Manhunt 2 banned in the UK (both PS2 and Wii versions)

[bipper]

Its not a games job to keep kids from doing that. Its parents. If a parent can't instill in their childs head that those things are wrong, it is not the games fault at all.

Some adults are not even responsible enough to be considered adults. Some people are just flat out impressionable. Actually, a lot of people are. Thus BRAND MARKETING. Collectively, people set a trend of impressionability; regardless of those idealists and artisan's that are not impressionable, and have the perception to see past such influences.

Me and milf, fighting togehter for the greater good of Freedom and responsability. It makes my heart feel happy.

Freedom and responsibility, huh? That is the magic combination. To have freedom, one must have the responsibility to see the reasoning in laws, or whatever system we find will work (not putting any system on the pulpit at the moment.) The problem, right now, seems that we balance freedom with accountability. This basically says that freedoms can be hindered by certain individuals, as long as they are held accountable for their actions. Noble, but without the premeditated responsibility, I do not thing true freedom will ever be viable.

[NeoCracker]

Its not a games job to keep kids from doing that. Its parents. If a parent can't instill in their childs head that those things are wrong, it is not the games fault at all.

Some adults are not even responsible enough to be considered adults. Some people are just flat out impressionable. Actually, a lot of people are. Thus BRAND MARKETING. Collectively, people set a trend of impressionability; regardless of those idealists and artisan's that are not impressionable, and have the perception to see past such influences.

Me and milf, fighting togehter for the greater good of Freedom and responsability. It makes my heart feel happy.

Freedom and responsibility, huh? That is the magic combination. To have freedom, one must have the responsibility to see the reasoning in laws, or whatever system we find will work (not putting any system on the pulpit at the moment.) The problem, right now, seems that we balance freedom with accountability. This basically says that freedoms can be hindered by certain individuals, as long as they are held accountable for their actions. Noble, but without the premeditated responsibility, I do not thing true freedom will ever be viable.

The difference between Marketing and this is Marketing is intending to get you to do something, and is designed around making people to do certain things. There are subliminal things put into to make people do these things. I highly dought such things exist in Man Hunt.

And everyone knows True freedom isn't possible. Its more balancing which ones are most important, and keeping those freedoms.

[Madame Adequate]

Some adults are not even responsible enough to be considered adults. Some people are just flat out impressionable. Actually, a lot of people are. Thus BRAND MARKETING. Collectively, people set a trend of impressionability; regardless of those idealists and artisan's that are not impressionable, and have the perception to see past such influences.

Well yes, I see what you're saying, but if the influence were that strong - were are all the murders caused by Manhunt 1? By Grand Theft Auto? All the grisly murders caused by Mortal Kombat? And I mean the genuine thing, where the judge, cops, and shrinks agree that was the cause - not when Jack Thompson is trying to make more fuss, or when a grieving family is looking for something to blame.

Freedom and responsibility, huh? That is the magic combination. To have freedom, one must have the responsibility to see the reasoning in laws, or whatever system we find will work (not putting any system on the pulpit at the moment.) The problem, right now, seems that we balance freedom with accountability. This basically says that freedoms can be hindered by certain individuals, as long as they are held accountable for their actions. Noble, but without the premeditated responsibility, I do not thing true freedom will ever be viable.

I feel that responsibility can be forced onto people quite easily; make them free, ensure there are robust systems to intercept the criminals, and ensure people are aware of those systems. Everything else will follow naturally; the strong and intelligent will prosper, the responsible will remain free, and the weak, stupid, and irresponsble will usually suffer one way or another for it, whether through direct legal intervention, or simply through the fact that their actions make them difficult to employ at any level higher than janitor.

I'm certainly not willing to approve censorship on the unproven chance that people will be influenced to murder and mutilate by something; I'm not sure I'd be willing even if it were proven, because the numbers of people are so obviously miniscule even if EVERY crime attributed to the media is actually the media's fault.

[bipper]

The difference between Marketing and this is Marketing is intending to get you to do something, and is designed around making people to do certain things. There are subliminal things put into to make people do these things. I highly dought such things exist in Man Hunt.

That is why I speak of impressionable people. Straight out experiences, and games are more than a movie - they are a role played experience, often imprint themselves on peoples minds, and produce a simple inspiration, or basis of future thought. Perhaps if you watch a lot of horror movies, your artistic outlet would prolly become a bit darker.

And everyone knows True freedom isn't possible. Its more balancing which ones are most important, and keeping those freedoms.

I agree, that true freedom is not possible, and I say it is because of a lack of responsibility and objective thinking present in humans. I would not want such devices, as we are not made to be a collective of any sort. We are made to be individuals, social structure is made to be the collective we adhere to.

Well yes, I see what you're saying, but if the influence were that strong - were are all the murders caused by Manhunt 1? By Grand Theft Auto? All the grisly murders caused by Mortal Kombat? And I mean the genuine thing, where the judge, cops, and shrinks agree that was the cause - not when Jack Thompson is trying to make more fuss, or when a grieving family is looking for something to blame.

not directly. however, if such outlets are so prevalent in society, the influence would be reinforced, and when one has to call upon memory, influence, or experience to deal with some issue, they will do what they know. I would like (not to really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking., but to make comparison) to look at 'rap'. Now, specifically, gangsta rap. The effects of such role models and lifestyles really seemed to trickle well into the minds of peers both young and old. While it was based on a certain preexisting lifestyle, people would relate to these idolistic characters they see, and the impression would be made. Now, I know there are a lot of differences in this analogy, but my point is basically stated in how innocently impressionable people can be. We have role models, and we are all influenced on some level by them.

I feel that responsibility can be forced onto people quite easily; make them free, ensure there are robust systems to intercept the criminals, and ensure people are aware of those systems. Everything else will follow naturally; the strong and intelligent will prosper, the responsible will remain free, and the weak, stupid, and irresponsble will usually suffer one way or another for it, whether through direct legal intervention, or simply through the fact that their actions make them difficult to employ at any level higher than janitor.

I doubt it. Look at life. Look at how many people cannot manage credit, refuse to pay bills, encroach false debts on others and screw with systems in place to make a measly dollar. Look at the cliche' trailer trash and look at the vast population unwilling to take responsibility and more willing to live in a shepherded, socialistic, and policed state. There are far too many. I honestly can see where life can become too full of responsibility, where you would have to depend on a governing entity to provide. This is the very basis of society. Now, the government does need to back off on several censorship issues, I would agree - however, it is proven that people are incredibly impressionable.

Though, I do not think that a person would kill based on a single influence alone. I would rather accept that they will certainly be bestowed a new way to perceive the situation. This can be dangerous, especially when a person is corner (proverbially or literally) and he lashes out, saving the rational for later thought. To me, it is like bestowing dangerous knowledge to a person, like giving everyone a nuke and saying, "Do not use it, k?". Experiences are just like knowledge, they are great assets to have, but can be used for great good, or a great evil.

I refuse to make people suffer because they are impressionable. I think that is the basis of evil, is considering an attribute of a person as a complete weakness. Impressionability does have it's good points, I am sure. I am in the thought that every man on this planet has a good purpose, and that we are all equal in a balanced way. Not literally equal, but we are all important and can fill some niche in society. Even though I would love to bestow the same rights to all, I also realize that a few people of one 'type' can ruin it for the rest. This is where I find my conundrum. Do we A) take away freedom from those who cannot handle certain areas B) Take away the freedom from everybody C) police the matter; make game users register D) ake away freedom from those who cannot handle certain areas and subsidies them to create fairness. I am sure there are other options, as I am no expert, but I can see all these methodologies as having complete pros and cons.

I'm certainly not willing to approve censorship on the unproven chance that people will be influenced to murder and mutilate by something; I'm not sure I'd be willing even if it were proven, because the numbers of people are so obviously miniscule even if EVERY crime attributed to the media is actually the media's fault.

Yeah, I am not for the ban either; I would not mind a stricter regulation on the game for sure. Nothing further than ID present on game purchase to prove that you are over a certain age. I am just saying that I can totally understand a person wanting to ban it. It makes sense to me; though I find it hard to justify at the same time. Too much liability flying around with freedom. Everyone wants the freedom, and everyone wants to be right/perfect as they think they are. This creates turbulence in policing freedom. Though, I feel that policing is a necessity, and natural to human society.

[Madame Adequate]

I doubt it. Look at life. Look at how many people cannot manage credit, refuse to pay bills, encroach false debts on others and screw with systems in place to make a measly dollar. Look at the cliche' trailer trash and look at the vast population unwilling to take responsibility and more willing to live in a shepherded, socialistic, and policed state. There are far too many. I honestly can see where life can become too full of responsibility, where you would have to depend on a governing entity to provide. This is the very basis of society. Now, the government does need to back off on several censorship issues, I would agree - however, it is proven that people are incredibly impressionable.

The way I see it, most of those people are feckless and irresponsible precisely because they can afford to be. The government will bail them out if they screw up. I've seen that exact thing happening here in England. People do no take personal responsibility, and if something goes wrong, it is up to some other power to both take the blame, and fix the mess. That has extended far further, so people are irresponsible in almost every area of life. I don't care about that in and of itself, but society forces me to have an interest in it by forcing me to fund the healthcare, schooling, etc. of everyone else. Anyway, by removing these crutches, people might not actually become more responsible - but the successful will do better, and end up by simply overtaking those who don't act in a reasonably wise manner, and the matter will eventually be resolved in that way.

[bipper]

I doubt it. Look at life. Look at how many people cannot manage credit, refuse to pay bills, encroach false debts on others and screw with systems in place to make a measly dollar. Look at the cliche' trailer trash and look at the vast population unwilling to take responsibility and more willing to live in a shepherded, socialistic, and policed state. There are far too many. I honestly can see where life can become too full of responsibility, where you would have to depend on a governing entity to provide. This is the very basis of society. Now, the government does need to back off on several censorship issues, I would agree - however, it is proven that people are incredibly impressionable.

The way I see it, most of those people are feckless and irresponsible precisely because they can afford to be. The government will bail them out if they screw up. I've seen that exact thing happening here in England. People do no take personal responsibility, and if something goes wrong, it is up to some other power to both take the blame, and fix the mess. That has extended far further, so people are irresponsible in almost every area of life. I don't care about that in and of itself, but society forces me to have an interest in it by forcing me to fund the healthcare, schooling, etc. of everyone else. Anyway, by removing these crutches, people might not actually become more responsible - but the successful will do better, and end up by simply overtaking those who don't act in a reasonably wise manner, and the matter will eventually be resolved in that way.

yeah, all really good points, but I do not think that all people lack responsability for the sake that they can afford to. I mean, I see people get there kids taken away, abuse their kids and mal-nourish them, people not go to FREE clinics when available. I see too much out right laziness, to have any faith in an Archaic style government correctly protecting people. Sadly, some need protection, and even then they often won't help themselves. They are free to do so, but they are also free to have a poverty lifestyle (to some point). I think just forcing these people into a social structure similar to the English industrial revolution is certainly not the answer. Debtor jail, brim full orphanages, and poverty everywhere. It is a puristic welfare state that takes care of the populace, and the populace is important to the higher class, as well as low class. Like I said earlier, we all have niches to fill, and we need people we deem as dumber, lesser peoples. We rely on them, and thusly pay them.

So when we need these people, and yet these same impressionable people happen to easily fallow suit of there digital experiences, what do we do from there? Back to the conundrum mentioned above. Give them all freedoms, taketh away, etc.

[Ashley Schovitz]

I don't see why with all the bannings just because it's a violent game. The character you play as in the game doesn't even like to kill he kills because he has to. from previews I've read it's trying to improve from the original in a few ways, so it might not suck, but that's not the point. It possibly can't be that terrible to pull an AO rating. Well it least people here in America can still get it.

[aquatius]

Oh well, I wasn't going to get it anyways.