time. I can\'t sustain several fatal injuries which only make me limp a bit. I can\'t fly. I don\'t have access to guns, and if I did, there\'s no such thing in reality as \'infinite ammunition\'. In reality, non of these things are possible, and even if they were, morals come into play etc. In a video game, you can leave your morals at the door.

Boring old religious people like Jack T argue that it isn\'t people like me who are the issue, it\'s the people who are mentally unhinged enough to become influenced by these things. They then cite the Columbine shootings, and that other one. So two examples, both of which video games were only a part. The people involved on that were influenced as much by films and stuff as games. People that unstable will always find something to become obsessed with, and influenced by. Manhunt or no Manhunt.

Again, it\'s back to scapegoating. If middle America can ban something like a game, or gaming, for influencing acts like these, it acts as a form of fake justice (where there can be no real justice), and lets people have something to blame, rather than themselves or America\'s stupid fucking gun laws, and therefore, attain closure. Why deprive everyone else of something we use to have fun and release the tension of living our shitty little lives chained down to jobs we hate?

The real issue is how these people develop, and how they go unchecked for long enough to allow them to do something like this. The blame rests with bad parents. Doom 3 is not an adequate babysitter for an 8 year old. It\'s mad that parents are so detached from and uninvolved with their children that they don\'t notice them developing serious gun fetishes and stuff. No matter what you ban the public from having, these people will still exist. Why? Because it\'s not the system which creates these people, it\'s systematic neglect which causes them to become dangerously introverted, and cut off from reality altogether.

That\'s when problems happen. I don\'t even need games or films to be a sicko in that instance. Just give me a pen and paper, and I can draw my sick little fantasies about how I\'m going to stuff a blade up your mum\'s cunt and strangle her with her own intestines. Plan it all out before actually doing it. See? So rather then blaming a load of mildly-related secondary stuff, why not just attack the source?

Also, try not having stupid gun laws America, that might help you a bit.

( Edited 23.03.2008 20:34 by Oni-Ninja )

Edit this post:

Excellent article. I usually think C3 writing is really pants, but that was great. I agree, really. As with all things- it's to do with the context. Say if I kill Linkyshinks because he's a paki, then that's just murder. If I kill Linkyshinks because he's holding a knife to my throat, then that's self-defense (bare with me). Now, in both of those instances, I have committed the same act. I have killed Linkyshinks in both instances. Obviously though, the latter is totally different to the former, [i]because[/i] of the context. It's not the act, it's the context. The intention.

Now moving this over to video games, which have become the scapegoat of terrible parenting (has there ever been a truer sentence than that?). I'm glad things like Manhunt, GTA, most FPS games, etc exist. They give me an outlet for all the things I (and all of us, whether you want to admit it or not) fantasize about being able to do. Murdering someone in cold blood, driving dangerously, and basically conducting yourself with reckless abandon. It's that morbid curiosity we all have. It's why people go on Snuffx.com and watch videos of Muslims cutting people's heads off.

It's a [i]good[/i] thing we can excise these fantasies in a virtual environment, where there are no consequences. Along with being able to fly and do all sorts of unrealistic fantasy stuff. It's not real. Most self-proclaimed 'realistic' games are so far from actually being realistic, it's absurd. How many games [i]actually[/i] make you die after only getting hit with a single bullet, for instance? All I can think of is Rainbow Six, and Contra. The latter obviously is still not realistic at all.

It's that detachment from reality that allows me to do that, and not transfer those acts into reality. I can't move in bullet time. I can't sustain several fatal injuries which only make me limp a bit. I can't fly. I don't have access to guns, and if I did, there's no such thing in reality as 'infinite ammunition'. In reality, non of these things are possible, and even if they were, morals come into play etc. In a video game, you can leave your morals at the door.

Boring old religious people like Jack T argue that it isn't people like me who are the issue, it's the people who are mentally unhinged enough to become influenced by these things. They then cite the Columbine shootings, and that other one. So two examples, both of which video games were only a [i]part[/i]. The people involved on that were influenced as much by films and stuff as games. People that unstable will always find [i]something[/i] to become obsessed with, and influenced by. Manhunt or no Manhunt.

Again, it's back to scapegoating. If middle America can ban something like a game, or gaming, for influencing acts like these, it acts as a form of fake justice (where there can be no real justice), and lets people have something to blame, rather than themselves or America's stupid fucking gun laws, and therefore, attain closure. Why deprive [i]everyone else[/i] of something we use to have fun and release the tension of living our shitty little lives chained down to jobs we hate?

The real issue is how these people develop, and how they go unchecked for long enough to allow them to do something like this. The blame rests with bad parents. Doom 3 is not an adequate babysitter for an 8 year old. It's mad that parents are so detached from and uninvolved with their children that they don't notice them developing serious gun fetishes and stuff. No matter what you ban the public from having, these people will still exist. Why? Because it's not the system which creates these people, it's systematic neglect which causes them to become dangerously introverted, and cut off from reality altogether.

That's when problems happen. I don't even need games or films to be a sicko in that instance. Just give me a pen and paper, and I can draw my sick little fantasies about how I'm going to stuff a blade up your mum's cunt and strangle her with her own intestines. Plan it all out before actually doing it. See? So rather then blaming a load of mildly-related secondary stuff, why not just attack the source?

Also, try not having stupid gun laws America, that might help you a bit.<p/>

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

jb 24.03.2008#10

Oni.

There was absolutely no need to bring Linkyshinks in as an example, you could have used anything else and didn\'t even have to use a name. Why the need? So it\'s blatantly name calling/singing someone out.

You\'ve been warned about this before - I would take back what you\'ve said, and give more sensible example. The picking on Linkshinks but putting it into a \"moral\" context is inappropriate.

By naming names link that you\'re blatantly trying to provoke an argument/get some attention - it stops here. I would seriously change what you\'ve said, and give a more realistic example - picking on another C3 member is not acceptable.

( Edited 24.03.2008 12:12 by jb )

Cubed3 Admin/Founder & Designer

Martin_ 24.03.2008#11

No it wasn't anything like that at all, I promise. He was just the first thing that came to my head, because he was the first one to post, and was the only thing on my monitor at the time. It could have been anyone/thing else, just happened to be him, because I was looking at his avatar.