Manhunt 2 Banned In Britain

westlake writes "Rockstar's Manhunt 2 has been banned in the U.K. for what the British Board of Film Classification calls its 'unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying.' 'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.' The company has six weeks to submit an appeal. The last game to be refused classification was Carmageddon in 1997. That decision was later overturned via the appeals process."

How dare they!

[godfra]

If this game gets released for the PC I'm going to import it out of principle. Now, where did I leave my hammer again?

Re:How dare they!

[BlackCobra43]

buried in my skull. Please take it out soon, it's starting to really itch.

The EU is your friend!

[2008]

Import, people, import. It's a free market, and the game will be on sale in France/Italy/Netherlands etc. Generally, games in these markets are either completely untranslated (except the manual) or still have English available as an option.

I wasn't particularly interested in this game but will now certainly be buying it - aside from a simple anti-censorship protest I also want to know what's considered bad enough to get banned!

I love hearing about banned games...

[bmw]

It lets me know which ones to buy.

Yes...

[C10H14N2]

Because in a hundred years "Manhunt 2" will be remembered as 2007's "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" or "Of Mice and Men."

But, yeah, censorship is what it is, regardless of the relative worth of the item in question, which in this case is about zilch.

Great advertising..

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Manhunt 2, available soon in the US on the Wii...
GamePro gives it 8/10.
IGN rated 9.5/10.
British Board of Film Classification calls its 'unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying.' 'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.'

Re:

[Aladrin]

I didn't read your title before the post, and my thought was 'wow, that sounds like fun.' lol I don't usually even -like- those kinds of games. I think it's the 'sustained and cumulative casual sadism' bit... Very intriguing.

wtf

[wizardforce]

distasteful maybe, responsible for murders no. The people that do such crimes are crazy psychos t begin with yet instead of blaming the damn psycho for what they do they blame the game they may or may not have played.

Re:

[Timesprout]

The problem is that for that tiny minority of nut jobs out there, games like can help fuel their little deluded fantasies. Unfortunately that makes these games high visibility, easy targets so the system can pretend its doing something to protect society rather than working out how to do the hard bit which is identify and treat these nut jobs before they go postal.

Re:

[Irish_Samurai]

Many of them may have lived in an improper family circle, which didn't taught them properly the difference between reality and fantasy.

That would be the definition of psychotic. [google.com].

Re:

[revlayle]

So if they do not know the difference between fantasy and reality, aren't they kind of, you know, "psycho"? (and probably "psycho" and in the generic term to refer to some some mentally no-right people).

The idea is dumb.

[Pojut]

The very idea of banning ANYTHING entertainment-related in a 1st world country/area is completely stupid.

Any newscast will be covering events at least as horrible if not worse than anythin you will find in a video game. The difference is, when you hear about someone getting brutally murdered on the news, a person actually died.

I've always felt those that say videogames/movies/whatever that are too violent are the sick ones, for they apparently cannot discern fantasy from reality.

Re:The idea is dumb.

[Traa]

The very idea of banning ANYTHING entertainment-related in a 1st world country/area is completely stupid.

The key here is "entertainment-related". So where do you draw the line when games cross from entertainment into objectionable content? Which of the following do you consider harmless fun if depicted in a video game:

killing monsters
killing people
killing cops
clubbing baby seals
sadism
extreme brutal violence
sex
porn
kiddie porn
snuff

For me, there are a few things on that list that I have no problem with if they are banned. There is no entertainment value to be gotten from them except for people who need help.

Re:

[Pojut]

Honestly, the only thing in there for me would be kiddie porn, and that's only because children are too young to know what they were doing.

There is no entertainment value to be gotten from them except for people who need help.

Based on the number of people that are currently seeing psychologists on a monthly/weekly/daily basis, that would imply the market for it is rather huge. Beyond that though, never forget one thing: the outlet for your frustration and anger is NOT the same as everyone elses. Many peop

Re:The idea is dumb.

[clem]

Having read your list, all I can think of is the potential of the Wii controller for an immersive baby seal clubbing game. Well, that and those two Japanese gents from the ad campaign playing the baby seal clubbing game.

Fantasy v. Reality

[shis-ka-bob]

There is strong evidence that exposure to violence, even in a 'fantasy setting', desensitizes real people to violence. I don't care what anyone does to a movie or video character (fiction), but I do care if a violent game/move results in measurable increases in violence in the real world. As I understand the literature in the field (which is limited because I am not an expert in psychology/sociology/psychiatry ), these really are correlated and this correlation suggest that some movies/video games can be

Re:

[venicebeach]

The difference is, when you hear about someone getting brutally murdered on the news, a person actually died.

Another difference is when you play the game, you are doing the killing. I'm not for banning video games, but let's not dismiss entirely the consequences of such a simulation. Simulating the performance of violent acts does have some overlap with actually committing them. Imagining action and watching actions all recruit the brain's circuitry for action planning and performance (see mirror neur [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Pojut]

Forgive me for not spelling out the obvious. I would hope that you, as a human, have the ability to tell what is meant by a statement.

I'll remember to make a really long, drawn out novel next time.

Will it help?

[saibot834]

The question is: will it help? In Germany they also have a big controversy about violence in computer games (they call it "killergames" / de: "Killerspiele"). But the politicians don't ask them self if banning a computer game stops the users from using it. If the children can't buy it at the store, they'll just download it from the bittorent or edonkey network. And if they don't have an internet connection, they copy it from their friends. Children are not stupid.

Another question is: is this appropriate? I can truly understand that the politicians don't want to promote violence in games, but it's one thing to not like something and a complete other thing to ban/censor something.

Re:Will it help?

[glesga_kiss]

If the children can't buy it at the store, they'll just download it from the bittorent or edonkey network.

And the best way to make children want something is to tell them that they cannot have it.

Re:

[f1055man]

A commentary, the angry german kid playing Halo: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kBVmfIUR1DA [youtube.com]

Re:Will it help?

[Awful Truth]

Devil's advocate here:

Suppose

1) you really believe exposure to violent games leads to a more casual attitude towards violence. I think there's evidence both for and against that theory right now, so it's not an unreasonable belief, if still unproven. And

2) You don't consider video games to be a protected form of expression -- that they're just toys, rather than artistic vehicles. Hey, they're called "games" for a reason. Maybe this is not a popular perspective on Slashdot, but again, not totally unreasonable.

Sure, the kiddies are going to download this via torrents, but Rockstar won't make any revenue from these downloads. If Rockstar doesn't profit from this game, they won't produce violent ones in the future. If you believe these things to be true, then a ban is a very effective way of influencing the future content of games.

Wasn't there problems with Manhunt in Britain too?

[TheThiefMaster]

From the Wikipedia article for Manhunt [wikipedia.org]:

In the UK, the game was linked to the murder of Stefan Pakeerah, 14, by his friend Warren Leblanc, 17. Giselle Pakeerah, the victim's mother, claimed that Leblanc had been 'obsessed' with the game after the former pleaded guilty in court. During the subsequent media circus, the game was removed from sale by some vendors, such as the UK and international branches of GAME and Dixons, leading to "significantly increased" demand both from retailers and on internet auction sites. The police denied any such link between the game and the murder however, citing drug-related robbery as the motive. The presiding judge also placed sole responsibility with Leblanc in his summing up after awarding him a life sentence. GAME have since returned Manhunt to their shelves, after it transpired that the murderer did not even own or ever play the game. It was apparently the victim who owned a copy of Manhunt, even though he was under 18.

Re:Wasn't there problems with Manhunt in Britain t

[jimicus]

If someone's so mentally unstable that they might conceivably go out and kill someone after playing a violent video game, perhaps the problem is with their mental stability than the videogame.

Re:Wasn't there problems with Manhunt in Britain t

[MeanderingMind]

So despite the fact that the murderer never owned or played the game, the parents of the victim still blame the game for their son's death.

I thought the standard for when bad things happen without an apparent reason was to blame God. That at least makes some sense, rather than some video game that the killer never played.

Re:

[Kadin2048]

So despite the fact that the murderer never owned or played the game, the parents of the victim still blame the game for their son's death.

Well, yeah. I mean, the alternative is the truth, which is that their little angel got killed in a drug deal gone bad, when he was presumably still living in their house, under their care. Oops.

Much easier to blame it on the big bad video games.

Re:

[bri2000]

There's a fairly sick tendency in the British press to exploit murders (especially murders of children or young people) to make political points. From what I remember of this case (from an analysis of it in Private Eye a couple of years back) a reporter for the Sun approached the parents and made a lot of false claims to them about the killer and the game which led to him getting the quotes he wanted which allowed him to write the anti-video games story his editor wanted. And, of course, under the bizarre r

Re:Wasn't there problems with Manhunt in Britain t

[Smight]

So you're saying that even knowing someone who owns manhunt can turn you into a killer?

Re:Wasn't there problems with Manhunt in Britain t

[@madeus]

Yep, and both parents of the murdered 14 year old said they used to play it together (which the police said was not true and went out of their way to state very clearly it wasn't a factor as the killer had never played it, that newspaper reports to the contrary were incorrect and that the motive was robbery).

Yet still both parents of the victim hold the game responsible - even though the only person involved who owned or had played a copy was the victim! They have not explained why their 14 year old child was allowed this 18 certificate game when they thought it was so deplorable - however they have the nerve to accuse Rockstar of being irresponsible. Given by their own admission, they were blatantly aware their 14 year old had this 18 certificate game and used to let him play it, that's somewhat ironic. I fully expect they even bought it for him.

Of course, the press (The Sun, The Mirror, GMTV, The BBC) didn't bother to correct their stories when it transpired they had been grossly misreporting the story for months (even after the police had been very clear in saying what the press was reporting was incorrect).

Re:

[@madeus]

Oh, and there are some really choice quotes from the (understandably) distraught parents that make a big deal of how "evil" the killer was and how he was specifically evil because he was deceptive and that was the "worst kind of evil". Considering they committed perjury by making false statements in court (in addition to reciting them to the press) that strikes me as a bit rich.

Fun with Censorship

[MeanderingMind]

Somehow, I can't help but think this is an overreaction and even unfair.

I didn't enjoy the first Manhunt. This is partly due to the initial description a friend of mine gave. I was under the impression it was a far more open game than it was. The gameplay simply wasn't fun for me, snuff genre aside.

However, I wouldn't for a moment consider banning the game. Violent, yes. Gruesome, yes. Morally dubious, yes. However, so are lots and lots of movies, books, and the news. There are plenty of movies I've seen in

Re:Fun with Censorship

[drinkypoo]

Please allow me to play devil's advocate here. A very frequent complaint i hear in slashdot is about censoring violent games. But it's so ironic that when talking about violent videogames you completely support the companies. Ah, but when it's music they're evil!!!.

You are attacking a straw man, because insofar as slashdot reaches consensus on anything, it does not support censorship of music.

We are not defending the game companies. We are opposing censorship.

My question is: Why do the games need so much gratuitous violence? Is it a requirement for good sales? Where's the study that says that the more violent a game is, the better it gets sold?

If it didn't work for them with Manhunt, they wouldn't be repeating the formula with Manhunt 2.

Violent games aren't the only kind that make money. But there IS money to be made in that market.

Why should violence be a requirement for good sales for them to be allowed to sell it?

BBC bias is largely to blame.

[Xest]

What the BBC report fails to mention is that the copy of Manhunt involved in the Stephen Pakeerah case was actually owned by the murdered boy not the murderer - this is something that was acknowledged by the police.

Whilst the BBC report mentions that the police have come forward to say that the game had no impact on the killing, it's sad that they omit the very fact that frees the game from any blame, that as mentioned above, the victim owned the game. To me this suggests that they were clutching at straws to find an example of why the game should indeed be banned, and when unable to find one figured they'd use the next best thing and omit the facts that would negate the use of this example.

Of course, it was only yesterday we were hearing about how the BBC has a serious bias problem in it's reporting, so it really comes as no suprise. It's just a shame that only a day later they insist on proving their fault with the fact they once more publish half truths and bring up an irrelevant murder to try and justify the ban.

I'd argue, that the whole reason Manhunt 2 has been banned is not because there is a problem with the game as such, but because the BBFC felt it had no choice due to the public uproar various anti-video game media establishments like the BBC have produced - you only have to look at this weeks Panorama for a top notch example of the problem. How could the BBFC allow a game to be published, that as far as the general public know is responsible for a murder? It's hard to blame the BBFC on this one but easy to see that the British media is the real problem here.

Re:

[john83]

I'd argue, that the whole reason Manhunt 2 has been banned is not because there is a problem with the game as such, but because the BBFC felt it had no choice due to the public uproar various anti-video game media establishments like the BBC have produced - you only have to look at this weeks Panorama for a top notch example of the problem.

Panorama's gone to hell since it became weekly. That shift is an example of one of the main causes of shoddy journalism today - overworked journos trying to meet deadlines, leaving no time to do any proper investigative reporting.

The Nanny State Strikes Again ...

[Syncerus]

Well, England is a country that believes firmly that firearms cause murder and that the best way to promote civil rights is to have 100,000 cameras filming the public at all times. Whatever happened to punishing the guilty and letting the rest of us move on with our lives? You can't protect people from themselves.

Nobody needs the government to tell them what games to play. They're just games, and what people do after playing the game is THEIR responsibility. No video game is going to MAKE someone commit a murder. It's FANTASY and a healthy way to release aggression in a harmless way. Sigh.

I love Britain, and have visited many times; but they look like they are heading down the slow road to Hell.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I hate articles about Britain being posted on Slashdot. We can expect 1,000 smug Americans *sighing* with mock sympathy about our nanny / fascist / police state. Why did you bring firearms in to this debate? No English person (of sound mind) would wish it to be even EASIER for kids to get guns than it arleady is. The logic that applies in America simply doesn't apply here.

I'm British - I'm disgusted by this banning, but it's not the end of civilisation. But what I don't understand is this: when

Re:

[ultrasound]

I love Britain, and have visited many times; but they look like they are heading down the slow road to Hell.

I assume that you are from the US. I think perhaps you are rather further down the road to Hell than Britain, particularly with respect to violent crimes, the odd gun massacre and a disproportionate number of crazys.

Just because it is fantasy does not make it harmless, for example [bbc.co.uk]. Maybe you would argue that such censorship is another infraction of your civil rights. However there are some serio

Re:The Nanny State Strikes Again ...

[GeckoX]

I too am sick of the gun slant being thrown in everywhere.

Off topic and unrelated, but here it is at it's base. By your statements, I'd expect that if someone suggested handing guns out to all students it would be OK. And that we shouldn't worry about what might happen, rather, just put the kids that inevitably do commit murder in jail.

Maybe we should do the same with drugs, make them freely available to all, throw the abusers in jail or let them wither away in the streets, they made a choice and get their just deserts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of the current British police state...way too Orwellian for comfort...however, give it up already. Gun control is not inherently a bad thing. On the contrary, unrestricted access to firearms is definitely a problem.

No, guns don't kill people. People kill people...with guns. How many people have died in bar fights because a gun was pulled when what SHOULD have happened if anything were for the parties to drag their beaten asses home and live to learn from their mistakes. Just one simple example. I don't give a shit if you want to hunt, target shoot, whatever, go nuts. But if your motives are purely such, how can you possibly argue against doing so with proper legal controls in place? Why must you insist on being able to buy a concealable handgun with no other merits other than to kill?

Irregardless of how you live where you do, why must you further condemn every other country that disagrees? Other countries that have much MUCH lower death and injury rates due to firearms? Psychopath actually is a very fitting term for people that do.

Re:The Nanny State Strikes Again ...

[westlake]

Well, England is a country that believes firmly that firearms cause murder and that the best way to promote civil rights is to have 100,000 cameras filming the public at all times.

These stats are a bit dated, but still suggestive:

Gun deaths per 100,000 population

US Homicide 4.08 Suicide 6.08 Accidental 0.42 [1999]
UK Homicide 0.12 Suicide 0.25 Accidental 0.01 {1999] [*slightly simplified] Some Facts About Guns [gun-control-network.org]

There were 765 homicides in England and Wales in 2005/2006. The numbers are small enough that the work of a single serial killer or a lone terrorist incident can be visible on the charts. 'Homicide' - Long-term national recorded crime trend [crimestatistics.org.uk]

Re:

[grassy_knoll]

From another view, there's this [statemaster.com].

Note that Washington DC leads the nation in per-capita violent crime, even though they have very restrictive firearms ownership laws ( until recently, private ownership of handguns was illegal ).

Number 49 on the list, Vermont, permits it's citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

So, to those who think more restrictive firearms laws somehow equal a safer society... would you care to explain that?

Re:

[pi_rules]

Note that Washington DC leads the nation in per-capita violent crime, even though they have very restrictive firearms ownership laws ( until recently, private ownership of handguns was illegal ).

Still is, actually. The law was struck down in the Parker case but still remains in effect while DC appeals the decision.

There was some movement in Congress to repeal the law after Parker won but it didn't go anywhere, nor would I want it to go anywhere, as that would strike the case as moot and the Supreme Court w

Re:The Nanny State Strikes Again ...

[WIAKywbfatw]

I love Britain, and have visited many times; but they look like they are heading down the slow road to Hell.

We're trying hard, I tell you but, gosh, darnit, you Americans are hogging the fast lanes in your SUVs.

Better than Clockwork Orange?

[pembo13]

Is Manhunt 2 better than Clockwork Orange? Because I liked that movie. Hope Manhunt 2 comes out for Wii.

Re:

[mccalli]

Clockwork Orange was never banned in the UK, it was withdrawn as a self-imposed gesture by Kubrick himself. You'll notice that the moment he died, Clockwork Orange was available for sale in the UK again.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:

[pembo13]

Okay, but I wasn't implying that it was banned though.

They just don't understand

[Junior J. Junior III]

"Rockstar's Manhunt 2 has been banned in the U.K. for what the British Board of Film Classification calls its 'unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying.'

But that's what makes it FUN!

Irresponsible Parents

[bestinshow]

The issue is that the game will be played by people under the age of 18, even if they can't buy it. Leaving aside the matter of downloading the game from the internet, most parents seem happy to buy games rated 18 for their 12-17 year old offspring without a second thought.

Ratings on games are ignored far more (and by a larger age gap) than ratings on movies. Probably because of the word 'game'. Even if the stores hold up the game's rating at the point of sale, the parents will still go and buy their kid the game for them.

This is the situation in the murder case - the parent's bought their 14 year old sun an 18 certificate game. Aside from that irresponsible act, it had nothing to do with the child's death unless he was goading on a drug addled thug with themes from the game.

99% of kids of 14+ can handle 18 films and games without an issue I'd hazard a guess. However that other 1% can cause a lot of issues, hence the ratings.

I'm totally against bans however. I think the game should be made available, but not via the usual routes. Sell it in sex shops, so adults can buy it, but they'll stop and think about why their getting their 12 year old kid something from a sex shop. If they're happy to buy their kid things from a sex shop, then quite clearly the game isn't the issue at fault anyway.

Re:

[Sciros]

LOL are you serious? Sex shops? I think you should also register to vote in sex shops. And also perhaps enlist for the military there while you're at it. It'll be a "one stop shop" :rolleyes:

Nevermind that in the US the general policy is 17+ for "mature" games and movies but 18+ for adult-rated content, so that doesn't even make sense outside of the UK.

Carmageddon

[Glacial Wanderer]

Best physics
Best scoring system
Best audio
Best gameplay

Very possibly the best game ever! I think my entire floor in the dorms got addicted to this game (yes, it was an all male floor at an engineering school). I never would have guessed that senseless exaggerated violence with a buggy rubber band physics system could have been so much fun.

They forget the old saying...

[rosie_bhjp]

When you outlaw the electro pedestrian bastard rays, only outlaws will have the electro pedestrian bastard rays!

Remember the Parents Music Resource Center?

[HockeyPuck]

Anybody remember the senate hearing from the '80s in which the Tipper Gore lead "Parents Music Resource Center" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resour c e_Center [wikipedia.org] tried to ban 20 or so albums due to excessive sex/violence in Rock music? They ended up putting a big black sticker that said "May contain..." which eventually became a beacon to kids to buy the album.

I welcome a new "Tipper Sticker" as now I'll know which games to buy.

To quote Dee Snider,

"The full responsibility for defending children falls on the shoulders of my wife and I, because there is no one else capable of making these judgments for us."

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Anybody remember the senate hearing from the '80s in which the Tipper Gore lead "Parents Music Resource Center" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resourc [wikipedia.org] e_Center tried to ban 20 or so albums due to excessive sex/violence in Rock music? They ended up putting a big black sticker that said "May contain..." which eventually became a beacon to kids to buy the album.

It also turned out to be a fairly effective form of censorship. Certain outlets, primary among them Wal-Mart (second-largest employer in

Murders kill of many reasons

[iPaul]

The least of which is the movie they just saw or the video game they just played. He probably displayed other anti-social behavior in the past. (Not silly things like black trench coats but actually physical assault, fascination with violence, and possibly killing pets or other small animals). The VA Tech shooter was a text book example of "missed warning signs." While that's not my favorite genre of games I think that claiming the game made him do it is up there with witches' spells and demonic posessi

Scape goat

[unlametheweak]

It appears to be human nature to find an easily definable cause for a problem. Games are easy. Games based on violence are easier. There seems to be a compelling need in the mind to find a cause, or scape goat, to satisfy our emotional needs. Politics makes good bed fellows for these emotional compulsions. I believe there will still be violence and murder even if all video games were banned; then we would just seek out another scape goat.

It's interesting that I never even heard of this game until the contro

In other news...

[OctoberSky]

Hostel II, the movie about rape/murder/torture/death/slashing/etc, was 5th in terms of revenues for this last weekend in the UK.

and...

[nanosquid]

How are sadistic killings and relentless manhunts different from standard Hollywood movies or TV series?

Disembowelment, shots to the head, criminally insane killers, rape, torture, etc., they all seem to be standard plot devices in movies and even TV shows.

Banned for whom?

[Jugalator]

Oh... adults! Yes, clearly those "adult" bastards can not be trusted. A movie board is much better off deciding what's best like them. Kiddos!

Seriously, why can even movies be "banned"?

Because this movie, unlike any other gory action movie, will inspire murderers and they won't be inspired by anything else either? :-S

Re:Its not going to work

[MankyD]

Do they not realise all we have to do is fire up bittorent ?

That doesn't help Rockstar.

Re:Its not going to work

[westlake]

That doesn't help Rockstar.

p. It doesn't help the family-friendly image of the Wii either.

Re:Its not going to work

[Dogtanian]

Isn't France on SECAM? And beware, there are different variants of PAL too.

Short answer; the PAL variants shouldn't be an issue here, AFAIK. In fact, SECAM shouldn't either. Region coding, more of an issue, probably.

Long answer (disclaimer, I am *not* an expert). The PAL variants vary only in sound encoding and this ONLY affects transmitted material- and only with actual analogue PAL.

This is a situation where using "PAL"/"NTSC" as synonyms for 50Hz/625-line, and 60Hz/525-line displays is misleading. Digitally-transmitted and recorded material is not in PAL or NTSC, or SECAM format. (In fact, strictly-speaking, PAL only refers to the colour encoding, not the frame rate or resolution!!)

Yes, the refresh/resolution specs of our digital systems normally reflect the old analogue systems for compatibility, but they're not "PAL" or "NTSC". Remember that games, etc do not use analogue PAL/SECAM video.

Since (AFAIK) PAL and SECAM countries mostly use the same frame/refresh rates, that should be all that matters when it comes to playing back digitally-recorded and generated material. At worst, the system you are playing the game on should be compatible with your TV system (for composite video???) but this will usually be the case anyway. At best, people will be connecting via RGB SCART, so only the refresh/resolution is an issue, and that's the same in both cases.

As I said above, regional lockouts and so on would be more of an issue.

Re:Its not going to work

[Movi]

In fact, ill expand on this. As a person owing a couple of consoles, all of them chipped to play imports, ill explain.

First off, you have to defeat region coding. If you get a modchip you've got that done. If not, you have to get a EU copy (or close to EU). France doesn't use SECAM for a long time now, so no worries about that. Besides all games are 'set' to either PAL or NTSC (and if youre talking about variants, then only care if you get a Japan game - they have a modified NTSC there called NTSC-J). As the parent mentioned, the variants mostly relate to the sound, and we don't care about that since most of us use the RCA plugs to get our sound.

Now, if you are getting an import from an US country the console will _NOT_ output NTSC. And before you jump me saying that you did just that and your tv says its NTSC - i know, and the TV doesn't see the difference (well, most TVs don't) because the frequency decoder and the color decoder are usually separate subsystems.

PAL consoles playing NTSC games output PAL-60. What this means is the refresh is 60Hz (interlaced) but in PAL colour. Why should you care? If youre using a tv tuner (like a myth box) you better should because not a lot of TV tuner cards do (and even those that do don't usually have driver support for that strange mode). Setting your card to NTSC will give you a b&w picture. I have fought this for about a month when i arrived at this very resolution, then i had to catch the developer for the cx88 linux module to implement that mode (well, it theoretically was there, but it never worked and no-one tried, so yeah, Hi Mauro ;] Thank you for letting me have my Twilight Princess fix!). Also, if you have a old TV (PAL) that doesnt support NTSC - that will not work. Some PAL&NTSC tvs might get confused by the PAL-60 mix but 95% will do just fine. If you ask me - grab a MULTI-5 version from some EU country :)

Okay, I was wrong (told you so)

[Dogtanian]

The PAL variants vary only in sound encoding and this ONLY affects transmitted material- and only with actual analogue PAL.

Okay; my mistake, that's not strictly true (see, I warned you I wasn't an expert). Some variants of PAL also place the colour subcarrier at a different frequency (*).

PAL-N [wikipedia.org] (Paraguy/Uruguay) has the "standard" 50Hz/625-line spec, but has the colour subcarrier at 3.58 MHz- like NTSC- instead of 4.43 MHz.

PAL-M [wikipedia.org] (Brazil) uses PAL colour-encoding, but with NTSC's 60Hz/525 line spec *and* the colour subcarrier at (again) 3.58Mhz instead of 4.43MHz. In other words, same as NTSC video, but with PAL colour enco

Re:

[iainl]

Or indeed a browser that can be pointed at an import website.

They can't stop all copies from reaching people. But they can significantly reduce the volume with these laws.

Or has your country decided that drug laws are pointless, too?

Re:Its not going to work

[Pojut]

Or has your country decided that drug laws are pointless, too?

It isn't called the war on some drugs for nothing, you know...

Re:Its not going to work

[bmw]

I wouldn't exactly say these types of bans or things like drug laws are pointless. They just don't have the effect that a lot of people think. Making something that is in high demand illegal doesn't actually eliminate it from the population. All it does is change the distributors. Just look at our current drug laws and prohibition. These things exist because a large percentage of the population wants them to. Laws won't change that.

Re:Its not going to work

[cayenne8]

Hmm....is this a case of "Welcoming our Nanny-State Overlords"?

What is the deal here? While I don't have a problem with limiting access to children, why the fsck are they messsing around with content a GROWN ADULT might wish to play?? The US is starting to lean this way too which saddens me.

What's next....banning books that have too much violent, sadistic content? Sure its not as flashy as the video game, but, it still promotes the same messages....

Re:Its not going to work

[Volante3192]

What's next....banning books that have too much violent, sadistic content? Sure its not as flashy as the video game, but, it still promotes the same messages....

Pretty sure everyone would be up in arms against that one. I'm not a fan of the bible myself, but I hear I'm an exception...

Re:

[ystar]

This to me is equivalent to book-banning. All mediums have the possibility to influence action on irrational folks (the crusades were based on some holy book i hear?). It's not like the wii is going to remain the forefront of simulation. Technology will go further and further into simulating real-world experiences. Will the limits of what those creators are allowed to do be set by legislation? Tsk tsk.

Re:

[ajs318]

As long as it can be proved that it's only simulated and no actual children were harmed in the production, I really don't see anything wrong with a "child rape" video game. If somebody wants to get their rocks off, they will do; and if they can be persuaded to do so into nothing worse than a box of Kleenex, then I call that pretty effective damage limitation.

Now, if somebody gets the idea to go out and rape an actual child, then yes, of course they should be punished for that. But FCOL, there's no way i

Re:

[steveo777]

I agree with you. Rockstar can publish what it wants, and I think the government should have a say in who they can buy the games. But in the case of Manhunt... I recall being somewhat disgusted with Rockstar for the first one, and now that the second iteration is going to appear on the Wii, I can't imagine it's going to make me feel any better about the game.

Jack Thompson's going to have a field day with this game too. He called the GTA series a 'murder simulator', but this game comes far closer to that

They already do.

[Kadin2048]

What's next....banning books that have too much violent, sadistic content? Sure its not as flashy as the video game, but, it still promotes the same messages....

They already do. Even in the U.S., it's possible to produce "child porn" using a word processor and your imagination, at least according to the Justice Department. The way the obscenity statutes are written, if something isn't artistic enough, it can be banned as obscene, on its content and regardless of medium alone.

I thought arresting people just for text was something we'd left in the past, but a few years ago there was a case about some woman (I think it was a woman) who was arrested for operating a website that had stories, of a sexual nature, featuring 'underage' participants (meaning the fictitious characters in the stories were underage). They were judged to be obscene, and thus illegal, even though no minors were ever involved in their production.

The argument for banning actual underage pornography is pretty clear -- you have to eliminate the market for the stuff, to prevent children from being sucked in and abused in order to produce it. No argument for me (or pretty much anyone else) there.

However, the evidence for banning 'simulated' pornography, either computer-generated rasters, or text descriptions, seems very spurious. Okay, so there may be some evidence that the availability of even certain kinds of simulated pornography encourages violent behavior. But to begin with, the evidence seems thin and mostly driven by emotion and rhetoric, not rational argument. Second, that entire line of thinking is a terrible idea, because it undermines the concept of absolute individual responsibility.

Once you start letting people escape absolute responsibility for their actions, by blaming it on pornography, or violent video games, or movies, or just "society" in general, you've lost. Even if you can demonstrate that the availability of porn/games/movies/whatever motivates certain already-sick people to action, that's still not a justification for banning them from everyone. (If anything, it suggests that we need to do a better job ferreting these people out before they can act, and dealing with them.) If a small uptick in crime and violence are the price we have to pay for individualism, then we need to suck it up, because that's the basis for our entire civilization.

Re:Its not going to work

[PitaBred]

We should ban the Bible while we're at it, encouraging rape and stoning people to death. How about "Old Yeller"? I mean, shooting dogs HAS to be animal cruelty, and we can't be seen supporting that. And "To Kill a Mockingbird", because there's violence in there, too. None of those books are necessary.

How about you stop being a fucking pussy, and take some responsibility for the degradation of society by being perpetually afraid of everything and expecting the "government" to protect you from your own shadow? Games don't create violence. They simply reflect society's values, as all art does. Violence is inevitable when people are more willing to be a victim than to do something proactive to stop antisocial behavior. Start telling people that their kid is a brat, and that they're a jackass. Maybe if they hear it enough, they'll start to believe it.

Re:

[MorpheousMarty]

How about we just float this idea: Video games are fake, and what you do inside of one is similar to what you do inside your head, no body's business but your own. Other people are real and you ARE responsible to what you do there. Is it really so hard to explain to people that most gamers don't even think about the violence in a game after a few hours. Once you understand the game mechanics all games are like solitaire: just because you see kings and queens in front of you, doesn't mean you are plotting re

Re:

[TheNinjaroach]

but usually there has to be some value to what is being said, in this case published, and i just dont see that from this game

Um, have you ever watched television? 200 channels and not one thing of value.

Re:Its not going to work

[A coward on a mouse]

Where I come from, freedom of speech doesn't come with some nebulous rider about "some value to what is being said". I suppose that's why we don't put quotation marks around it. Sounds like "freedom of speech" is a lot like not having freedom of speech. The whole point of freedom of speech is that you are free to speak, regardless of whether others think what you have to say has any value.

Incitement and conspiracy are not covered by free speech laws because these are cases where the speech is intended to cause specific action, causing the act of speech to be considered an action and not (simply) a statement. As in many cases, a person's intent is an essential element in making a legal determination.

The doctrine of free speech is generally understood to make lawful any statement that cannot be shown to have specific illegal intent (e.g., incitement) or content (e.g., copyright, obscenity). The burden of proof in this way of seeing things is on the person wanting the speech to be stopped; it must be proven that there is illegal intent or content to the speech. In your way of seeing things, the burden of proof is on the speaker, who must prove that there is "some value". Next you'll be telling us that people are "innocent until proven guilty" provided they can prove their innocence first.

Re:Its not going to work

[RexRhino]

Freedom is dangerous. Free speech is dangerous. Whenever you have a free society, there is an inherent danger that someone might do something risky and/or undesirable.

However, if you look at history, authoritarian government is much more violent and dangerous that petty street criminals. And authoritarian governments usually do a poor job of controlling street crime for what it is worth.

So you are really making a deal with the devil. Enjoy the "safety" that fascism brings.

Re:

[plague3106]

Yes, drug laws are pointless. At this point, all they do is increase the violence involved in the sale of illegal drugs. Yet you can still find them just about anywhere.

Re:Its not going to work

[oliverthered]

I haven't noticed much of a problem with the volume of drugs in the country.
Well except my dealer won't come out at 6am and usually doesn't have stock by Tuesday, but that's soon corrected by Wednesday.

Re:

[BlueTrin]

No and they will never do, it is like saying that one of your non-IT colleague is a dumbass because he broke something on his comp: you cannot expect him to know about such things ... unfortunately not.

On the other side getting it via bittorrent is not a legal way to obtain the game. It is like saying that it is useless to fight against drugs by increasing the budget for border police because drug dealers always find some way to import drugs, it is partially true but it is still better than nothing.

Re:

[Pojut]

It is like saying that it is useless to fight against some drugs by increasing the budget for border police because drug dealers always find some way to import drugs, it is partially true but it is still better than nothing.

Fixed. Never forget kiddies, if it isn't taxed, it's bad for you!

Re:

[somersault]

Manhunt was crap anyway. I got it because of all the fuss over it, to see what it was like. It was pretty repetetive and boring.. all the enemies were pretty much the same.. I did a few levels of it and just got bored. When I 'kill' things in computer games I don't tend to associate it with real life much anyway, I know it's just me calling the die function on an enemy object (or whatever), and I like stuff like ragdoll physics in deaths to make them more realistic etc, but that's more from an impressive co

Re:Its not going to work

[Irish_Samurai]

You know, I really hate this perspective. It assumes that everyone agrees on what is offensive.

What about what I find offensive? The platitude ridden crap we get now is more offensive to me than some "snuff" game with no artistic merit. I love how these "small minded idiots" are branded as such based on no other criteria than creating something you disagree with. You may think you are voicing the opinion of reason, but its statements like yours that are more censorship favoring than anything else I tend to hear.

How about personal accountability for the media you consume?
How about making choices for yourself instead of assuming your opinion is the opinion?
How about understanding that majority opinion has been shown to be full of shit more than once?

Re:Its not going to work

[Babbster]

Freedom of speech is important, but we shouldn't be slaves to that phrase, becuse it does get used as an excuse for a lot of grotesque rubbish.

Good god. "Freedom of speech" isn't an "excuse." It's a fucking right! I'm hoping that either a) you grew up under a repressive regime and just haven't recovered from it or b) this is a very nicely, subtly constructed troll. Anything else marks you as a tool, in at least a couple senses of the word. If it's option B, then I'll just say, "Well done."

Re:

[tolan-b]

Emotional and self righteous, well done +1.

However it can be a FUCKING RIGHT and also be used an excuse for grotesque things. The point is that it can be used to defend something that isn't really speech or expression, when you start giving these things more and more flexible definitions.

There is a *reason* for freedom of speech, and it's not there to let you play computer games about murdering people in horrible ways, it's there to stop people from repressing your opinions.

Re:

[westlake]

Good god. "Freedom of speech" isn't an "excuse." It's a fucking right!

But freedom of speeech is not an unlimited right and it has no universal definition.

Its roots in the U.S. lie in the ideal of unconstrained political debate among citizens, extending the thought to the protection of artistic expression comes much later.

Rights

[Tim Ward]

"Rights" are not laws of physics, inherent in the universe.

They are simply what a given society decides that they are in a particular place at a particular time.

Your idea of what you want as a "right" might not be the same as someone else's, after all. For example, your "right" to chastise your child might conflict with your child's "right" not to be assaulted. There's no law of natture which says which "right" is right.

Re:

[RexRhino]

Free speech is a natural human right. Everyone has the right to free speech, unless some outside force takes it away. Just because the UK government doesn't recognize the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean that the UK government isn't abusing human rights by restricting speech.

Governments don't GIVE people rights... people have the rights, and government can choose to either take those rights away or not take those rights away.

No such thing as natural rights

[spun]

No, people have no natural rights. The concept of rights wouldn't exist without society. There would only be power: do I have the power to do this or not? Every right involves giving up another right as part of a mutual trade with another human being. I don't want to be hit in the face, neither do you. We both give up the right to hit each other in the face in exchange for not getting hit in the face. And we agree that if anyone else tries to hit either one of us in the face, the other will try to stop it.

Re:No such thing as natural rights

[RexRhino]

No, people have no natural rights. The concept of rights wouldn't exist without society. There would only be power:

And the power of free speech and expression exists until someone takes it away, because all people have the ability to express themselves, inherently. If you were trapped alone, on a desert island, with no society whatsoever, you would be able to freely express yourself.

We both give up the right to hit each other in the face in exchange for not getting hit in the face.

We *DO* have the right to hit each other in the face... so long as it is done with the consent of both individuals. You can't punch someone in the face involuntarily, because you are infringing his natural right not to get punched. If someone was alone, on a desert island, with no society whatsoever, they would have no fear whatsoever of being punched.

I mean, if I say I have the right to free speech, but no one will uphold my right, do I have it or don't I?

Sure, you do have that right. The laws of physics aren't standing in your way, and presumably no physical or mental handicap is keeping you from expressing yourself. The only thing keeping you from using free speech is the artificial restriction on speech placed by other people.

The whole concept of natural rights is a kind of dodge or con. It is simply an appeal to authority designed to shut down debate around rights. "Oh, sorry. That's a natural right, end of discussion." The thing is, if there were such a thing as natural rights, they would be clear and self evident to all. Therefore the discussion of natural rights would never need to take place because we would all know them by instinct. Yet we do need to discuss them, and there is no clear consensus on what rights should be included in the hallowed list of 'natural' rights.

We do know natural rights, by instinct. The rule of "do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is pretty much universal in humans, until you start organizing them into opposing tribes or religions or political groups. Individuals then exploit those conflicts to control other members of the group. It takes years of "education" and social conditioning to get us to feel good about punishing and restricting other people.

The only people who want to "debate" human rights are the people who are interested in taking them away. The people who support free speech aren't interested in debating what free-speech means, because free speech is the natural human state by default. I have free speech until someone threatens to take it away. People want to initiate debate about rights because they want to find some convoluted reasoning for taking away the basic freedoms and abilities that people have by their very nature.

Re:No such thing as natural rights

[RexRhino]

For instance, I think that fencing off land violates my natural right to walk around wherever I choose. In your trite little desert isle scenario, I can go wherever I want without hindrance. What gives you the right to keep me off your land? Ah, I see, natural right.

Ownership and property are legal concepts... created by governments as an abstraction of people's natural right to preserve the fruits of their own labor. For the most part, you have the natural right to walk around wherever you want. However, if you want to do donuts on your neighbors corn crops in your monster truch, then you would probably be pushing the line of reasonable behavior.

Exactly. You want to take away everyone's right to use your private property (not personal property, like a house or clothes, or anything made by human labor: private property. Land.) And you have some convoluted reasoning involving some supposed arbitrary "nature," and the concept of "retaliatory force."

When did I ever say I believe in a natural right to own land? I believe in people's right to the products of their own labor, and sometimes with the restrictions of gravity and the nature of natural resources such as soil, that might overlap with land.

Most advocates of the concept of natural rights would disagree. They would say that because property rights are natural, land owners owe nothing to the landless.

The kind of situation that you are fearing... where a handful of barons (or whatever you want to call them) own the land and most people are serfs without land, existed in history only because barons origionally took the land from others by force, and exercised rigid social, religious, and economic control through violence. These great disparities in wealth only exist with the sort of rigidly enforced heirarchies that are in conflict with the basic rule of "do whatever you want, so long as you don't harm others".

And none of your arguements have any bearing over freedom of speech, which is information and not bound by any real scarcity. Speech can't infringe on anyone elses rights.

Re:

[Pojut]

I can give you a valid reason. Many people (myself included) are angry people, yet we understand and acknowledge that just because we WANT to do something doesn't mean that we SHOULD. If you ever read JTHM from Jhonnen Vasquez, he has said in an interview that JTHM represents things he has wanted to do to people, but he KNOWS that he shouldn't do them. So, as a way of venting his frustration and anger with society, he draws an overly violent comic which, at the same time, has some of the most important a

Re:

[mulvane]

I'm not against violence like I said..But I used to enjoy doom style games for that. I knew it was fantasy sure, but there is a certain satisfaction to killing a demon.

Re:

[Pojut]

When you get home from work, what do you do? Do you ever watch TV? Smoke a cig? Maybe have a beer? Read the paper? Take a dump?

Everyone has something they do to unwind at the end of the day. EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. To answer your question, yes, you should allow your son vent time. If you were to be an integrel part of that vent time, not only would you understand your son better, but he would understand you better as well.

By all means, give your son vent time.

Re:

[FreeKill]

You confusing the poor graphics of those systems with a lack of violence, there were plenty of violent games on those old machines. River City Ransom, Double Dragon, Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem. The difference is that now the systems are actually capable of creating realistic environments, but the games are just recreating the same game play you had fun with back on the old systems. I think people should have the right to decide if they want to play manhunt or not.

Re:

[MeanderingMind]

It's a matter of creative freedom. It is very hard to draw concrete lines on what should and should not be censored, especially when everyone is of different opinions. What you consider an abomination of violence and brutality might be someone else's reminder that life is not all roses and rainbows.

The possibility exists that some unstable person will get a hold of these games and go ballistic, but similar arguments have been made about all media over the years. It's the "corrupting our youth" fallacy. Even

Re:What is the point?

[Red Flayer]

Can anyone give me a valid reason why games like this should even be produced?

Because some people enjoy playing games like it.

Seriously, I think you have your priorities backwards... we should be concerned about the validity of measures taken to repress freedom, not concerned about the validity of one way in which people choose to express it.

Re:

[Irish_Samurai]

Do you want to tell me when I have to go to bed too?

Seriously, do you think your opinion of tasteful/necessary/allowable levels of violence/sex/drug references/(taboo material) in games/movies/books/TV is the litmus test that we should go by?

I'll give you a reason. I'm a reality grounded, well educated young man who loves the Walter Mitty aspects these games allow me. I don't want to really experience clearing a room full of terrorists like in Rainbow Six:Vegas - but I sure as hell have fun playing with the

Re:

[Irish_Samurai]

Violence isn't cool because the marketing machine says its cool. Violence is cool because people LIKE it.

Before big marketing the most well known media was violent. Beowulf comes to mind. People LOVE violence. Don't confuse the fact that your brother is slipping and his friends are there too as some sort of societal problem. What are the chances your brother is an idiot and that his friends are idiots too? What are the chances they are acting like normal 22 year olds who really have no idea what the world i

Re:

[wizardforce]

Can anyone give me a valid reason why games like this should even be produced?

well my question is to you, who determines what can and can not be produced? this game for being to violent or a game that the powers that be don't like? do you think it is a good idea to entrust the people who believe that videogames are the sole cause of such violenceto be deciding what does and doesn't get produced?

Sure I understand games are not the cause, but with the great majority of people suffering more and more menta

Re:What is the point?

[Kadin2048]

Sure I understand games are not the cause, but with the great majority of people suffering more and more mental illnesses for whatever reason, do you want someone already on the edge to have this material?

I'm honestly not sure I care. I don't want my society being made into some sort of padded room for the "fragile" people. If some people can't take certain forms of entertainment, then they, or their caretakers if they're not competent to care for themselves, need to steer themselves away from it. It's that simple.

If you're offended by something, or worse, if something makes you more likely to do something bad/violent/criminal, then you have a responsibility to keep yourself away from it. People do stupid shit when they're intoxicated, but they don't get a free pass because they're drunk -- they chose to ingest alcohol, and are still responsible for their actions. Similarly, "the videogame made me do it" isn't an excuse, either. (Actually, it's far less of one than even the alcohol is.)

Society shouldn't be censored for children or the mentally ill.