Manhunt 2 hands on - Comparison of AO version and M version

IGN Article

While this doesn't really exactly point out what caused the game to be rated AO in the first place, some of the omissions from the new versions give hints that the main content that caused the game to be rated as such simply stemmed moreso from the violence than anything else. Here are some main points in the article regarding omissions:

"But there have been some unfortunate content omissions, too. When we first wrote about Manhunt 2, we referenced a particularly nasty death sequence, in which Danny could use a pair of pliers to literally *Spoiler tag added due to nature of the act mentioned*

[spoiler] rip the testicles off a hunter. [/spoiler]

That murder has been completed removed from the updated build of the game."

"The biggest and most disappointing change relates to the major death strikes...in the AO-rated build of Manhunt 2, we could clearly see these over-the-top and horrific animations. In the M-rated version, Rockstar has added both an extreme blur effect and in most cases darkened the graphics so that it is nearly impossible to make any sense of what is going on. Players will be able to see character movement, blood splatters, and sometimes they may catch a glimpse of an identifiable action (for example, Danny jamming nails into the legs of a chair-bound opponent), but mostly it's guesswork - a garbled, motiony mess that's far less satisfying. This truth is doubly unfortunate because both everything else is unchanged and because these death strikes are what gamers will want to work toward; they're the pay off for a job well done, but now the pay off is not nearly as rewarding.

Our reactions to these maneuvers really speak volumes. The first time we played Manhunt 2...Onlookers were crying out and laughing and several people were in awe of the game's brutality. But with the updated build, we couldn't fully identify what was going on. We could see movement and hear disgusting noises, but if Rockstar had told us Danny had just decapitated a hunter or strangled him instead, we'd have to take its word for it. Not to suggest that these sequences are completely ruined - they aren't. They're still fun to perform and some of the animations - especially when they're in well-lit rooms where more of the movement can be recognized - are still satisfying and entertaining. "

Unless there's other points that have been dealt with, it seems the main point of issue might've been the violence in the first place.

What are some of your feelings regarding how the game has been altered? It seems the core gameplay and content is mostly all there, and all that has been done is a few removed murders, as well as effects placed to obscure other ones.

Ok that death sounds sore....

I think even with the violence toned down now it'll still be a brutal game and keep all the core factors that make it "Manhunt" although loosing some of the violence sucks. I really want my hands on this game whether it's the omitted version or what not, mainly for the gameplay and storyline (not so much the violence) but the violene added to the feel of it.

But I live in Scotland so whether I'll get to see it here or not remains taboo for the time being, unless I can import a dutch copy or something.

Hopefullyit's time to import the uncut version.

Pics

Its high idiocy that the ESRB hit Manhunt with anAO given that movies like Saw received Rs. As I've said before, I never played the original Manhunt and never wanted to (the developers spent more time talking up the death sequences than anything else) and my interest in Manhunt 2 was minimal (heck, the principle platform is the Wii), but its the principle of the thing.

As a guy who enjoys M-rated games, its quite possible such a policy will eventually impact a game I am interested in. Even toned down it sounds likeManhunt 2is wildly inappropriate for kids, so why tone it down? The ESRB's actions seem analogous to the editing that the MPAA forced upon the original Robocop (the scene where the malfunctioning ED-209 machine gunned down the executive had to have several seconds chopped, though Robocop was still a very gory movie).

(heck, the principle platform is the Wii)CarnageHeart

I just wanted to point out that the PS2 was the primary platform, the game was developed by Rockstar London with significant input from Rockstar North while Rockstar Toronto handled the Wii version.

On topic - this is bull****. Content was indeed removed and altered as the execution sequences are a very important part of the Manhunt experience. Considering that you could chop off a hunter's testicles with a sickle in the original, it's very clear that the ESRB is acting only out of fear of backlash and is imposing its own "values" on the rest of us. This is extremely dangerous, this isn't just about Manhunt 2, this will affect other games as well. I can only hope that an uncesored version gets released in Europe and an uncensored PC version everywhere.

I just popped back in to point out that Bozon from IGN on the boards said that now, Manhunt 1 is more violent than the sequel. Ugh. gaminggeek

My issue this whole time has not as much been that the game was given an AO rating, but what was the ESRB's justification for it...and if it's more or less that the game is maintaining status quo, this is a real step backwards for things.

I wish local stores like Gamestop and Best Buy can sell AO rate games.

Or just Unrated games. They sell unrated movies, why not games?

I wish local stores like Gamestop and Best Buy can sell AO rate games.

Or just Unrated games. They sell unrated movies, why not games?

TriangleHard

No console manufacturer will even license AO games to be published on their systems, meaning that if a console game developer gets an AO rating, their game is de facto banned from the get go.

Bad news indeed. Not really because of how much the game's content had to be altered, but instead because of the fact that its content had to be altered in the first place.

Welcome to 1984, guys.

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

I wish local stores like Gamestop and Best Buy can sell AO rate games.

Or just Unrated games. They sell unrated movies, why not games?

Skylock00

No console manufacturer will even license AO games to be published on their systems, meaning that if a console game developer gets an AO rating, their game is de facto banned from the get go.

Well they should.

they make systems with parental control, what really is the problem?

Yay, when I'm 35 and still playing games I can safely know that people in suits out there will still treat me like I'm 7 and still decide what I can and cannot handle in a video game.

Bluring the images to where you can barely recognize what they are is just stupid. It just makes the game seem pointless now. Let's face it, the system used of for espionage in the first Manhunt wasn't that challenging. Just stand in one dark corner, tap on the wall, wait for the guy to stop searching and turn around, kill him, repeat. You want good espionage then you go play something like Metal Gear or Splinter Cell, but what we came for Manhunt is the gore. At first it seemed like the second installment was here to deliver the gore, but over time we get blurry and dark effects to put it's stink on the brutality.

Its high idiocy that the ESRB hit Manhunt with anAO given that movies like Saw received Rs.

CarnageHeart

This is all just matter of respect.

If games were respected as medium of expression like movies, we wouldn't have problem such as this.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Its high idiocy that the ESRB hit Manhunt with anAO given that movies like Saw received Rs.

Solid_Snake_7

This is about freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The game is clearly directed towards adults who can either a) handle it, or b) choose they don't like it and don't buy it.

You don't need the nanny state or the big brother to tell you what you should or shouldn't play, or what should be contained in your games.

Well, in my opinion you can't really compare games to movies. When you're playing a game you're in control of your character and you make him do stuff. In a movie you watch someone else do the same stuff. It's not really the same.

By the way, i find it surprising how many of you back up these kind of games. I'm no Jack Thompson but my appetite for violence in videogames has a limit, and games like Manhunt are way beyond that limit.Solid_Snake_7

I will never understand the argument of watching vs. doing. Yes, they're two different actions, but your exposure to the violent act is still the same.

As far as backing that type of game, why not? There are movies and books that are as or more violent.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Its high idiocy that the ESRB hit Manhunt with anAO given that movies like Saw received Rs.

Solid_Snake_7

Recent research by the British Board of Film Clas-ssification has shown that interactivity actually lessens the impact of any perceived violence. Also, violence in films is photo-realistic, gaming either looks toon like or plastic like in visual terms. Either way, double standards exist for videogames and that's not right.

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake_7"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Its high idiocy that the ESRB hit Manhunt with anAO given that movies like Saw received Rs.

bugsonglass

This is about freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The game is clearly directed towards adults who can either a) handle it, or b) choose they don't like it and don't buy it.

"Considering that you could chop off a hunter's testicles with a sickle in the original..."UpInFlames

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake_7"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Its high idiocy that the ESRB hit Manhunt with anAO given that movies like Saw received Rs.

gaminggeek

Recent research by the British Board of Film Clas-ssification has shown that interactivity actually lessens the impact of any perceived violence. Also, violence in films is photo-realistic, gaming either looks toon like or plastic like in visual terms. Either way, double standards exist for videogames and that's not right.

If it were that simple. But do you think for one minute that Rockstar makes these games with adults being the target audience? No they don't.Solid_Snake_7

I never played the first Manhunt, so I'm not sure how big a deal these deaths are. But if they're a payoff for doing certain things and playing a certain way, than these omisions are huge. Who wants to bust their butt playing through something and then not be rewarded?Grieverr

In the original, the riskier you played, the more grousome the executions were. So yeah, the pay-off is basically gone now. Or at least, severely lessened.

If it were that simple. But do you think for one minute that Rockstar makes these games with adults being the target audience? No they don't. They KNOW that law that prevents minors from buying these types of games is a joke and they will end up buying them anyway, therefor exposing them to brutalities.Solid_Snake_7

Rockstar indeed makes games for adults (which is apparant by looking at their portfolio) - why is that so hard to believe? Minors getting their hands on their games isn't really Rockstar's problem at all. But what are you really saying? That adults should be deprived of content made for them because children might get their hands on them?

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake_7"] If it were that simple. But do you think for one minute that Rockstar makes these games with adults being the target audience? No they don't.Skylock00

Rockstar indeed makes games for adults (which is apparant by looking at their portfolio) - why is that so hard to believe? Minors getting their hands on their games isn't really Rockstar's problem at all. But what are you really saying? That adults should be deprived of content made for them because children might get their hands on them?UpInFlames

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]Rockstar indeed makes games for adults (which is apparant by looking at their portfolio) - why is that so hard to believe? Minors getting their hands on their games isn't really Rockstar's problem at all. But what are you really saying? That adults should be deprived of content made for them because children might get their hands on them?Solid_Snake_7

But that's just me speculating, i have no facts except for the one that no good can come out of something that evil. That's all.Solid_Snake_7

Yeah, censorship is fine and good as long as it's something not suited for your tastes. What if a day comes when a small group of people decide that extreme violence and sexual content is a-ok, but decide to ban something to your liking? Something tells me you'd be singing a different tune then.

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake_7"] If it were that simple. But do you think for one minute that Rockstar makes these games with adults being the target audience? No they don't.Skylock00

Right. And the cigarette industry doesn't want minors to smoke.ymi_basic

Great example. One is a toxin that is proven to cause physical addiction and fatal diseases, and the other - a form of entertainment. What is worse, the latter is getting banned, not the former.

Nobody here can know what goes on in Rockstar exec's minds, but the fact is, they create games for a mature audience. Are they bothered with the fact that minors play them? Probably not. Should they be? Not really. The question is are these games directly marketed towards minors? I don't see any evidence to support that notion.

Here is a prime example of people deciding for themselves whether or not the content in a game is something they can handle or not. Solid_Snake_07 has decided that Manhunt 2 has reached limits that he founds inappropriate, however on the other hand UpInFlames and GodModeEnable have decide the game suits them just fine. This means that Solid_Snake_7 will not purchase the game and UpInFlames and GodModeEnable will buy it. If only Sony, Nintendo, Gamestop, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, K-Mart, FYE, EB Games, and Congress could recognize that adults are capable of making their own decisions (I'm assuming you three are all adults) this wouldn't be such a hassle. We don't need to be parented by these companies and these people. Just because there are parents out there that fail at their responsibility to monitor what their kids are buying shouldn't be affecting me. I don't want to be punished for other people's incompetence.

And what is so evil about a video game with violence? That's not blood we are seeing, that's red. Anybody who gets enjoyment from killing things in video games is not a pyscho if they can comprehend that what is going on isn't real and that it is all fantasy. The crazy ones are the ones who don't see the boundary between fantasy and reality.

Give me a Manhunt 2 in it's AO form, I can take it. I don't need to have some blurry,dark M-rated version. I'm pretty sure if I was going to watch a football game I would like to see what is going on. I don't need somebody coming up and macing me in the eyes right before the game started so everything looked like a smudge, the game just wouldn't be the same.

Here is a prime example of people deciding for themselves whether or not the content in a game is something they can handle or not. Solid_Snake_07 has decided that Manhunt 2 has reached limits that he founds inappropriate, however on the other hand UpInFlames and GodModeEnable have decide the game suits them just fine. This means that Solid_Snake_7 will not purchase the game and UpInFlames and GodModeEnable will buy it. If only Sony, Nintendo, Gamestop, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, K-Mart, FYE, EB Games, and Congress could recognize that adults are capable of making their own decisions (I'm assuming you three are all adults) this wouldn't be such a hassle. We don't need to be parented by these companies and these people. Just because there are parents out there that fail at their responsibility to monitor what their kids are buying shouldn't be affecting me. I don't want to be punished for other people's incompetence.

And what is so evil about a video game with violence? That's not blood we are seeing, that's red. Anybody who gets enjoyment from killing things in video games is not a pyscho if they can comprehend that what is going on isn't real and that it is all fantasy. The crazy ones are the ones who don't see the boundary between fantasy and reality.

Give me a Manhunt 2 in it's AO form, I can take it. I don't need to have some blurry,dark M-rated version. I'm pretty sure if I was going to watch a football game I would like to see what is going on. I don't need somebody coming up and macing me in the eyes right before the game started so everything looked like a smudge, the game just wouldn't be the same.

MurderToe

iGood post. And If EA made a blind football game, I would probably buy it.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="Solid_Snake_7"] If it were that simple. But do you think for one minute that Rockstar makes these games with adults being the target audience? No they don't.ymi_basic

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="Solid_Snake_7"] If it were that simple. But do you think for one minute that Rockstar makes these games with adults being the target audience? No they don't.ymi_basic

Just like GTA? Uhm, no. But we could argue all day long back and forth and probably will never be on the same page so i'll stop here. Be it for adults or minors, there's no need for such violent games to be on the market, that was all i was trying to say from the beginning. Most of you will disagree with me, and that's fine, it's just an opinion.Solid_Snake_7

I don't know that I'm necessarily going to miss being able to do a nadality, but I think it's a dangerous precedent that is being set here.

A game's M equivalent should be no more or less than a movie's, and the argument that children still want to play them is moot -- they want to listen to 2 Live Crew records and watch movies like Saw and Hostel as well, and I would argue that they have just as much (if not more) access to a CD player or a DVD player than they do a game console. This argument that games are targeted towards kids is absurd seeing as nearly EVERY single home in America has a DVD player and a CD player, and those forms of media run about a sixth as much as a video game.

Violent media is violent media. Content is content. Mouthbreathing idiots will allow their kids to consume it, whether it be in the form of a movie, a game or a CD. Treating one form of media like it's somehow held to a higher standard is grossly negligent. The ratings are in place and the retailers are starting to enforce them (I saw a kid get nailed trying to buy RE4 for the Wii at an EB in Fashion Valley mallwhile in San Diego a few weeks back, just to name one). Leave the content the **** alone. Go save some other part of the world. Feed hungry people. Save a rainforest. Rally against carcinogens polluting the atmosphere.

Sanitizing content is not the answer. Personal accountability is. And that's where I diverge from a lot of people regarding Shwarzenegger's recent game outburst -- I agree with him that it should be against the law to sell M-rated media to kids. We do it with smokes. We do it with booze. We do it with porn. Do it with games as well, and add some personal accountability to the people selling the material. The problem with that, is that then you get the government involved, and history has proven time and again that if you really want to make a cluster-screw out of a situation, you need only get the United States government involved.

There are no easy answers, other than people being held accountable for their actions. If you give your kid $60 and just let him go to a game store and buy whatever he/she wants without even inspecting and taking a hands-on approach, then you're an unfit parent. If you're a game store clerk and some little bucktooth bubblegummer rolls into the store and asks for a copy of Manhunt 2 and you sell it to him without asking to see ID, then you're an unfit store clerk and should be fired so they can replace you with someone who is fit. The problem here is that we've got crappy parents having crappy kids with the expectation that society is somehow responsible for raising them, and then we've got dolts (or have in the past) working behind the register in game stores who either don't care or don't understand the severity of selling mature content to kid.

I find this utterly hilariously, judging by your taste of games from your xbox sig there I see gears of war... hmm thats an m rated game. With a lot of graphic violence. Is it evil too? Or not so much because it isnt made by rockstar?GodModeEnabled

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]I find this utterly hilariously, judging by your taste of games from your xbox sig there I see gears of war... hmm thats an m rated game. With a lot of graphic violence. Is it evil too? Or not so much because it isnt made by rockstar?Solid_Snake_7

It's still extremely violent.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]I find this utterly hilariously, judging by your taste of games from your xbox sig there I see gears of war... hmm thats an m rated game. With a lot of graphic violence. Is it evil too? Or not so much because it isnt made by rockstar?Solid_Snake_7

In a sense, the game wasn't showing anything much more extreme than you'd find in many horror/torture focused films, and in some cases, it wasn't even CLOSE to that.

Regardless, the point is that like Gears of War, Manhunt and its sequel are games that were targetted for, and made for, adult/mature audiences, not minors, and restricting the availability of either game because of the fact that some minors get their hands on copies in one way or another isn't a problem that stems from Rockstar, or any other developer/publisher, but, as Shame-Us indicated, problems relating to parents and retail workers.

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake_7"]Just like GTA? Uhm, no. But we could argue all day long back and forth and probably will never be on the same page so i'll stop here. Be it for adults or minors, there's no need for such violent games to be on the market, that was all i was trying to say from the beginning. Most of you will disagree with me, and that's fine, it's just an opinion.Skylock00

Show me anything that demonstrates otherwise. The M on the cover? Give me a break. What i'm saying, i'm saying it based in what i see or hear because i'm no researcher as i pointed out already. If you take Halo 2 for example, which was one of the most popular games ever to come out and rated Mature, you'll understand my point. You just had to pop in the game and play a match on Xbox Live at 3:00 PM to see the huge amount of minors (could tell by their voices) playing the game. My point you say? As i stated before, the law that prevents them from buying these games is a joke because they get their hands on them and the same can happen with Manhunt. It's funny that you write to me as if you're up there and i'm down here. I myself said that it was just an opinion and that i had no facts. You have your point of view and i respect that.Solid_Snake_7

do you think for one minute that Rockstar makes these games with adults being the target audience? No they don't.

You and others are trying to make proof of what the intent of the company is, and using evidence like who owns the games in the end as if that has anything to do with it...but it doesn't. You can't retroactively use sales of something to prove the circumstances of those sales.

If tons kids are still getting the games, that's not the fault of the developers and publishers, but of people allowing the kids to get the games, like parents and retail workers not doing what they're supposed to. That is irrelevent to what Rockstar's target audience for a game like Manhunt is.

The basis for my argument about the target audience is derived from the kind of content they develop for the game, other media forms and such that it derives from, the sorts of audiences those media forms were targetted to (primary through the kind of advertising done for them), and the such. If a product is advertised on TV, for example, during programming that the key demographic is males from 18-27 (or something), that game is being targetted to that audience, not minors. If the same product was being advertised during programming that the key demographic was below 18, then it could be claimmed that the product is being targetted to minors.

That's the kind of stuff I'm deriving my stance from.