This whole Manhunt 2 thing makes me SO angry! I'm glad to see Rockstar come out swinging

Kudos to Rockstar. I am sick of all these idiots on their high-horses, preaching their dogma all for their political approval ratings. All they are successfully raising is a generation of like minded idiots who think it's okay to say what's right and what's wrong.

Before too long, you'll need a permit if you want to sleep in late on the weekend.

I can't wait to buy this game. Go Rockstar!!!

Epic win for Rockstar. This is what I wanted to see from them.

i love you Rockstar. you've been my favorite developer now for quite a few years and it's for reasons like this. kudos.

Manhunt 2 is the ONLY reason right now i'm even considering getting the Wii "casual entertainment system" - i know it's coming out on the PS2 but come on, i want to act out my pseudo-murders!

I think I'm going with Fahey on this one, sort of. I don't believe the game should be outright banned, but I'm definitely on the side that thinks if they're going to release this game, it should be in a shop much like how Pornography is kept in it's own little section, that is, out of the major gaming stores except perhaps by being under the counter. Yeah, this won't make me popular.

Okay, I know all of you are anti-censorship, but I take issue with a few of the things Rockstar has said in this letter.

First, there's the argument that 'censoring this game prevents the video game industry from progressing.' Progressing into what? How realistic we can show someone's brains being blown out (from multiple camera angles!)? So here's the golden question: Is there artistic merit in life-like violence? And I don't mean about people being killed, because obviously realistic violence appears in other forms of media (especially television) but where do you end?

"If the player pushes X here, he'll ejaculate into the hookers mouth. Then hold R2 and press circle to stick your other gun in her mouth and splatter her insides against the wall in floor in all the realism the Playstation 7 can muster. Look! The chunks of brain have independant physics, and will leave realistic blood stains that dry over time!"

I mean, at some point or another, we're going to be able to kill in a virtual world. A very realistic virtual world. It has to come sometime: Controls that respond to our brain patterns, with graphics indistinguishable from real life, interacting with AI so good it passes the Turing Test AND our own personal 'brain' test. In effect, we have a virtual world that plays out in front of our eyes that is indistinguishable from real life. Are we still okay with killing models that are indistinguishable from real life?

"But Manhunt 2 isn't realistic." No, but look, you can't let a media as young as video games spiral wildly out of control without being responsible, and frankly, developers AREN'T being responsible. I think they're opening 'Pandora's Box' not because they should, but because they can.

Rockstar says in their letter that "although gamers can negotiate the boundaries between reality and fiction in other media, you believe we are incapable of navigating the same boundaries in videogames." I think this is true. Video games aren't an art form that requires the reader/viewer to sit back and watch what happens. They require participation. They require the player to push a button to kill, making each splat of red pixels the direct responsibility of the person in control. "But there's no link between aggression/violence and video games." No, of course not, because the violence we find in video games isn't realistic. The brain can still tell the difference between the imaginary and the real, and I think that's what's stopping the brain from making the connection. But you strip away the imaginary by making the graphics and controls more and more realistic, and eventually I don't think it's a strain to eventually see a time when shooting those virtual people in the world isn't much different that shooting a cavader.

All I'm saying is that if virtual reality is the target that video games eventually seeks to obtain, then setting regulations about what you can and cannot do in a game isn't a bad thing. We've already got them in real life, they're called 'laws.' No one is up in arms that it's illegal to kill a real-life person, but again I ask, what if that virtual person is so realistic it might as well be life-like? I for one am not against setting some ground rules now for a situation that could happen in 40-50 years.

Okay, uh, point 2:

"A ban is only likely to encourage those who believe video games, already the most regulated medium in entertainment history, should be further restricted."

I love the slippery slope arguments. "Once you ban Manhunt 2, watch out! Pretty soon we'll see all violence in video games restricted!" Sorry Rockstar, I'm not buying it. Banning this one game simple sets a precedence: 'if your game is as violent as this one, then it will be banned.' I don't think that's a bad marker to have. ESPECIALLY if we're to have a ratings system, we need to know the boundaries so that we
can enforce it.

I will say again that I would prefer that instead of countries banning the game, they simply went the road of 'selling it behind the counter.' The reason being is that I don't think that Man Hunt 2 is the game that will make killing indistinguishable. However, if the game is as great as it can be, then Rockstar can sell it from the dark counters across the world. There's no real reason it needs to be placed with all the other video games.

- Eddie

I think that because of the games they produce people underestimate their abilities as a business. Its nice to see them write a clear, calm letter that spells out how they stand. Way to go rockstar!

SUMMMAAA!!

Agent Chieftain: There are unrated games, but Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft won't license them. In that regard, there is no double standard because the movie industry doesn't have a little proprietary computer for playing movies that you have to go through licensing nonsense to put a movie on. The only double standard is in the retail sector, where stores will happily carry an unrated movie if it has proven its popularity, but they won't carry an unrated PC game. Unfortunately, that's an issue with the way people perceive video games and not a constitutional one.

Shameless plug, but I just posted a blog on freedom of speech issues in relation to Manhunt 2, as well as a brief recap of how Nintendo proceeded to butcher the game Maniac Mansion in the name of wholesomeness before it was released.

"A ban is only likely to encourage those who believe video games, already the most regulated medium in entertainment history, should be further restricted."

Games, the most regulated medium in entertainment history? Ha! I'm sure that, at the moment, the FCC doesn't impose fines over inappropriate video games.

Yashoki:

For the record, I don't think my argument that 'games will eventually become more realistic' is some sort of slippery slope. It's what the industry is striving to be SOMETIME in the far future, right?

Unless you were agreeing with me that slippery slope arguements are dumb...

- Eddie

Excellent letter from Rockstar. The ESRB system is basically broken simply because many parents completely ignore the ratings and buy whatever little Timmy wants. Kids may not be able to buy MA games by themselves 99% of the time, but if they whine enough mom and dad will eventually cave in thinking "It can't be too bad..."

In another generation the mass public will finally start to accept that video games aren't just for kids, and there's a place for titles with adult content. But if we let censorship issues like this go ignored (and yes, it is censorship despite what some people choose to believe) and allow lawmakers to run rampant over creative expression under the guise of "protecting the children", we may never get to see that day.

Good on Rockstar to call out "pharmaceutical and weapon industry" agenda pushed in video game marketing.
Gaming is getting weird as it creeps into the mainstream.
Manhunt is a little over the top though.

Funny how people on both sides are making "slippery slope" arguments.

On the one side there is the slippery slope of "If we let them ban this game, they'll start banning more and more games that are even less offensive than Manhunt 2. It's a slippery slope. Therefore, they shouldn't ban this game."

On the other side there is the slippery slope of "If this game doesn't get banned, they'll just keep making worse and more offensive games. It's a slippery slope. Therefore, this game should be banned."

I just find that morbidly amusing.

Overall, I agree with Rockstar on principle for the most part, and do not think that Manhunt 2 should be banned (or even pseudo-banned, as it is here in the US), but I still find the game to be revolting and won't be buying or playing it myself.

Maybe they could just ban the game because it sucks ass? Both sides have good points. Social responsibility is a biggie and Rockstar has shit all of that. But Rockstar raise many good points on their side too. Jury is still out here.

artistic freedom...thats how i feel.. but theres two strong sides to the topic up for debate

I think this whole drama can't just be compared to the movie industry. With movies, there is a platform for releasing things that fall outside the spectrum of ratings. You have indie movies, NC17 stuff, unrated dvd's that are marketed towards 13 year olds (American Pie 2+), festivals to show the most horrid stuff ever made, etc..
With gaming, there are only the platforms that some companies developed and more or less have total control over. Once a developer creates content that falls outside the spectrum of what those platforms support, it is effectively banned. But I feel that banning with Manhunt 2 is being compared too much in a 1-on-1 way to the movie industry.
Yes, console makers should acknowledge the maturity of their audience and allow adult games imho. But that is their call to make. There is still a platform for anything that doesn't fall within the accepted 'lines', it's called the PC + internet. I also feel that if Manhunt 2 was made by another company than Rockstar in say, 2000, some people would've said: "oh that sucks, I wanted to see what that was like" and then stopped caring about it.

The whole gaming industry is being politicized by terribly bad research on videogame violence (which is then used in Congress as fact) and by media outlets sensationalizing things. Which leads to people like Jack Thompson and certain boards to feel they need to take a stand set in concrete. Instead of trying to work things out together and come up with the best possible solution for all sides.

Finally though, I think that Manhunt 2 could get an M rating easily if they cut out the torture stuff and overly gratuitous violence. It doesn't really add anything to the gameplay (they were cutscenes?) and people probably would forget them 5 seconds after they saw it. Aren't we tired of these Hostel's and Saw's anyway??

Out of principle I'm against censorship so Rockstar Games has my heart... even when I'm completely uninterested in the game itself, Rockstar is right.

Anyone siding with fahey; you don't know shit. You haven't played the game, have no idea what the bulk of the content is like, and are pretty much talking through your asses. Much like fahey himself in that article. Rockstar's reply was concise and well written and I agree entirely with it. I don't like people telling me what is and isn't a suitable form of entertainment for me. I'm an adult. I don't need protection.

I liked the original Manhunt, and look forward to playing Manhunt 2. Hope it doesn't get banned in Canada to!

I like gore and demented premises. Let the consumers decide.

Again, I don't think my argument that games are 'eventually become hyper-realistic' is some sort of slippery slope argument. I mean, with technology progressing the way it is (20 years ago we were playing Super Mario Brothers, and now we're playing Halo) I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that yes, in the future video games will be more realistic.

I can understand why you'd think I'm predicting the apocalypse here; it does seem shallow to say "but think of games 50 years from now!"

But look at how games have been developing. Where once we crushed goombas in the Mushroom Kingdom, now we have environments like Vice City. And yes, Vice City is still nowhere near the complexity of the real world, but damnit, the developers are trying. Hear about that Assassin's Creed game?

But the question is of course, 'where does it end?' Well, then you tell me! Is Manhunt 2 (or Assassin's Creed) REALLY as far as we can go for realism in video games?

What I'm describing isn't a slippery slope, because realism is EXACTLY what games are striving to become. And when we reach that point, when we're past the Uncanny Valley and shooting a virtual person looks almost exactly like shooting a real one, then what?

All I'm saying is that discussing what is, and what is not, appropriate for someone to act out in a video game now, even if our games aren't near realism, wouldn't be a bad thing. It's coming, and you're joking me if you say that within 40-50 years games aren't twice (if not three or fours times more) as realistic than they are now.

I think it'd be better to set the boundaries of what constitutes a video game 'no one should play' now instead of later, when we've got some weird precedence of allowing players to indiscriminately torture and kill virtual people, "because it's just a game."

- Eddie