Tiga, psychologist defend R* News

I work in the games industry and tbh, I'm quite happy this got banned, it's all a bit sad really.

Nerds and anorak types. Even when defending our rights, they treat us like shit.

At least they didn't use the phrase "Propeller Heads", that one really gets me.

I picked up the PS2 version when I was in the states recently.

Manhunt 1 was far more gritty, darker and generally entertaining. Manhunt 2 is a really bad game, a bit of visible violence would have made it slightly more interesting, but nothing could make it worthy of a purchase. Thank god the conversion rate made it only about a tenner.

The game got middling review scores anyway suggesting it isn't all that good so even if it does somehow get released here in Europe, who is going to want to play it?

I bought the first game and thought it was initially unique and atmospheric but prolonged play revealed it to be a dull, repetitive slog that's only noteworthy feature was (if you can call it that) its extreme violence. I suspect that is the only reason it sold well so a toned down sequel will surely be less attractive to those people that enjoyed the original game in the first place (all three of you)?

I was also surprised at the chartered psychologist's use of the terms "Most of these people are nerd characters, they tend to be anoraks".

To be honest I think comment like that harms Take Two's case. My first impression of a psychologist that speaks that way is hardly one of professionalism. My mind forms a picture (right or wrong) of some down on his luck graduate happy to take TT's money to say a few "qualified" lines in a hearing.

And as for "According to Cumberbatch, a number of respondents spontaneously suggested..." what kind of anecdotal crap is that? An expert witness should be there to qualify facts, not regurgitate the musings of an unknown number of passers by.


"They played Manhunt 2 for 15 minutes and were shown a compilation of clips, put together by Take-Two"

Well Jesus, it hardly gets more biased. If this hearing was an actual court case that sort of tosh would never be admissible.

I should point out, before any nutters flame me, that I'm not commenting on the validity of the original verdict on MH2. I'm just suggesting that this appeal sounds like bit of a circus.

No matter what happens with this title it'll still be a rubbish game that has more chance of suffocating in it's own plastic bag on the way home from the shops than causing it's owner to murder random people on the street with same said placy bag.

I work in the games industry and tbh, I'm quite happy this got banned, it's all a bit sad really.

Maybe that should read, "I work in a rival company to Rockstar and tbh, I'm quite happy this got banned, I am a bit happy really."

;)

Most of the serial killer psycho's that I can recall "tend to be anoraks"

I don't think that comment will help their case.

I wonder how much R* have paid these guys.

But, Mr Cumberbatch (*sniggers while thinking of him as Mr. Cucumberpatch), which of these violent films asks the audience to identify, empathise and even sympathise with the main, violent protagonist, in the same way that Manhunt 2 asks the players to?

Because if he's comparing just straight out graphical scenes of violence, then Saving Private Ryan is far more gruesome. But that's not the only criteria the BBFC used to decide to not rate Manhunt 2, is it? Carrying on with Saving Private Ryan as a comparison, the overwhelming message of the film is that the violence was abhorrent and overwhelmingly negative, whereas Manhunt 2 actually celebrates and reinforces violence as a positive activity.

But, hey - it's the 'Slam-The-Nasty-Censors Gravy Train Express' and there's always room for one more...

I had to look Tiga up on Google. Explain it in the article.

so much fuss over a crap game. what a waste of everybodys time

The quality of the game has nothing to do with the issue at hand - censorship and hypocrisy.

/despairs

@hula hoops... oooh harsh...:-)

Nah, i have friends working on that title and they are rather understandably pissed off, but it is an indefensible piece of crap design-wise imo...

Then again, although i like a good horror film, i'm not a fan of 'cannibal holocaust'. Shock for shock's sake is just annoying, and Rockstar are getting a habit of making us designers in the games industry look like a bunch of childish idiots.

Who do you work for then MrC?

^ Nice copy and paste ;)

Carrying on with Saving Private Ryan as a comparison, the overwhelming message of the film is that the violence was abhorrent and overwhelmingly negative, whereas Manhunt 2 actually celebrates and reinforces violence as a positive activity.

So it seems. And yet according to the BBFC itself (quotes courtesy of our own Johnny Minkley) gamers are less susceptible to such violent representations than film goers:

"Gamers appear to forget they are playing games less readily than film goers forget they are watching a film because they have to participate in the game for it to proceed. They appear to non-games players to be engrossed in what they are doing, but, they are concentrating on making progress, and are unlikely to be emotionally involved."

"While there is an appeal in being able to be violent without being vulnerable to the consequences which similar actions in real life would create, gamers are aware that they are playing a game and that it is not real life."

"Gamers are aware that violence in games is an issue and younger players find some of the violence upsetting, particularly in games rated for adults. There is also concern that in some games wickedness prevails over innocence. However, most gamers are not seriously concerned about violence in games because they think that the violence on television and in films is more upsetting and more real."

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...

I work in the games industry and tbh, I'm quite happy this got banned, it's all a bit sad really.


That's quite sad really, you don't have the same artistic freedoms as filmmakers but are fine with that...great creatives would not be..

For the upteenth time, whether you like it or not does not constitute a great reason to stand idly by while someone tells you Eli Roth can direct what you cannot, unless you are selling Horsez and Hamsterz and do not care about the industry merely a quick buck

R* are crap seems to override R*'s rights, that's what you get for making videogame nasties eh..

Yet if exhibit A was GTA4 or God of War there would be 1000 posts here with people going a bit mental....

The industry's argument that films are more violent than their respective game is obsolete. It just doesn't matter. Either games do manipulate gamers (like the game-fearing conservatives put it) or they don't.

@LPXO - Not saying, I've very impartial about all gaming companies and have been known to criticise my own one in here, so i ain't gonna line myself up to be shot! :-)

@BillyBrush - Of course artistic freedom is important, but as soon as someone starts abusing it, by simply making stuff that is designed to get into the news, designed to upset people, from our point of view it harms the industry as a whole.

We have enough trouble trying to convince the media that we are a responsible industry that nowadays makes games that more than shooting aliens with guns and we really we don't need idiots like these coming along and saying 'ooh, look, you can do these particularly nasty things to people, it's really gory, and loads of fun.'

I also agree with people saying that the media doesn't understand that gaming is also for adults, these games aren't going to help that arguement either, as the main stories that make it into mainstream newspapers are all about crap like this, and not some of the other awesome stuff out there that should be getting coverage.

Oh christ not again.

/weeps

The BBFC have ruined this game, no doubt, from the masterpiece it could have been.

Anyone in favour of banning or censoring games isn't a real gamer and probably has issues.

Nobheads.

@ dirigiblebill

Mr. Minkley's use of Cronenberg's works as a comparison to Manhunt 2 is deeply flawed, as none of the Cronenberg films (to the best of my recollection) have placed the viewers in the position of the violent protagonist, seeing things from their perspective.

I suspect that one of the reasons why films are often seen to be more violent is because most graphic violence depicted on-screen is directed at people with whom the audience empathises - the viewers put themselves in the position of the victims, experiencing a greater feeling of revulsion and disgust. The Hostel and Saw films are excellent examples of this - people are right to state that the violence depicted in those films is worse than that in Manhunt 2, but in the films, the audience is directed to empathise with the victims far more than the initiator of violence. Violence in most other games also fits into this category, or is mollified by other aspects of the game, or by a humourous setting.

Johnny Minkley also seems to forget that the BBFC have stated many, many times that Manhunt 2 was not banned only because it delivered very graphic violence, but that the violence was delivered in an almost unique manner - unrelenting, bleak, necessary for game progression and from the protagonist's point of view. If this statement is kept in the mind when reviewing the BBFC's comments (especially those Johnny Minkley quotes in his article), a very different light is shed on the BBFC's decision.

Taken effectively out of context, as by Johnny, the BBFC's quotes do indeed appear to indict it as having been hypocritical and guilty of double-standards, but that means people are then arguing against something that the BBFC have not in fact done.

Which does rather cloud the issue somewhat...

Personally I found it difficult to empathise with any character in the Saw films- isn't the point that they're all guilty of something, and that the violence visited on them is a form of retribution? I don't think modern horror films can be entirely exonerated from the charge of taking delight in the representation of suffering, peopling their rickety motels, dodgy resorts and what-have-you with superficial, irritating jocks and sorority girls in order to kill them off in spectacularly inventive fashion. I concede however that few of these examples involve the viewer being encouraged 'to identify, empathise and even sympathise with the main, violent protagonist' as you put it.

But I'd take issue with your assumption that playing a game is synonymous with identifying and empathising with its protagonist. There are very, very few (perhaps no) games with sufficient subtlety to effect this, and Manhunt 2 (as far as I can see) is not one of them. I suspect most players would treat it as they would any other violent action game, in line with the behavorial characteristics described in the BBFC quote. Consequently I don't think we can call for it to be banned on the grounds that it will spawn some tidal wave of adolescent violence. We might, on the other hand, call for it to be banned on the grounds that it gives videogaming a bad name, but this is of course incompatible with freedom of speech.

@Mr Chuckles

Fair enough but i think tarring Rockstar as idiots is a bit short sighted, they did bring along the sandbox or toybox genre with GTA3 (no not the only freeform game i guess Elite was there some time before, but still groundbreaking in some ways such as use of culture/non use of crap plotting)

And these stealth games, well the more violent and morally ambiguous games have quite a heightened sense of immersion, when in splinter cell you are essentially stalking and killing, but it's Ok because Sam Fisher is fighting evil terrorists with nukes and we western kiddies all should know it's Ok to kill terrorists, because they are bad and have no cause, other than to destroy innocent people

Manhunt and Hitman on the other hand, have no such high and mighty morals telling you to stab an evil non beleiver, no you are stepping into the underworld and it's somewhere interesting to go, if you cannot see how 'doing what you should never in life' might be thrilling then fair enough, but it's why some find these games rather compelling, what's going to happen next - i don't know, as this guy i am playing is a lunatic....here see Reservoir dogs, taking you into the lives of a group of bank robbers for a day, Mr White has done some bad things, yet he's cool, and you don't need to be sick to gleefully follow along and see what he's going to do with that duct tape and razor blade

I really think if you cannot accept violent media may have a shred of value (rather than ad supported watered down crap) then fine, but R*'s games have not just sold because they are violent, Jericho is violent i don't see the copies flying off store shelves

I don't mean that "playing a game is synonymous with identifying and empathising with its protagonist" - all I mean is that Manhunt 2 is more about identifying with the main character than many other games and almost all films. Whether it is 'slightly more' or 'a multiple of...' is irrelevant - the fact that Manhunt 2 invites players to empathise and identify with the main character more than other examples of the ultra-violent genre means that Johnny Minkley's article (like most other opinion pieces I have read on this issue) is flawed, as it seems to base most of its arguments on 'but x film is more violent', as though it is purely the depictions of violence that matter.

The fact that a psychologist also seems to be of this opinion - that it all basically comes down to what people see and hear and that there's no difference or variation in how different people react to different inputs - makes me seriously question his credibility.

Johnny doesn't limit himself to suggesting that 'x film is more violent than y game= BBFC is teh bias'. He calls the BBFC to account on the basis of its own findings- to whit, that gamers tend to be less emotionally involved with their medium than film goers do. His reasoning (in that part of the article at least) is perhaps too general to apply to Manhunt 2 in particular, but it does tend to undermine your point that the game is to be shunned because it encourages player-protagonist identification.

Do you think the game should be banned because it will have such an effect on the viewer? Or are you taking a less empirical stance i.e. such representations are morally 'abhorrent', and have no place in our culture?

Totally forgot about Tarantino- rather relevant figure in the context of a discussion on the glorification of violence :)

in fact, you can throw all the gore you like at the screen, it only becomes disturbing when handled with a little skill...case in point technically Jericho as just mentioned will contain 100x the gore and blood of MH2, but without disturbing, such is it's lameness...if R* have managed to disturb so much with PS2 visuals they must be doing the atmosphere quite well

Dont give a toss re Manhunt, the important issue is the transparency and informed decision making processes of censorship.

What kind of system should be appropiate to UK? How easy and open to getting to Germany's well known and embarrasing treatment of Gamers as the primary school kids?!

Would it only take few change of people involved in the present system to have a big change that would have negative impact on UK gaming industry and consumers?

Various media format should get same or at least proportiate censorings/ratings.

He told the panel that although playing games does produce adrenaline, "By and large, the plot and narrative is relatively unimportant for most videogamers. Their emotional involvement in the games is relatively weak.

Bullshit. Any good game emotionally involves the player - I think someone has been playing shite games.

Landmaster: The very fact you think this game was going to be a 'masterpiece' makes me worried for your neighbours. Games have an emotional impact on people, and so creating a game glorifying violence shows how immature R* and it's customers are.

They seem to think all publicity is good publicity - maybe it was once, but not anymore.

Violent images in video games, will not make a person go out into the real world and kill innocent people. if the person playing a violent game is a heartless emotionless disturbed chav asbo prick, then its quite possible, the fucking moron will copy what he see's in the game. and that's a problem.

Solution?
Round up all the fucking chavs, put them all on an island and then destroy it.

Hates council estate asbo chav scum.

"I work in the games industry and tbh, I'm quite happy this got banned, it's all a bit sad really."

What is sad? What has working in the games industry got to do with it?

What fail to realize is that the issue is not whether or not banning MANHUNT2 is acceptable, but whether banning in general is acceptable.

Do you really want to live in a society where the majority dictates what the minority is allowed?

I say let R* have their fun. They make GTA feck sake we can let them off some shitty games and disputes can't we.

The BBFC banned the game because they were scared shitless of the tabloids whipping up another storm. That is not a good enough reason to ban something, although I am sympathetic to the position of the BBFC members having to face the prospect of those headlines and ambulance chasing MP's.

@ diriglebill

"Do you think the game should be banned because it will have such an effect on the viewer? Or are you taking a less empirical stance i.e. such representations are morally 'abhorrent', and have no place in our culture?"

I personally believe that there is not a direct parallel between films and games. Allow me to elaborate:

1. Films can in many ways be more emotive and more involving - the use of music, camera work, special effects and a host of other techniques can draw viewers into a film and make them far more involved than any game.

2. However, there are many, many barriers between an under-18 seeing an 18+ film - the BBFC rating, the fines imposed on retailers (along with loss of licence) and loads of other things. These are by no means a perfect way of stopping children accessing 18+ material, but it does cover all the bases and put the responsibility firmly on the shoulders of individuals (i.e. parents). For the BBFC and the law to go any further would create a nanny state, which no-one wants.

3. Games, on the other hand, are far easier to access. Children plead with unsuspecting/uncaring parents for the latest GTA, elder brothers buy it and let their younger siblings play it, retailers are more likely to sell to children - the whole atmosphere is that games are 'less important' when it comes to enforcing age restrictions. Yes, this attitude is slowly changing, but it is taking time. You would find it far easier for a 10 year old to buy GTA than buy Reservoir Dogs (online shopping notwithstanding).

Yes, this comes down to changing attitudes among retailers, educating parents and giving more clout to ELSPA ratings, but until such time as that occurs, something else needs to be done. It is no use sitting there saying "But that is not the perfect way to do it - this perfect way, which takes several years to implement, must be the *only* action taken."

Anyone who really wants to play Manhunt 2 knows about it, can import it, download that rip off the Internet or get it through any other means. The BBFC's stance is there for them to say "We did all that we possibly could - it is now in the hands of others. If you want us to do more, that would be a nanny state, which we will not contribute to." All the BBFC has done is restrict the incidental playing of this game by people who, through inadequacies in the current system, would be able to play something they should not.

NB
Many people are advocating that this is the Digital Endtimes (not necessarily in this particular thread), whereby now that Manhunt 2 has been banned, the floodgates of censorship have been flung wide open.

What about when Carmageddon was banned, hmm? Where was the Mighty Hammer of Decency then? Postal, Grand Theft Auto and Resident Evil 2 were all released, with BBFC rating, well before Carmageddon's appeal was successful. As was Quake II, Goldeneye, Starcraft, Final Fantasy VII, Fallout, Total Annihilation, Age of Empires, Curse of Monkey Island and Gran Turismo.

My point is that excellent, violent games were still released and rated - Carmageddon was a one-off, much as Manhunt 2 will be. This is not the signal for the BBFC to start getting more and more strict - rather, it is them pointing to the line that they say cannot be crossed.

@kangaroo "An expert witness should be there to qualify facts, not regurgitate the musings of an unknown number of passers by. "

+1

Isn't Tiga a DJ ?, a good one ?

Anyway, most seem to support the ban. I don't. I like to do my own.
Well..., if that makes you feel cosy...

(and I have a hunch, that If Manhunt was called, let say... Condmened 2: Bloodlines, and developed by those respected dudes from Monolith - and less notorious - BBsomething and tabloids wouldn't say a shit about it)

NickJD: don't bring politic views onto this, stuff is weird nowdays. Take Two supports the Republican party big time...
China is left or right?, Sarkozy is friend or foe ?

"A loud speaker spoke up said: give up!"

bioreit:

"Because if he's comparing just straight out graphical scenes of violence, then Saving Private Ryan is far more gruesome. But that's not the only criteria the BBFC used to decide to not rate Manhunt 2, is it? Carrying on with Saving Private Ryan as a comparison, the overwhelming message of the film is that the violence was abhorrent and overwhelmingly negative, whereas Manhunt 2 actually celebrates and reinforces violence as a positive activity."

I really can't agree with your evaluation of SPR. That film absolutely glorifies the central characters' sacrifice for their country in the "Good War". The more blood and mayhem, the greater the sacrifice and hence the glory.

Can't say anything about M2... but censorship is a slippery slope. Today it's violence, tomorrow it's "incorrect" political views.

Saladin:

"Nerds and anorak types. Even when defending our rights, they treat us like shit."

Yes, very unprofessional. I'm also amazed at the condescension. Some of it must be due to jealousy and general monkey instincts - it's an affront to their moral values that socially inept people can be "successful".

@ MakyoDetector

"I really can't agree with your evaluation of SPR. That film absolutely glorifies the central characters' sacrifice for their country in the "Good War". The more blood and mayhem, the greater the sacrifice and hence the glory.

Can't say anything about M2... but censorship is a slippery slope. Today it's violence, tomorrow it's "incorrect" political views. "

I have to disagree with you on that analysis of SPR. The final scene, where the aged James Ryan asks his wife to "tell me I'm a good man"(penultimate line in the film), when considered with Captain Miller saying that Ryan "better be worth it. He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer-lasting light bulb" tells me that the film questions whether the sacrifice was worth it. The fact that we have no idea whether Ryan did anything grandiose or significant, or just lived a 'normal' life, only reinforces this - so many men died for what, despite what the general says, could easily have been taken as a PR exercise, rather than concern for a mother's loss. And in return we got, what? A normal man who had some kids. Even the characters themselves question the validity of what they are doing, both in the quest to find Ryan and in the war as a whole.

Moving away from the digression, the BBFC have very strict guidelines about what they are there to pass judgement on. If they were to ban something that was clearly allowed under their guidelines, they would be in serious trouble, no doubt beginning with an audit and review of their standards. Likewise, if they allowed something that was expressly prohibited under the rules, such as genuine peadophilia (as the most extreme example), then they would also be in trouble. "Incorrect" political views, such as speaking out against the Government, are unlikely to fall within the remit of the BBFC anyway, and this is completely discounting the fact that so many other institutions and organisations would have to deem such views as illegal before it even moved onto the BBFC's radar. By the time that happened, I think the last thing anyone would care about is some ratings board...

This is by no means a perfect country, with Utopian laws and practices, but the three faction system of the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches works pretty well. The number of checks and balances in play in this country, I think, ensure that things can never really get out of hand. Yes, there may be dips along the way, but there are also little crests, so it does average out over time. To believe that the situation should be otherwise is laudable, but regrettably wholly unrealistic.

"Christianity is Stupid! Communism is Good!"
Negativland

Bio: feeling warmer now? good...