Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Q&A: Postal designer on Manhunt 2

Running With Scissors' Vince Desi has built a franchise on pushing the envelope, so where does he stand on the recent controversy surrounding Rockstar Games' latest?

Earlier this week, Rockstar Games' unreleased action game Manhunt 2 was banned in the UK and Ireland. The controversial PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, and Nintendo Wii title was then issued an AO for Adults Only rating in the US, effectively extending the ban to domestic shores, as neither Sony nor Nintendo allow AO-rated games on their systems.

Running With Scissors CEO Vince Desi is no stranger to controversy, having seen his violent Postal series of games banned in countries like Brazil and New Zealand, as well as blamed for real-life tragedies. Given his familiarity with the subject, GameSpot today posed a handful of questions to Desi in order to get his views on the Manhunt 2 controversy, the effectiveness of the Entertainment Software Rating Board, and whether or not these high-profile incidents help or hurt the bottom line.

GameSpot: What's your general take on the Manhunt 2 situation?

Vince Desi: My main concern is for our industry, the game industry itself. Whether I or any other developer or gamer likes, loves, or hates Manhunt 2 is not the issue. The real issue is we as an industry allow ourselves to be set up. I'm a big fan of the ESRB, I think in general they do a great job. The dilemma is that while we are supposedly a free society (who knows about the UK), the fact is government, hypocritical politicians, and the media dictate directly and indirectly who wins and loses, or who gets to play, so to speak. Does Hillary really have a clue?

GS: Have any Running With Scissors games ever received an initial rating of Adults Only from the ESRB?

VD: No, all of the Postal games have been rated M.

GS: Are you at all jealous that Rockstar managed to land an AO rating with a game before you?

VD: We make games that are humor-driven, not violent-centric. As for being first, Postal 2 received six descriptors; you know we were the first to get an "Intense Violence" descriptor. Seriously, I don't think any developer purposely intends to corner a negative score.

GS: How has controversy over the extreme content in Postal helped or hurt the series' sales?

VD: 2007 is our 10th anniversary, and we are currently developing Postal III for the 360/PC/Mac and we have a major motion picture coming out in September, so looking back we've done great. However, in the beginning it clearly was harmful here in the USA; we were never big enough to buy our way onto the retail shelves.

GS: If Manhunt 2 were a Running With Scissors product, do you think the rating would have been the same?

VD: Who knows? I would like to think that all games are evaluated on their own. At least that's the way it should be.

GS: If Manhunt 2 were a PC-only game, do you think the rating would have been the same?

VD: Again, in a perfect world I would say yes. That said, I'm not sure it would get the same rating if it was submitted at a different time or if a different individual scored it.

GS: Will this rating do anything to keep politicians and parent watchdog groups off the industry's back?

VD: I don't think so. The video game industry is too easy for them to complain about, and with a presidential election next year I can only imagine the pseudo talking points we'll be hearing. It could be the only issue the Democrats and Republicans agree upon.

GS: Will this rating do anything to prevent children from getting their hands on inappropriate or violent games?

VD: How old were you when you lit your first cigarette? Drank your first beer? I think rating systems work in general as they provide consumers with so-called valuable information, [but] they should never be seen as or expected to be a policing policy.

GS: Do you expect Microsoft's prohibition on AO-rated games for its systems will become an issue when Postal 3 is ready for its Xbox 360 release next year?

VD: Not at all. Our design policy is really very simple. When we consider content we first ask ourselves, "Is this fun to play?" And second, "Is it funny?" We never think in terms of violence, it reduces the game to a one-dimensional perspective, aka BORING. We design for laughs. It's so much more entertaining when you can play for fun and at the same time laugh your ass off.

I think it's important for developers to reconsider their motivations; it shouldn't be about money, or the latest trend or tech feature. We're in the game business, games are meant to be played, and playing should be a fun experience. That's it!

178 Comments

  • chilipepperman

    Posted Aug 24, 2008 4:17 pm GMT

    this guy seems pretty chill and postal III is looking pretty funny!

  • YoJim8obaJoe

    Posted Aug 2, 2008 3:13 am GMT

    if games make people violent then prey we never discover time travel and get hold of Ivan the terribles console to manufactor on a mass scale,and on a serious note.If games make people violent murderers how come I never heard of a games developer going insane and going on a killing spree.Surely theyd be most likely to go insane considering they spend most of there time with games

  • lillitu

    Posted Dec 16, 2007 7:48 pm GMT

    I personally liked both games manhunt and postal, they were differently styled so comparing them just with the violence aspect is a bit stupid. As for these companies (rockstar / running with scissors) It is good to see they have the balls to push were others rather not go. Most gamers are not kids anymore so new content including adult content is welcome and should be acceptable. we can go rent a movie which is far more graphic than any game but are so restricted in this area. We all know that the blame game is bull***t people who do sh*t then blame media such as games have something askew in their head to start with. We will only have the chance of this if companies as such keep up the work.

  • sancezz

    Posted Oct 28, 2007 2:12 pm GMT

    Actually There has been research carreid out which correlates raised aggression levels in people who have recently played a violent game. not much or a rise, but it is there. I say it's probably adrenaline; you'd find the same rise after rollercoasters or other incident. But it's twisted and...well...statistics always are.

  • LinkinPark_X

    Posted Aug 31, 2007 9:27 pm GMT

    Both games r fine-- But postal... it realy made me Pee on ma Self !!! LOL! its soo damn entertaining

  • Myriam_D

    Posted Aug 25, 2007 2:01 pm GMT

    I forget-did we manage to get MH2 in Canada?

    EDIT: Also-who the heck marked down the guy that said research proved that there is absolutely no link between video games and violence? It IS TRUE! There has been no rise in deaths, all people who both played games and murdered were twisted and either insane or simply made a conscious decision they already would've. Any KID who does this had no real influence from the media-their parents ignoring them shows them acquiring these games a a symptom, not a cause! There IS NO EXCUSE-make them care!

  • LfunkeyA

    Posted Aug 3, 2007 2:55 pm GMT

    postal 2 AWP goes beyond manhunt. postal III may not beat manhunt 2 violence-wise, but at least the violence will be more controlled (in manhunt it's just cutscenes for every execution).

  • curlyq101

    Posted Jul 29, 2007 7:41 pm GMT

    i agree with negativenetwork i do like the postal games though

  • negativenetwork

    Posted Jul 3, 2007 6:51 pm GMT

    postal 2 is lame compared to manhunt though. postal 2 has you urinating in the air to put yourself out if you're on fire and manhunt has you stabbing glass shards into people's eyes. blergh... the sooner the world accepts the fact video games aren't only for kids the better. not everyone wants to play sonic the hedgehog.

  • zamardii12

    Posted Jun 29, 2007 3:37 pm GMT

    Daelock, you don't get the point. The point is, Manhunt was 100% focused on killing. You kill the person, and the gate opens to the next area where you repeat repeat, and then repeat again. Postal had you do hilarious things, but gave you the OPTION of doing them. When the controversy of Postal 2 came about, and I played it I was like wtf? This game was not made to be about violence, it was about being humorous. Like, they would show a screenshot of a room with blood, and heads, and bodies all over the place, and then it would say as a caption, "Do you want your kids playing this?" Then, after playing Postal 2, I was like, those actions are totally voluntary. If I don't want to wait in line for milk, and I feel like killing the people in front of me, lighting their bodies on fire, and putting the flames out with my piss, then I can do that, or just wait in line like a good samaritan. Bottom line is, Manhunt 2 was boring, because it did not emphasize anything but repetitiveness, and if you don't agree then you pretty much have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not discrediting the people who liked it, I'm simply saying is that the repetitiveness is what sold the game, and the wonder of how you can kill your next victim. Next...

  • BDL91

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 6:29 am GMT

    i was reading an article about bringing an R rating for games to Australia on afterdawn hopefully they will do it

  • Alucard7321

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 4:07 am GMT

    Well i've been in contact with Mike J from Running with Scissors for some time now. To be honest, like i said to Mike J, its just become waaay too corporate in the sense that you have Micro$oft herding in developers, slapping the "Games Made For Windows" and funnily enough the blame for policing of what goes and what doens't falls on the lap of ESRB, this isn't fair:

    You have guys like Jeremy Soule, Inon Zur, who when criticized want to file law suits against you in a Jack Thompson-esque style. Its become a society of people who are over-sensitive and the concept of censorship of even your opinion has slowly ate away freedom of speech in the process.

    The latter point in the context of Micro$soft herding developers was that the games market has solely become about just making money. They buy out old franchises like Fallout and believe if they made it like their last game which made "zillions!" it will be popular again. The knock on effect from that is that you can't criticize what they do, you can't say you want that or you dont want it because they have deep pockets...you'll be aptly sued. That, is unfortunatly the bigger picture, its not censorship of violence, its just a slow process of killing your freedom of speech in the long run.

    Postal i wouldn't consider maliciously violent. You can go through the whole game without killing a single person. However i could argue Manhunt is a game series were it focusses on killing, so understandably i can see the controversy but its NOTHING NEW since we've been doing this sort of thing since we blew up invading pixelated aliens in Space Raiders.

    Its like movies. If you dont like it, dont watch it.

  • Alucard7321

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 4:04 am GMT

    Well i've been in contact with Mike J from Running with Scissors for some time now. To be honest, like i said to Mike J, its just become waaay too corporate in the sense that you have Micro$oft herding in developers, slapping the "Games Made For Windows" and funnily enough the blame for policing of what goes and what doens't falls on the lap of ESRB, this isn't fair:

    You have guys like Jeremy Soule, Inon Zur, who when criticized want to file law suits against you in a Jack Thompson-esque style. Its become a society of people who are over-sensitive and the concept of censorship of even your opinion has slowly ate away freedom of speech in the process.

    The latter point in the context of Micro$soft herding developers was that the games market has solely become about just making money. They buy out old franchises like Fallout and believe if they made it like their last game which made "zillions!" it will be popular again. The knock on effect from that is that you can't criticize what they do, you can't say you want that or you dont want it because they have deep pockets...you'll be aptly sued. That, is unfortunatly the bigger picture, its not censorship of violence, its just a slow process of killing your freedom of speech in the long run.

    Postal i wouldn't consider maliciously violent. You can go through the whole game without killing a single person. However i could argue Manhunt is a game series were it focusses on killing, so understandably i can see the controversy but its NOTHING NEW since we've been doing this sort of thing since we blew up invading pixelated aliens in Space Raiders.

    Its like movies. If you dont like it, dont watch it.

  • Maxer9

    Posted Jun 26, 2007 11:54 pm GMT

    I'm getting the feeling that some gamers are developing the idea that the more shocking a game is the better it is simply due to the large amount of controversy surrounding these games lately. Some companies, such as Running With Scissors; they only have to gain from it.

  • Factor-Zer0

    Posted Jun 26, 2007 9:38 pm GMT

    I love both Postal and Manhunt, I will be getting both MH2 and Postal 3 (both on pc most likely.

  • Casper3141

    Posted Jun 26, 2007 9:58 am GMT

    The whole "their not going to sell it is bad for business" is **** I doubt Hilary Clintion, Jack Thompson and the rest of their insane mother army buy Video games anyways wow big loss they still wont! The Hitman games were quite graphic and diabolic

  • Daelock

    Posted Jun 26, 2007 9:24 am GMT

    Why did they interview this guy instead of someone who was actually on MH2's development? I mean I get that they're in the same business, even down to making ultra-violent games, but quite frankly he comes off a little smug and seems to imply that Manhunt is all about the violence and less about the content. I personally found Manhunt 1 much more enjoyable to play than Postal 2.

  • KingKoop

    Posted Jun 26, 2007 8:58 am GMT

  • ssh83

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 4:40 pm GMT

    I wonder what would happen if someone reenact a violent scene from the bible in a church.

  • submash

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 1:18 pm GMT

    I live in the uk and i have been waiting since i finished the first game for this to come out and now it's been baned which is a bit crap but there must be a reason as Manhunt did have the highest rating you can get in the uk and it was well deserverd.

    That being said i dont agree with the ban as i am 26 and enjoy the gaming experience these games offer and should be able to the have the choice to play them if i so choose after all a game is just a game.

  • grandmarquis84

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 12:38 pm GMT

    Okay, you can blame a big brother for getting this banned in Ireland and the UK. I don't agree with a government refusing to allow something to be sold. But onto the issue of those of you in the U.S. It isn't the politicians that will stop this game but Playstation and Nintendo. So get mad at them, but remember, they would only not sell it fi they think it would be bad business to sell it.

  • NinjaMunkey01

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 10:58 am GMT

    Also. whats with attacking game companies all of a sudden? First Resistance with Tony Blair (yey he's going soon!) and now this. Why must good games go to waste!

  • NinjaMunkey01

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 10:53 am GMT

    I do not know how to react with the ban of manhunt 2. I've never played it and it may be gory or something but is banning the awnser? For all we know the guy who rated this is really squemish and hates the sight of blood, then again maybe it is too bad for the public. I think that we should have a choice because who is going to play a game and want to re-enact it in real life. either way people who want to really play it will. whether it is buy finding an american website that will sell it or illegally geting it any person could play it if they really wanted to. It will just take some simple searching. Google anyone?

  • Sinfwho

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 10:25 am GMT

    Honestly, this is just ridiculous. Anything can be taken the wrong way and be used as a scapegoat by individuals who are most likely already sick.
    I could get into a fight and jump on the other person's head and kill them... then I could just blame it on Mario games. I could try and mass murder with a knife in a crowded place and blame Dynasty Warriors. I wouldn't, and the thought of doing those things in real life never crossed my mind, even though I've been playing violent games for as long as I can remember.
    I'm just saying that it all comes down to the individual, and if you don't have enough faith in the rest of mankind to release any form of media, then you shouldn't be trusted to govern it.

  • equili3rium

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 8:59 am GMT

    Parenting is a great responsibility and it is quite right that people look towards the parent to guide their children in the ways of the world.
    BUT, it should also be that same adult's choice to purchase and play a violent game.
    I can understand Dasim64's point about personal involvement and to a certain extent that may be true but any parent that allows a child to play ultra violent games will, in my opinion, allow them to do many more disruptive things at the end of the day.
    Today I happened to see an advertisement for a horror movie in the paper and it quite plainly boasted that the movie was gory and disgusting like it was a good thing!
    Do the media really think that a game will do more damage than a realistic looking torture scene in a horror when we all know that a game is just a bunch of pixels on a screen and is more like a cartoon than real life?
    We should all make sure our children are safe from damaging influences, not by banning media but by policing ourselves.
    The majority of us are good parents. Let's all stay that way.

  • BEEREAL187

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 7:09 am GMT

    I think the big story here is postal 3 is coming too the 360!!! wow !!! i did not know that !! I will go out and preorder it today!!!

  • GonzoX84

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 6:02 am GMT

    Dasim64 is right to say what he (I'm assuming you're a man) has to say. It is right to say that ratings systems do not, in fact, prevent children in playing games with mature content. The problem here is that when you compare to the "M" rating for a video game to the respective "R" rating for a movie, it is still allowed by theaters to let children (those under 17) in the movie to watch, SO LONG AS A PARENT IS THERE WITH THEM. Has everyone seemed to have forgotten about this? While the ratings systems have no way of enforcing themselves after the purchase from the store, that shouldn't mean that we should never allow these games to be purchased or played. Parental Guidance is the most important thing to a child, and it is because of the parent that the child has the ability to tell right from wrong. If a parent is there to put things into perspective for their child, to watch over them as they play the game, then how would a violent game (or the news) be any different from a violent movie?

    I also think that it is a little too dangerous to start assuming ANYTHING when considering what is going to be happening when any "M" rated game is purchased. We have to have faith that "M" games are being sold and played responsibly, otherwise we will start sliding down that slippery slope towards censorship.

    Like I always say though, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I'm just a terrible person.

  • Dasim64

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 5:02 am GMT

    The biggest difference between games and movies, since everyone wants to compare them so much, is that in games you are doing the killing and in movies you are a spectator. The assumption is that you will be disturbed by the movie, that you are going to be scared, upset, ect. That's why they call them horror or scary movies. In the games like Manhunt you are put in the shoes of the killer and you are the one doing the killing. There is a major difference in personal involvement there.

    The news is often more horrific than either the movies or any of these games and my kids are often exposed to it. But there's a huge difference between them hearing about a guy walking in a school and shooting kids and having them "become" that guy in a game they are playing. I can understand how people can be upset by the thought of a 10 year old playing a game where he is constantly committing brutal murders. And I don't think any of us really believe that simply putting a rating on something prevents it from being played by kids so that has to be taken into account when these decisions are made. Personally I don't think some of the movies being made have any business being out there either but that's just me. I honestly think that people use freedom of speech irresponsibly when they release media with a certain level of content that has more negative effect than positive. And while I'm not really for banning material I can understand why people would want to.

    I know a lot of people think that anything should go in the name of freedom but for the good of society I think there has to be a line somewhere. The problem is where do you draw that line and who should draw it? That's where it gets really complex and causes all sorts of problems. As a mature gamer I don't like having decisions like that made for me. However as a 43 year old parent of 2 young children I can understand the concern of people who have fears about how this sort of gaming may affect society at large.

  • Josepiphus

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 3:50 am GMT

    Wow...I'm taken aback that at least MS or SONY don't allow AO games.


    I mean... the average gamer these days is well over 21.


    **** says I. Complete ****.

  • gandalf_storm

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 1:56 am GMT

    my fave line in shops is this, shopkeeper "You do realise this is an 18 rated adult game, involving a serial killing hacking and killing people"

    Mother of five year old "its ok he`s played it before"

  • Sinfwho

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 12:27 am GMT

    The thing I find most entertaining about the whole "control through ratings" issue is that almost all of the heavily sheltered kids I've ever met have grown into some of the most screwed up people I know.
    I see it as the same as getting diseases. If you spent your childhood in a sterile environment, when you finally do have some outside contact, it will be much more traumatic.

  • Casper3141

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 12:15 am GMT

    Heres the way I look at it, They have a rating AO designed for these kind of games so why is everyone so hostile towards games that are labeled with this? Their allowed to maked NC-17 Movies that can be played across the country but an AO rated game is automatically banned? **** that Facism at its best

  • Goldbergfan1110

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 9:35 pm GMT

    what do these morons expect its an AO game. These types of games aren't going to be released its just logic. Then again they should allow the selling of AO rated games just check for id its not a difficult problem to be dealing with you check the id if the person is 21 or older the game shouldnt be sold to them unless a parent allows the selling of the game its not a big deal. People like dumbass wannabe New Yorker Hilary Clinton and extremist video game violence hater Jack Thompson 2 people who know nothing about video games to begin with since when did they become experts on violence in video games to begin they are just trying to get publicity thats all they are doing this bs for no other reason except for something to help them get more votes for their elections thats all they are caring about. Politics are nothing bs and this is utter trash and have these politicians shut their mouths.

  • makeuser

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 8:36 pm GMT

    hey Darrrrk, I'm not here to flame you & I think you're just here to make your case, so I'll continue on w/mine. I don't think playing graphic games will make you a killer (if you wanna wrap it up in a uniform & patriotism, it's still killing, should we get into playing a nazi soldier?). Or watching a gory movie, or book. I think a person has to be pretty tormented & disturbed to kill someone. And I don't think a book, movie or game can be solely responsible for that. As an adult, is my playing a game causing you, my neighbor or anyone else direct harm? My answer is no. If you wanna be a parent to a child please do, if you wanna be a parent to me... I think we've seen over the last 7 yrs where all the flag waving, bible thumping & big brother thought has gotten us. I'm looking at the top 10 causes of death in the U.S. and game playing doesn't rank.

    As far as letting companies decide whether to support a project that receives an AO rating; if a publisher/platform owner like MS decides not to support AO titles that's pretty much a ban. Many ppl don't have access to every platform, so if a game is not published on one platform, you're essentially banning a game for an entire segment of people. I'm not debating whether companies can make this decision (of course they have complete autonomy), I'm just stating that this is a ban.

  • PHeMoX

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 7:08 pm GMT

    @tyrant2004 said: "Games, on the other hand, you are actually taking part in whatever's going on, so that makes it more realistic. "

    No, ALL research shows that there's no effect whatsoever. It's not more realistic either, I haven't seen any really violent games with realistic graphics and Manhunt 2 isn't going to change that either. It's not the same because you look at a monitor and you play with a keyboard and a mouse; you don't actually perform the actions you see, so it's not realistic.

    People don't get crazy because they play games, strong minded and weak minded a like, there's no direct influence at all. People who go beserk crazy and start shooting up schools do not do that because they have been playing Postal 2 or Manhunt 2, that's simply proven fact. Those people have mental issues, socially isolated and might have had a terrible childhood, aka they are messed up even before they were playing games or watching violent movies.

    In the end it's the person who has mental problems snapping that's the true cause of these highschool shootings or even killings in general, not a game someone plays for entertainment. That's simply a fact.

  • MichaelMorbid

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 3:02 pm GMT

    why did they even bother to interview that guy? he isn't connected with manhunt 3 anyway and offered nothing insightful. he answered with a lot of "could be"'s and "i don't know"'s and "postal 3 won't focus on violence because that'd be BORING"'s ... pointless interview.

  • ghsacidman

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 2:41 pm GMT

    Quite frankly, this whole situation is BS and should never have happened in the first place. You can't tell me Manhunt 2 has anything worse than Postals kitty cat silencer!!! And, whats the big deal with an AO rated game? We want an AO rated game! BMX XXX was AO, and it appeared on last gen consules... The game even had full nudity on GameCube of all consules!!! This is only a big deal because of recent politics... If Jack Thompson and Hillary C*** hadn't been making such a big deal over violent games earlier this year... Manhunt 2 would have been rated M like it deserved.

  • godzillavskong

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 11:35 am GMT

    It doesn't seem fair to the developer to me.I mean, you have this rating systyem put in place and then all three consoles say they don't support AO rated games?WTF?Did the developer know before-hand that M$,Nintendo, and Sony didn't support AO games? They should just remove the AO rating then.If your game gets any higher then M then it isn't going to be released anyway because the 3 major consoles aren't supporting it!! WOW.

  • darrrrk

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 11:26 am GMT

    Good to see people like tyrant2004 and TheOleDominion who still have common sense. Im glad there are more than just a few of gamers with common sense.

  • tyrant2004

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 11:14 am GMT

    Yeah, I agree with a lot of you guys who say it's getting out of hand. Yes, there are a LOT of worse movies than a game can ever be (I mean, even in Pan's Labyrinth, some of that stuff was f*ed up, how they showed it all). BUT...BUT, there are 2 points here. 1. Movies are movies, you watch them and then ignore them or talk about them, then that's it. Games, on the other hand, you are actually taking part in whatever's going on, so that makes it more realistic. Don't think about most of you, I'm sure you're fine with those things, but think about some smartass who borrowed the game from his friend without his parents knowing, and will play this ultra-violent game, and control all of the action. That has to affect him on some level (regardless of how weak or strong-minded he/she is) more than any movie can, because he's physically controlling the violence, etc. 2. The ratings are not REALLY that badly off. I mean, they give M's to almost every game now, and they rightly deserve it. But no one here has played the final version of Manhunt 2, and when's the last time a game was given A/O without deserving it? Really. It really makes you wonder what is in the freakin' game to make it deserve that (assuming that it does indeed deserve that rating). I mean, a game that is violent just to be violent and nothing else, like the guy said in the article, is one-dimensional, and that right there makes me not want to play it. Don't agree with everything the guys are doing, and there's a double standard compared to movies and games, but still...

  • sm0ke311

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 10:02 am GMT

    they should blame stupid parents not people who make games. i just dont get it wtf is wrong with these people dont they have enything better to do? i think its good people get killed meaby some day they learn to control their kids and not buy for them m rated games.

  • TheoleDominion1

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 8:07 am GMT

    Oh yeah, I forgot about the "stress relief" side of it. And you're right it is important to be able to have an outlet to relieve it. Some people get massages, read, exercising, "stress therapy marbles", or just simply taking a walk through the park. And you have some who get on a game want to "kill" something...(makes them feel better)..yep that sounds pretty "normal" to me, nothing wrong with that persons psyche.

  • rikhan_z

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 7:27 am GMT

    in 20 years time, we going to have Playstations with blood flowing out for EXTRA effects and it wouldn't be illegal. And the violents in games will be 10 times violent then Manhunt 2. It nice to read this interview with a worker from Running with Scirrors, I've played the demo of Postal Plus, and needless to say, that game was violent in it's day. I also used enjoy the violence in video games is well, but I've grown out of it, and I do agree with the interview, having the media easily blame the game industry for violents.

  • Rillflag

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 4:22 am GMT

    I agree with the last guy. There are more violent films than games but no gives a **** because they have the age rating, games have that aswel but no-one seems to care. If they have something against the games then they should just try and get parents to exercise more control over what their kids play, like they would with watching films. And there is something very satisfying about setting a town on fire on Postal 2 but I am hardly going to go and set my village on fire, the violence is what makes it funny.

  • kickmasterone2

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 2:40 am GMT

    man if they ban manhunt 2, it will show an example of how smallminded the us has become. i dont understand the real issue here, i mean, the united states of america makes hundreds of movies and motion pictures every year, and some of them so gruesome and horrible that to watch those films makes you wonder, man these directors must be out of there minds, being able to make insane things like, the saw series, hostel series, a new motion picture coming out that is called turistas.. its about some backpackers that goes to brazil on a a trip. only to end up as guinea pigs for a bunch of psycho doctors who steal there organs and sell them to the highest bidder :-/ and in one scene you can actually see mr mengele cut out the kidneys from a girl while she is still fully awake :-0 isnt that **** up beyond all recognition? but does any uptight politician say something about that? no!!!! man im getting so tired of **** hypocrites who ban games just because of the content and because of "the poor children" its not for kids for **** sake!!! man alive, i mean, it a movie has a ao or m rating or 18 + only, why is the problem about the games? i mean clearly the issue here is not about the game itself, but the retailers who doesnt have the right diciplin not to sell to minors. so i really dont hope the ban this game, its fun, entertaining and its for an adult audiences, not for **** crying out loud little **** that scream to momy every time they see blood on the tv..

  • TBB

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 2:25 am GMT

    TheoleDominion thats the entire point. Since when did doing certain actions on a VIDEO game determines someone's humanity? Honestly that really doesn't seem logical at all to me. You get to the pearly white gates and St. Peter goes, "We'd let ya in but damn it ya just had to go pwn some nwblets in Halo 2 didn't you?" In America the basic principle is that if it doesn't harm anyone you pretty much should be allowed to do it. If anything video games allow people an vent for their frustrations instead of actually doing these things in real life. It's not the government's job to supercede these issues. Freedoms are perfectly capable of being quelched by the parents. And since the Supreme Court of the US has held that, "The state can not intervene in a parental issue simply because it feels that a better descision could have been made." This is an issue for parents to decide on whether or not their children see any of this content.

  • TheoleDominion1

    Posted Jun 24, 2007 12:14 am GMT

    Let's face it, most are "bloodlusters" (especially U.S. gamers) People love playing games and seeing brains splattered all over the wall. The more blood the better. And using the Wii-remote takes it to a whole NEW level...imagine using it in a "sawing" motion severing a limb or a "striking" motion and bashing someones skull in...it makes it "feel" more REAL. There's nothing wrong with that is it? Well...you're pretty much a SICKO if you don't. But I digress, eventually games WILL get to that point. Games are much more graphic and violent then they were ten years ago, and will be worse ten years from now. But the fact remains: people LOVE and violence and violence SELLS! But trading your "humanity" (meaning a "sense" of decency) for this so called "freedom" is a poor excuse for wanting to shed "virtual blood" through a damn game console.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Related Game

Postal III

Postal III Boxshot
Follow:
  1. Not Following
    Xbox 360: Follow
  2. Not Following
    PC: Follow
Add to List
  1. Xbox 360
  2. PC

Follow for the latest news, videos, & tips from experts & insiders

GameSpot Fuse
    Platforms:

    Related Games

    Site Blogs