Manhunt 2

cant wait for this on the wii all i can say is they say nintendo is for kids I DONT THINK SO !!!

Meh... may as well go and read American Psycho and have done with it IMHO... this game sounds W.A.N.K.

Poorly written preview. It seems like he just played the game for the gore and not the actual story or game play surrounding the brutal killings. By the looks of it, he probably didn't like the first one either, and probably for those same reasons.

yeah whoever wrote this must be quite a pussy

I wrote it. And I assure you I'm not 'a pussy', just a fan of good games. And I'm usually a big fan of Rockstar's games. I loved Table Tennis and GTA IV is up there in my most-wanted for later in 2007.

My honest opinion about Manhunt 2 - based on being shown the few opening levels of the game - is that I feel that this game is far too much (gory) style over (gameplay) substance.

The kill animations/environmental kills really are incredibly gory, but the sneaking about in dark corridors stuff that you have to do in-between these 'cool bits' just seemed to me to be a bit boring.

I wonder... should a line ever be drawn regarding videogame content, and if so where should it be drawn?

No. That's like saying - should a line be drawn in music, literature, comics etc. etc.? i.e. "When should we censor stuff?"

All censorship is bad, if we don't like something then we have to formulate reasoned arguments as to why we don't like it.

If the game/song/book/comic contains gratuitously violent/sexual/adult content - then it really has to be judged on its own merits. Does it work as a game/song/book/comic?

In this case, in my opinion, Manhunt 2 (ab)uses its ultra-violent content - as it seems to be way too much of the focus of the game - at the expense of more-involving gameplay and an interesting storyline and so on.

You might compare it with, say, Clockwork Orange - which (in its day) was hugely controversial for the sexual and violent content. And hence banned for years. But, in my opinion, it worked as a film.

Of course, as responsible adults we have a duty to protect children from sexual/violent/adult material which could be deemed offensive - but that is a slightly different debate.

I don't know...

What if Rockstar's next game was a paedophile sim involving the rape and murder of little children? Wouldn't we all feel profoundly uncomfortable with that, even if it were a well made game?

I am a bit worried by the things we choose to entertain ourselves with.

I have a feeling that Rockstar would rapidly go out of business having seen all its staff lynched in the streets by the general public or by Take-Two's stockholders as the game would simply not sell.

I get what you're saying in terms of thin ends and wedges, however, I tend to refer to prosecution counsel Mervyn Griffith-Jones in the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial when he asked, "Is it a book you would wish your wife or servants to read?"

Who are we protecting from what and why? The same culture that rants about games content destroying children is producing corporations that charge for water (Cochabamba) - the lack of which human staple kills exponentially more children than any game is ever likely to.

We've got to engage with the real question which is that any people gets the culture it desires.



Absolutely, in the first case, don't buy it. In the second case, come up with a better idea for a game or book or TV show.

You don't have to defend the game just because Keith Vaz will attack it.

As long as you believe that violence in games does not cause violence in the real world, then violent games are worth defending if they are good games. But why bother to defend bad games?

Er, no your right - it's just the graphics are complete garbage on the WII plus it sounds like something you'd do in a toilet...