Rockstar Announces Manhunt Sequel... Will Game Industry Take an Image Hit?
Rockstar Announces Manhunt Sequel... Will Game Industry Take an Image Hit?
February 7, 2007
News of Manhunt 2 hit the web yesterday as Rockstar announced a sequel to the 2003 PS2 game which cast the player as a criminal forced to commit one murder after another, often in the most grisly fashion.While the original was highly rated by some reviewers (GameSpot gave it an 8.3/10, for example), it was also the subject of intense criticism both in the United States and abroad.
As recounted by its Wikipedia entry, Manhunt was banned in Australia, New Zealand and Germany. And although it was initially blamed for inspiring a British teenager to commit murder, that theory was later disproved by police.
The game also came under criticism from British Labour MP Keith Vaz.
Rockstar has a very brief trailer up for the game. A Take-Two press release says Manhunt 2 is being developed for PS2, PSP and, somehwat surprisingly, Nintendo's Wii.
The press release quotes Rockstar founder Sam Houser:
With Manhunt 2 we have tried to create a game that stays close to the original concept of chilling suspense and stealth, whilst pushing the game design and storytelling forward. We are also excited to have our newest development team, Rockstar London, working on the title alongside our two established UK studios, Rockstar North and Leeds.
Given that the overall intensity of the video game content debate has ratcheted up quite a bit since the release of the original Manhunt, it's a given that the Manhunt sequel will be quite controversial.
Comments
"And if Rockstar thinks sales of Manhunt 2 will be strong despite the controversy, or that sales might even be bolstered by it, hey, more power to ‘em."
This is just my opinion but I think that Rockstar is counting on the second part of your statement.
@Joleske
"I hope more companies put out controversial and adult orientated games. yes it will cause political and social backlash but I think that it is necessary if games are ever to be taken seriously."
I doubt it will work this way. Think of it: "Yay! Let's put more gore and blood in our game! Controversy for controversy's sake. Nevermind deep characterization or storytelling, more blood is the way go.
Controversy? Let's make a game where the player is a serial rapist/killer instead of just a seril killer!"
Do you then think anyone will take video games seriously? The original Manhunt was not a game like Bully. It was not a satire of schoolyears gone. I doubt the sequel will have anything meaningful in it. They have the right to make it, but how far are they willing to go? Nine times out of ten, when we hear about a controversial game, it's a Rockstar game. How come the other companies manage to sell games without resulting to controversy? It's kind of getting tiresome of defending the videogame industry when in reality we seem only to be defending a small part of it. That small part being hugely Rockstar.
Take Daniel, he hasn't played the original Manhunt but he is overly hyped about Manhunt 2 because of the blood of the gore. Sometimes Im not surprised about how some people ignorant of videogames look at us. The bad seed and the idiots are the one making more noise. People rarely get the chance to look at the normal and toughtful games and players.
I got overly excited about Manhunt 2 coming out. You’ve seen a lot of my posts and very few of them look like that. I don’t usually get that excited. When I write term papers, they don’t look like that at all. I only do it on this site when I get very excited."
No, what's sad is that's how I see ALL your posts, because you have the mind of a child and have no comprehensive skills.
You know, in the FBI's report about the Columbine kids, they didnt find video games on the list of reasons why they did it.
Infact, their IS no evidence to suggest that video games cause perfectly normal people to go out and kill innocents. People just use that excuse because it SEEMS to be viable, but when the facts roll in, it turns out to be just a myth.
And now, the media as well as some politians are starting up rumors. Such as Bully being the columbine game, etc etc.
Technically, the companies that make these games could sue for slander...
Please refer to any of my previous posts to you. Or Brokenscope's. Or Yoshiko's. Or Wolf's. Or Bigman-K's. Etc.
Still, they have some really interesting ideas of how to approach games. Manhunt's basically a sneak-em-up, but they didn't go the usual spy route. Likewise, Bully didn't [i]have[/i] to be set in a school for the game mechanic to work, but it made the experience more interesting.
As you said yourself, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
You think Rockstar sucks. Good for you, have a medal. However, there are clearly a significant amount of people out there who think otherwise, or else games like GTA and Manhunt wouldn't be getting sequels. There's only one reason why a game company goes back to a game and makes a sequel of it: They think/know it's going to make money. And if Rockstar thinks sales of Manhunt 2 will be strong despite the controversy, or that sales might even be bolstered by it, hey, more power to 'em.
Quality is in the eye of the player. To me, Rockstars sucks. I can spend my time playing better games than anything they make. And that's my opinion. They have every right to make the game; it's just that it'll probably suck, could create a lot of negative attention that we don't need right now, and all for profit for what I think is a louse company.
@Arion: I knew it was a series of books, but I didn't know it had that many. From what I understand as well, is that the books were different in that they actually had economic symbolisms regarding the time, like Dorathy *sp?* had steel shoes, which someone was a symbolism for the laborers (I think; it's been a while since I last learned it, so I may be wrong).
@Brokenscope: "As I said, a game that makes sales based on shock value is far inferior to one that makes sales because of quality and creativity."
Reminds me of how Atari fell. They made very bad games, trying to get sales out by commercial name (Pac-man and ET anyone?), and people just were tired of their bad games. And other problems, of course, with the company.
@Daniel: "Why are you rolling on me? I am supporting Rockstar’s Games just like you. If you’re refering to the Reservoir Dogs thing, it’s because there’s a level at the end of the game that took me about thirty-five tries to get through and I thought people would like to know how it ends and what happened to Mr. Pink. That’s a huge question that the game answers that the film left unanswered. I’m on the side of Rockstar Games and I’m defending their games, so why are pissed at me? Please tell me that."
Fine, it's because you are on ungodly idiot who can't grasp the fact that none of us want to have to read what BS comes of your mouth every time you get a thought and write it down, and you are a hypocrite; you are the Jack Thompson of OUR side, you are no better than he is; you are the kind of person who would hurt our imagine instead of helping. You go off flaming everything that irks you just a little in what I can only imagine are non-consciences bursts of thoughts put together by some kind of unplausable connection generated by a strange imbalance in your cretin psyche. There, I said it.
Err, they didn't even make the first SoE. They only published it. The second game was published by SouthPeak Interactive, who have nothing to do with Rockstar.
Really, does everything NEED a sequel? Does every game that sells more than 4 copies HAVE to be a francise? "
I feel the same way about movies these days...
I am truly excited with this announcement. When Manhunt was first being released, there wasn't much to be heard about it. Then, after its release, the word was, "it's too shallow as a game", or "It has way too much violence for our society to endure".
However, after picking it up and trying it for myself, I found there is a depth to that game that most people don't appreciate.
It quickly became one of my favorite games. I still find myself going back to it. Such as it is, I am greatly anticipating the sequel.
As for the government:
Until they stop attempting to raise our children for us, and instead focus their attention on help parents do their job better, {instead of doing their job for them}, problems will continue to arise.
Society must realize that games are not children's toys anymore. They have matured over time. Games like this are not meant for little kids play in their bedrooms, while the parents get a few hours of peace. That's what Mario and Zelda are for. Games like this are for the parents to plug in after the little ones have gone to bed. It's pure, unadulterated Adult Entertainment.
I think we need More games like this. We need a GTA-style game built around a lowly hooker, who sleeps with clients, strips in clubs, and does odd jobs to raise to running the whole city.
Why on earth do we need something like that?????
Because games of this type of nature are Pure Adult. They are NOT marketed for children, and nobody could claim as such.
Games like these might make people open their eyes, and actually look at what they are purchasing for their children.
They don't buy porn/extremly violent films for their kids, why should games be any treated any different.
My only problem with this game is the Wii.
Nintendo is known to be 'Family Friendly'. They want to attract the 'Non-Gamer'.
Releasing this game on a Nintendo console could/would easily lead to a "this violent game is being marketed towards our children" sthick.
All of that on top of the controller allowing you to Act Out the actions.
Actually swing a bat, not at a ball on Wii Sports, but at someones skull.
Raising you hands, not to bowl, but to pull a plastic bag over someone's head.
Sure, this may add realism to the hardcore fans, but the childrent that get their hands on this game, and are caught performing the actions, or later caught acting them out in reality, are going to be big ISSUES.
I understand wanting to bring a Mature audience to their console.
But do you start by bringing the most extreme player into the game at the beginning?
I like creativity sometimes too, but I think that shockvalue is very good. I guess I got a bit over excited when I found out that Manhunt 2 was coming out. However, I like creativity and that's part of the reason why I like Carlos Mencia because he's very creative and he's a great comedian. When creativity comes from Carlos Mencia, it's awesome. I think that he's one of the greatest comedians of all time. Shock horror is also very good.
Off topic, but honestly house of M, civil war, and infinite crisis are what brought me back to reading comics. I really lost all interest before that because it seemed like rehashing of the same story over and over again. (bad guy debuts, good guys loose, good guys regroup, bad guy gets taken down) I like the change.
Speaking to MTV News at last week's Wii press conference in New York City, Nintendo of America president and COO Reggie Fils-Aime revealed that the Mario Factory is in talks with Take-Two Interactive, parent of GTA publisher Rockstar Games. "I'll be spending some time later today with the folks over at Take-Two to see what type of support they can give our console," he said. So far, Take-Two has only expressed interest in using Wii's motion-sensing functions for a baseball game.
Though he didn't mention any specific titles to MTV, the outspoken executive did say that Nintendo wants the Wii to have more adult-oriented content than the GameCube did. That console's catalog was dominated by family-friendly offerings, although it had several notable M-rated games, such as Killer7 and Resident Evil 4.
"The fact is there will be M-rated content on the Wii console," said Fils-Aime. "EA has already announced that they're bringing [the GTA-like crime game] The Godfather to our console. And we want every single best-selling game to be available on Wii. Whatever that content is."
http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=24998743&sid=6...
And if not Thompson, I'm sure its going to be someone else who moans and whines about Manhunt 2.
You're right. That no good lawyer is going to try to destroy our fun. He needs to be disbarred. He'll more than likely try to ban Manhunt 2 and that will suck.
@ Brokenscope
What do you mean? I actually haven’t gotten around to playing the first Manhunt yet, but I intend to get it after I finish Scarface. This game looks great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It looks like one of the best things ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You’re not excited about this???????? How could a gamer not be excited about this??????????????????????? That doesn’t make sense!!!!!!!!! If you’re a gamer, you should be excited about this. It’s the greatest news of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This game is going to be spectacular and AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
Obviously the typing of a college student majoring in history. No doubt about it.
Manhunt 2 - A guy FORCED to kill people to survive.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!! SOUNS LIKE A MOVIE I KNOW!!!!!!! WOW WHAT IS IT CALLED?!
Saw anyone? What about Saw II or Saw III.
Good for rockstar. Let rockstar produce this game, it wont hurt the industry, at all. Espically when you have a movie that is 5x WORSE than this game will ever be.
Oh look, i just killed someone and his pixelated blood is on the floor. Pffft, that kind of violence is tame compaired to seeing a man get burned alive in Saw II.
As for the merits of shock-value entertainment - I for one hate it. I don't intend to play Manhunt 1 or 2, just like I don't intend to see any of the Saw movies or step foot in a Halloween haunted house if I can help it. But, some people like those sorts of things, and it's not anyone's place to say that their tastes in entertainment are overly lacking. I for one love Aqua Teen Hunger Force, even though most of the humor is stuff that shouldn't be funny to anyone out of high school. It's dumb, silly, cheap laughs, and I'm not going to claim otherwise. But not all entertainment has to be wholesome.
There's a place for high-minded, thought-provoking, high-art entertainment and such - say, the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, the media equivalent of Mom's home-cooked chicken pot pie, healthy, wholesome, and filling. But, not everyone eats Mom's chicken pot pie for every meal of every day. So, we have stuff like ATHF, the equivalent of a dessert with large amounts of high-fructose corn syrup - utterly devoid of content but quite fun to consume. And Manhunt would be, I dunno, cheap vodka, I imagine - I wouldn't call it healthy, it's not the most pleasant thing, and people would wonder about you if you consume too much of it and not much else, but people consume it nonetheless and it ultimately doesn't seem to harm them in the long run.
I haven't had a decent meal in weeks and you mention it. You bastard... now I'm tired, stressed, and HUNGRY.
I got overly excited about Manhunt 2 coming out. You've seen a lot of my posts and very few of them look like that. I don't usually get that excited. When I write term papers, they don't look like that at all. I only do it on this site when I get very excited.
@ Everybody
Incase you want to know, I got through Reservoir Dogs the game and, in the end, Mr. Pink gets killed after he leaves the warehouse in case you wanted to know. All the Reservoir Dogs died at the end of the game.
Actually, in the movie, it doesn't show the final gun fight between Mr. Pink and the cops. It only shows him leaving the warehouse. They show the final gunfight in the game. I bought the film last summer and I have seen it over over again. It is one of my favorite films of all time and it's awesome. You will like that film.
@GP:
Nice to see your little talk with Daniel was so effective. I mean, you can really tell he's changed. And boy, the other poster's responses certainly reflect that.
Why are you rolling on me? I am supporting Rockstar's Games just like you. If you're refering to the Reservoir Dogs thing, it's because there's a level at the end of the game that took me about thirty-five tries to get through and I thought people would like to know how it ends and what happened to Mr. Pink. That's a huge question that the game answers that the film left unanswered. I'm on the side of Rockstar Games and I'm defending their games, so why are pissed at me? Please tell me that.
As for the game it self I could care less. It will undoubtedly bring a slew of controversy, but really so did the original and the industry survived that.
The same reasons I was never excited about saw, TCSM (Texas chain), or any of the plethora of clueless teens vs serial killer movies.
For the most part they are stupid and pointless.
As I said, a game that makes sales based on shock value is far inferior to one that makes sales because of quality and creativity.
I think that is a very simple and straight forward statement. Even you should be able to understand it.
If i had any faith that rockstar was going to make a GOOD game, this would not be a problem.
The greatest news of the year would be that "Hey! We got cheap and clean fusion power working, now we can get rid of all those nasty coal burning plants and become rich bastards because were clever."
or maybe
"Hey! We got a cure for aids that also disables most cancer cells, not sure why but it works and its safe for 99.9919% of the population."
or maybe even
"Hey... we found a way to travel faster than light safely"
and just maybe
"We discovered a way to let you learn while sleeping. Really, I'm not fucking with you, it works... put down the torches... OH GOD HES GOT A PITCHFORK!!!!"
...
Would you also learn to type like a rational human and not a inebriated chimp slamming a keyboard against a wall.
@ Brokenscope
What do you mean? I actually haven't gotten around to playing the first Manhunt yet, but I intend to get it after I finish Scarface. This game looks great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It looks like one of the best things ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're not excited about this???????? How could a gamer not be excited about this??????????????????????? That doesn't make sense!!!!!!!!! If you're a gamer, you should be excited about this. It's the greatest news of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This game is going to be spectacular and AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A seuqel to the sequel to the sequel to the sequel to the sequel, very little has actually been confirmed for GTAIV other than that it is for the ps3 and the xbox 360. Industry analysts expect the game to be controversal, they also except the summer to be hot, the winter to be cold and that taxes will be in april. As well as this they also predict that more than half the people in the us will never win the lottery. Please stay tuned for futher developments and other important "news".
You for got they made a sequal to State of Emergency, for some reason...
And, indeed, in the first paragraph, I forgot a key aspect of my Dream World : in my dreams, if a game sparked a controversy, it would only affect this game and eventually its developpers and editors. Not other editors, not other games, certainly not the whole industry, and even not the players of this game. But as I've said, as long as we're not in my Dream World, we have to take it into account, and act in consequence.
Unfortunately, we're not in my Dream World. We're in a world in which video games are sometimes not even considered as a medium. A world in which video game industry has an execrable reputation of powerful, hungry-for-profit mafia. A world in which controversial game makers carry on their shoulders, not only A world in which people who make laws about video games do not play and do not know video games. A world in which people who influence lawmakers do not play and do not like video games. So one cannot act like if this context didn't exist, and hope there won't be any consequence. It would be totally irresponsible.
So do I call to censorship or self-censorship ? No. I'm just asking everyone to take all these facts into account, and act in consequence. I'm asking everyone to consider the context in which video games are right now, in all its absurdity. Take this context into account, and act in consequence. And if you hate this situation (and I hate it a lot), try to change it before doing anything prejudicial to other people than yourself.
Nobody's under any obligation to blindly get behind Rockstar on everything they do. If they decided to develop a game entitled "Let's Go Lynch Some Blacks and Gays", I highly doubt many of you would be lining up to support it. It wouldn't matter how amazing the Lynch-o-meter worked in the gameplay. Yeah, they have the right to say it and I'll never deny them that, but we have just as much of a right to say they suck and this is a bad idea.
As for the controversy thing, I don't have anything to add to it that hasn't been said already, so I'll just shy away from that topic. ;)
It's a fun game. I'm hoping the second one will be better.
As for the controvesy, people will whin and cry for a couple more years, then move on to the newest social evil.
The dumbest gamer from the last generation will become a new Jack Thompson. He'll send out press releases daily, and when he gets interviewed by Rolling Stone, he'll mention that his favorite game is Manhunt.
In a nutshell, you people need to get behind Rockstar. Manhunt 2 may not be helping the industry's image, but the mark isn't permanent.
What WILL hurt the industry is if we self censor.
Look what it did to comics. They did that and it to 50 years for them to come out of that slump.
Grow some proverbial manhood GP.
Saying "oh why are they courting sontroversy, they are going to bring too much negative publicity on the games indusrty, blah blah blah" is a defeatist and wishy washy blame-the-victim approach to the issue of violence in video games when what we should be projecting is proud and steadfast defiance. If a woman gets raped its not because she courted too much attention by wearing tight jeans, its because the bloody rapist was a criminal psychopath and should be jailed. Similarly, its not R*'s fault that the type of games they want to make are so violent or on questionable content (sometimes, other times they make relatively harmless games like ping-pong or Bully) cause all of the anti-violence psycopaths to freak out and make a bunch of noise, then thats a failure of sanity from those people, and if they choose to culturally 'rape' Rock* for exercising their constitutional freedoms then its the JT's of the world that are the lunatics deserving of our scorn.
I do, however, know and respect the fact that there are many people out there who do enjoy these things. I would never go out of my way to attack people for enjoying these, nor would I attack their creaters for making them.
Sooner or later, games like these will be made. Sooner or later, they'll become common place, and it will not become unusual for these games to be popular with the populace. In my opinion, the sooner, rather than the later, this happens the better. Then we can get it over with quickly and let the medium evolve into greater things. The longer we hold this back, the longer we hold back the evolution of gaming.
The difference is that all the people on the fringe of other media are considered a bit oddball and crazed, and yet no-one can see that same glaze of craziness on anti-computer game preachers...yet. You'll know when that happens because Politicos are very very good at knowing when to drop the ball ;)
I hate when rockstar makes a title to convert controversy into cash. I hate things that rely on shock value instead of quality or creativity.
However as always.
"I hate you, I hate your ideas, I hate how you think, I hate how you act, but to my death I will defend your right to to be that way."
I'll just spend my money elsewhere get on with my life and add witty comments to the inevitable gamepolitics stories that will hit in the coming year.
Ask yourselves honestly, when you read that Manhunt 2 was coming out, was your first thought 'I wonder how Jack is going to Press Release this one?' or something to that effect?
That's the 'Thompson effect', basically, the first thing we look for in a bit of game news is for the angle that it will be misrepresented and twisted by the anti-game mob, basically, all the lies and misinformation being spread around has left us somewhat over-sensitive to the political implications.
I also liked the fact that it sparked so much conversation between my friends about video games - the role they play in our lives, how they should be marketed, what demographic plays, etc, etc. Even non-gamers got in on the debate.
Keep putting out good games Rockstar and I'll keep supporting you.
I dunno, because they want to fix the problems of the previous game, or try some of their new techniques?
Rockstar has me blessing on this. They do not bow to political pressure, they do not cancel a title due to political pressure, they do not bow to parents, they do not bow to special interest groups, and they certainly do not bow to psychopath lawyers who want to undermine the very basis of my country's freedom, the freedom to say whatever you want.
I hate to say it, but I expected better from the people here. Rockstar is fixing to flex their freedom of expression, yet you want them to stifle that so the industry doesn't take another hit? The movie and comic book industries went through this exact same thing and are still there. Let the idiots shoot their mouths off and let Rockstar make their game, they have every last right to do so and to release it, no matter what anyone says.
Dennis, if this is inflammatory or any other word you choose to describe it, feel free to delete it, this is your site after all, and I humbly apologize for any feelings I may have stepped.
Were Rockstar to simply close up shop tomorrow, the anti-gamers would move right down the list to the next most "offensive" game. And the next. And then the next. Until you were left with nothing but games featuring anthropomorphic talking animals and guys in bright colored tights. See also: The Comics Code.
Besides, if anything, you should at least be happy that they're also the ones taking brunt of the attack. Or would you all rather your favorite game developer be the one getting sued every other week? Or maybe you'd all be happier if we kept compromising with the critics again and again until it got to the point where armed Federal agents burst into your house for possessing a console, as it almost appears Germany is on the verge of doing?
also @ Wolf and Konstruct
Frank Baum, the original Wizard of Oz writer wrote 13 sequels to the Wizard of OZ. A premise that would not only make an awesome RPG video game series, but since it's in public domain would make a hilarious GTA style parody too.
Wii is the only other platform that they could realistically make the game for without creating all new art and assets. XBox has been replaced with the 360, GameCube has been dead for a while now. A Wii release, along with PS2, is the only one that makes sense.
The first Manhunt made my stomach turn so I doubt I will play the second one. But I'm glad that R* is still out there doing what they do best: making cutting-edge games that piss off the pixelantis.
On the face of it, I agree with you to a limit. Rockstar has every right to make this game, just like Fred Phelps has the right to speak his mind on gays. However, I also have every right to think they're all a bunch of raging, immature lunatics for doing what they do. I'd use harsher descriptive terms for them (especially Phelps), but this is a family site.
This game will make more money for the Jack Thompsons of the world than it ever will for Rockstar, since it will add another "OMG GAMES ARE EVIL" target for them to preach against. Their whole studio culture relies on turning themselves into pariahs and generating shock value. Almost every major title they've put out has relied on the "Controversy Creates Cash" concept to generate interest. Yes, they make their money, but they also allow their critics to raise major donation money to support their crusades.
As someone who believes in the whole concept of freedom of expression for video games, I'm annoyed that the only real reason I even have to defend the idea is because of the actions of one specific studio.
A lot of people see to think rockstar has been a thorn in the game industry’s side by starting controversy with the titles they put out I think this controversy is a good thing. One of the big reasons there is so much of a problem with now with game legislation is because games are seen as toys for children. If game companies stopped making controversial titles just because “the heat is on” it would only go to support that idea and would show that there is a reason to be ashamed of making mature titles.
I hope more companies put out controversial and adult orientated games. yes it will cause political and social backlash but I think that it is necessary if games are ever to be taken seriously.
As someone above me has pointed out, Rockstar have every right to make it. On the same note, I will have every right to play it.
Rockstart have, in my opinion, every right to make a violent sequel to a violent game, yes, it'll get up some people's noses, but personally, I say 'Good!', it was the same reason Ledonne created SCMRPG in my opinion, because if you are going to get something accepted as a medium, you have to ram the fact you have freedom of expression down peoples throats. Let people get all up in arms and throw a tantrum because computer games contain the sort of images that have been in movies for years. The 'shocker' type movie was born because of people like Thompson and others, now we are seeing the 'shocker' type game, it's a nose-thumb at all the censors out there, because Rockstar know that they have every right to make it.
I personally cannot wait for Manhunt 2, especially for the Wii since Nintendo really needs to get into the more mature games...and of course make sure that they aren't crappy ports.
Believe it or not, my sister LOVES this game and she isn't a "gamer" so to speak. Judging from the trailer, it looks like the protagonist will be a fragile character unlike the scrunched up face, angry looking Cash from the first game.
I am anticipating for the inevitable Jack Rant with a press released title, "Shigeru Miyamoto Must Stop Murder Simulator Sequel From Being Released On Nintendo Wee Console"
:-D
The Wii version is very surprising. I'm guessing Nintendo took it on in an attempt to shake up their image, but I'm also predicting a backlash from idiot parents who bought the game because it was for the Wii, which made it seem safe.
Now we have a pile of people in this room that want the industry to stop being creative, stop pushing the envelope and stop testing the limits of our freedoms. In other words, you are supporting these government initiatives to take away YOUR rights.
I'm with Kenyon - the day that we stop moving forward and proclaming our freedoms is the day that we can finally give up all our freedoms.
If you don't like it - that's your opinion. Vote with your dollar and don't buy it. But to side with a government that is hell bent to regulate everything... you truly disappoint.
You are right about that. Still, I can't help but be nervous. I just have that sinking feeling that certain parents' groups and a certain other unsavory individual are going to jump to conclusions as well and begin trumpeting the evils of the gaming industry for making a sequel. Granted, no one has any specific details, but some people are going to expect the worst and broadcast those expectations as widely as possible. That's all. Didn't mean to sound Jack, sorry if I did.
1- The protagonist, the character you control, is the one doing the killing.
and
2-You are rewarded for those killings, the more gruesome, the bigger the points.
It's not like Saw where you passively see the deaths occur on the screen. You are the cause, they occur because of your actions and you are rewarded for them. Of course videogames critics will have a field day with this.
And one has to wonder. Does Rockstar based this sequel on excellent gameplay or shock value? Probably the later since I found the gameplay of the original quite simple and boring. I even found the gore a little too much for my taste, it's all there is in the game. The game resolves around killing and killing. That's even the basis of the story: "You're a killer now forced to kill and you promise to kill the one who forced you the kill". Seriously, Manhunt would qualify as an "exploitation movie" type of game and it makes me wonder. Does Rockstar creates this sequel solely for the controversy?
Yeah, amazing what a year of *failed* attacks on the video games industry have done. I shudder to think what would have happened to the community if any of those attacks had been successful.
Well, we already knew THAT. Anki's point is that is where the hypocracy lies. Poeple will view it has a horrible game that should have never been created; however, when it comes to movies like SAW, many of those same poeple will hardly bat an eye when in all reality they should be just as upset about Saw as they are about manhunt. a lot the anti-game poeple hold a double standard when it comes to video games and movies. Make a horrible movie and its ok, but turn that movie into a video game and all of a sudden there's massive controversy. One of the major idocies i see is how poeple will say that the game is "marketed to children" or that there is a danger that children will play the game, when the fact of the matter is that Movie and the video game would be marketed in the EXACT SAME WAY; the only REAL difference being that video games have a better policy of self-regulation.
I played Manhunt & I liked it. Was it as a sick and gory game as most folks say it was? Sure, & their were movies that were given awards, like Hannibal and Saw, that contained gracious amounts of violence. I saw people in their 50's and 60's when I went to see Hannibal, because it had some known actors in it. Manhunt also has a great actor, Brian Cox, who played the director. You all know him from X-men 2 (Stryker). If you played Manhunt, you know how deliciously evil he was in his role.
There's nothing wrong with sequels as long as they are done right. As mentioned by Wolf, how many of you have watched remakes and sequels, and liked it?
What surprises me is the Wii version. Nintendo is claiming to aim at another type of gamer- the non-gamer. Yes, they have really gotten lose over the past decade, but I wouldn't be surprised if they suddenly, at the last moment, say a big "NO" to Rock*. Controversy is not where Nintendo likes to be, while Sony is apparently living in it.
Well we can all look forward to yet another round of people trying to pass anti-game legislation once news of this becomes more widespread.
A sequel to Manhunt, however, can hurt not only the entire videogame industry, but also video games as a medium, and the people who play it. To paraphrase a great politician from my country, when a game farts, it's all the industry that stinks.
Sorry for the image, but considering past controversies (Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, Doom, GTA, 25 to Life, Super Columbine Massacre RPG...), I coudln't find more accurate.
That's a good point, aniki21. There's been 3 Saw movies, but one Manhunt game took more heat for being violent. Not to mention the movie had a wider audience than the game.
Personally I have no interest in Saw whatsoever- there's a huge difference between a horror movie and a snuff film.
I've been following the rumours of a possible sequel and was hoping rockstar would put me out of my misery soon and confirm wether or not there would be a sequel, I'm glad there is going to be one =)
I had no idea they made a movie. I read the book, and saw the cartoon series. It sounds like the movie was buried by Mike Eisner just as he took control of Disney, to destroy his predecessor's credibility. And it was badly received for not being "fairy tale" enough (ignoring the fact that the original was considered "too scary" for children in it's day...)
Why exactly did rockstar feel the need to make a new manhunt game when the last one was considered to be a crappy stealth sim and served to give jack and co. ammunition? What possible reason could there be for this?
Didn't the first Manhunt suck too?
PS.
@Wolf
There is a sequel to the Wizard of Oz. It was called Return to Oz, it didn't enjoy nearly as much success. I also believe it was Fairuza Balk's first movie.
Personally, I love that Rockstar pushes the envelope with these kinds of games. I'd rather a more moral mechanic to the games than the freedom to run around killing randomly, but it's that freedom that gives the players actions any sense of moral impact whatsoever.
My main concern about the Wii version is that it'll fall into the same trap as other "mature" conversions for the console like Splinter Cell and FarCry - i.e., being rubbish games.
Like when another Final Fantasy comes out; you have an idea of what it'll be like. Or when another GTA comes out. Etc. Yeah, they have more games, but that's besides the point.
How to put it...The specifics, such as how it'll play and such, are more for we, the gamers. On the political field, they don't care what system it's on, or how well it plays, or its rating. They just care what's in it. And I'm sure it's going to have the same stuff the first game had. Plus, he has a point. Controversy can be a big boost, but eventually, it just gets stale. I mean, GTA has been controversial, but if you ask me, all the games are basically the same. Go around, beat some people, steal some vehicles, do some missions. But, whatever; that's just basing around my opinion. It might not have serious reprocutions, but it'll attracted unnecessary negative attention, which we really don't need more of. A strong controversial game here and there is good. But Rockstar just goes on and on; they really a thorn, especially since a lot of their stuff (again, in my opinion) really isn't new or anything. I just don't really see any innovation go behind their projects. It's more like "Use this engine, throw in tons of violence, and we can have it on the shelves by Friday."
@ Thefremen: "Really, does everything NEED a sequel? Does every game that sells more than 4 copies HAVE to be a francise?" Look at movies, heh. Especially Disney. Cinderalla 2 and 3, Little Mermaid 2, The Fox and the Hound 2, Bambi 2, and on. I'm surprised they haven't made The Wizard of Oz 2 yet!
Hey, dont' be acting like jack and jumping to conclusions. We know damn little about the game to try and make any kind of Judgement. Personally, when we have more details, then yes, we could maybe complain, but till then, I'm not gonna be Pulling a "Jack thompson on bully" with this title.
Really, does everything NEED a sequel? Does every game that sells more than 4 copies HAVE to be a francise?
Seeing how this is going to be released by Rockstar on a **Nintendo** console, which has a lot of emphasis on its innovative controller immersing people's physical actions into their in-game actions, things could get interesting...
*JT will claim it as a public nuisance and demand an early build of the game
*It will be blamed for various crimes without evidence
*It will incite negative media coverage of the games industry
*Politicians from around the world will latch on and attempt new resolutions
*The EU will use it as an example of the evil of games and may force Germany style game handling upon us all (even though the UK has a working ratings system)
*JT will mention the game in most of his future press releases, most likely using the term "murder simulator"
Its production on the Wii is just going to make things worse. I am all in favour of free speach and hate the idea that games will have to scale themselves down but Rockstar have been the thorn in the industries side and the cause of so much trouble that you just know this game announcement couldn't have come at a worse time. Unlike how they handled Bully they are going to have to make sure they talk about this one and stop the media from distorting the interpretation of the game and the people who play it.
...but you know they won't.
Also Manhunt was fun, Nothing like exploding someones skull with a baseball bat.
What's wrong with showing enthusiasm for a game? Look at the rest of my post on this thread. None of the other ones have any exclamtion marks. I don't use superflous exclamation and question marks on most of my comments. I am the Jack Thompson of our side you're right. Except that I don't insult you even though you insult me. Jack Thompson insults anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%. I don't insult you and I am the reverse of him. I like to think of myself as the reverse of him because he is an enemy to video games and I am on the side of violent video games.
The rest of us don't overuse exclamation points and question marks AT ALL. Don't you ever wonder why you, who never directly insults anyone, gets virtually no support from the other members, and when you do they quickly disappear? Don't you ever wonder why people like me, Brokenscope, etc., who constantly berate you, never get called on it? Here, I'll help you out: IT'S BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT TRYING TO DEFEND YOU!
For my own part, while you may never insult anyone, you ARE an insult to the rest of us gamers, and I agree 1000% with what Hackangel said about you. BTW, considering how much trouble you have putting together a post that DOESN'T make you sound like a total pucktard, I doubt you possess the ability to form a good insult if your violent video game-obsessed life depended on it.
I never stated that there was any truth to Society's claims.
Merely that society, as a whole, will continue to persue justice against their false claims, until something is done about it.
I already know the facts:
#1 being that violent video games offer a completely viable means of expressing your anger at the world around you, without doing anything criminal.
They allow people to vent, instead of keeping frustration pent up within, and eventually going 'Postal'.
However, there are ratings for a reason. Most underage children should not be able to watch Saw. Most should not be able to play Manhunt.
If they are mature enough to play/watch/listen to the media they enjoy, that is between themselves and their parents. NOT for the government to step in and decide.
There are no legal reprecussions for allowing a child to watch a R rated film. There are reprecussions for XXX rated films.
If the government wants to follow that pattern: allow M rated games, don't allow AO games.
I have seen other people on this site use multiple exclamation and question marks before. You think I can't insult people? I have insulted Jack Thompson many times before and I think you know that. No one has ever told me that I can't insult someone.
You also didn't answer my post where I said, "What's wrong with showing enthusiasm for a game?" I was showing enthusiasm for this game. All my other posts on this thread don't have a single exclamation mark. Let's move on the Heckangel's comments, granted I haven't yet played the first Manhunt game, but I have heard that it is a great game and I will play it when I'm done with Scarface for XBOX.
I have totally believed the arguments of the video game industry that violent video games don't cause violence and I am on their side. Do you believe that they never cause violence and are innocent of everything? If you don't believe that they're innocent of everything, then you don't totally disagree with Jack Thompson and you are not against the ideas of anti-game activists. Either it's all okay, or none of it is. Which is it? Do you believe that they are totally innocent and okay, or do you believe that it's not okay? I also have good points like the statement that I repeated above, but you choose to ignore those parts.
If you think that media can effect people, then you haven't rejected the idea that violent video games are muder simulators. If you think media can effect people, then you also haven't rejected the idea that there are some people who are dead that wouldn't be dead if these games didn't exist and, thus, you agree with Jack Thompson partly and if you think that they cause violence and some people get hurt and killed because of them, then you belong on the other side of the argument. If that's the case, then you belong with the anti-game activists. How am I making this side look bad? I'm rejecting all the arguments of Jack Thompson. I'm saying that they're not true can you say the same? If you can't, you belong on the other side.
BECAUSE THE WORLD CAN NOT BE VIEWED IN BLACK AND WHITE.
BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GO THROUGH LIFE WITH THE MOTTO
"Your either with me or you are against me".
That is what you do.
That is one hell of a dangerous thought process.
It's not about whether you're with me or against me. It's about whether you think these games are dangerous murder simulators or an innocent form of entertainment. If you think they're murder simulators and that they train people to kill or have any other bad effect, then you belong on the other side of the issue. It's not about what I think. It's about whether you think it's bad and if you do, you have to be on the other side of the issue.
That's what I'm saying. Do you believe that these games cause violence and if you do, please go join Jack Thompson. Do you totally reject the idea that images on a screen can kill and if the answer's no, you have to be with Jack Thompson. I have totally refused to believe that and I know it isn't true and that's why I'm on this side of the issue. It's not about who's on my side and who's not. It's about do you believe that these games kill?
Don't f_cking lie, I'm on this site as often as you are, and nobody except you does this: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or this: ????????????????????
I've seen your assessments of Jack Thompson, and believe me, using infantile remarks like "no-good turd" and "lying pig" over and over again hardly strike me as intellectual. You may find yourself to be hilarious, but you're the only one.
There's nothing wrong with showing enthusiasm. Unless it's done in the hysterical, frothing-at-the-mouth manner that we've come to expect from you. You haven't even played the first game, so there should be no logical reason you'd be that excited about the sequel. As we all know, however, you're not a logical person, so you're jizzing all over yourself in anticipation of ONLY the super violent gore. This is why I think you give the rest of us a bad name. And for the record, DON'T EVER GET ON ME FOR NOT ADDRESSING YOUR POINTS, BECAUSE YOU'RE THE KING OF THAT.
"I also have good points like the statement that I repeated above, but you choose to ignore those parts."
Get over yourself. You couldn't make a good point with a pencil sharpener.
I'll try to make this as clear as possible so even a dodo bird could understand, so pay attention:
1) I do not believe violent video games cause people to kill. Never will.
2) I believe that media has the power to influence people in varying capacities, good and bad, depending on the individual.
3) Believing #2 does not make me the same as Jack Thompson.
4) Fighting the likes of Jack and the politicians requires a level of subtlety and maturity, not to mention eloquence, none of which you have.
5) Porn rules.
If you think I can't make a good point, go look at the thread about the sting opperations because I just posted something there for you to look at. I think I made a good point there. Go look at that thread and my new post.
I will. In the meantime, you can address my other points in my last post. Unless of course, you can't.