Welcome to Gaia! ::

To be honest, a game can be very violent, as much as the developers want, but there's a catch, as always: There's a difference between a game that's extremely violent, and a game that's violent for violence's sake. Don't the devs think it's a bit too much? I mean, manhunt was in itself a game that simply stuck you in a pit full of murderers and made you follow suit. The first game had no reason or rhyme, psycho A stuck Idiot B with hundreds of other psychos in order to make a movie with no plot, just violence. Honestly, it's like Rockstar has no taste at all...

<******** that! I don't care how violent a game is as long as it's rated appropriately. They're games with sex and nudity out there. I personally find violence less offensive, but that's just me. It's the same as adult entertainment: keep it away from minors, but that doesn't mean it should be banned or disallowed or censored. Violent games can be theraputic. There's nothing that helps me unwind better than summoning a tank in Grand Theft Auto 3 and going on mass killing sprees. I love violent games, and as long as we have movies like Hostel 1 and 2, I don't see the big difference with video games. Some of us are emotionally fulfilled by violence because we ourselves cannot enact it.

I don't think that's true due to Grand Theft Auto, a video game where you can literally run around and kill innocent people for no reason. You can set them on fire while they scream and run away. Or you can have sex with hookers, then beat them to death afterward and steal back your money. You can also shoot police officers and blow up police helicopters. There's really no rhyme or reason for any of that other than good old fashioned fun. xd

Fighting games are also arguable, as the entire purpose of these games is to kill/severely hurt somebody else. Guilty Gear is rather violent, as blood splatters everywhere depending on the attack. You also have an "instant kill" attack, so there's no getting around the concept of murder with attack names like that.

But even in standard RPGs, death is a concept you deal with on a regular basis. You have to kill monsters, some incredibly similar in appearance to animals or humans, and usually must kill or destroy the bad guy and others in the way of your goal. I'll never forget in Kingdom Hearts II where Sora casually refers to killing Maleficent as, "Oh, we took care of her; she's toast!"


This I agree with. Games like Katamari and whatnot are very successful, so companies should be more open-minded about what they translate and bring over to the states.

But back to my original point, even Katamari could be arguable as violent. When you run over people, they scream and try to get away. Granted, it's hysterically funny and you don't actually kill the people, but it still represents hurting others against their will.

Does anyone happen to know what the offending content in Manhunt 2 exactly is (other than "cruel and sadistic, with a squalid environment and a continuous, insistent encouragement to violence and murder" which is so subjective that this could be said about virtually every video game intended for a mature audience) and what makes it worse than almost anything else that has ever existed in a video game before (especially when compared to other games created/distributed/produced/whatever by Rockstar)?

But even so, in the first installment, the general principle of starring in a snuff film so Brian Cox can be sexually aroused was slapped with a "Mature" rating and considered suitable for mass marketing. Based on the ESRB's decision on the first game and assuming the sequel more or less follows the same concept, I don't see how the game should receive an "Adults Only" rating.

Granted, children shouldn't be playing a game like Manhunt or it's sequel, and parents should be made aware of the game's contents. However, if the only problem the ESRB has with Manhunt 2 is the game's basic concept (which is something the board has already deemed suitable for 17-year-olds when the first installment was released) and not some extremely grotesque or otherwise questionable content (like baby-killing and necrophilia) within the game that was not present in the original, then I fail to see why Manhunt 2 should be treated differently than the original.

Let's put it this way;
If I can pop someone in the head on a game and that makes me sqeem, I might be less likely to do so IRL.
Which is everyone's big defense- "What if that's what the kids will do!"
Which is were the ESRB steps in and responsible parenting should too; if the box says 17+, don't give it to you 11 year-old. GASP.

Also if a human cannot differentiate a virtual reenactment of reality and reality itself, they're not fit to be a part of civil society.
But that makes me sound facist.
And that's bad.

So;
People are stupid and frightened by false reality but not reality themselves.

Desensitization.

I completely agree.
Around here in CA they've been cracking down on the age restrictions on video games; almost every time me or a friend purchases a game they'll ask for an ID (Which I will gladly show). I'm happy to see that most retailers are taking some responsibility and enforcing the restrictions which should be acknowledged by the consumer.
I find it rather sad that we have to force that same responsibility on the parents who buy such games for younger audiences. In this day and age parents should be able to tell their kids "I'm sorry Billy, but this game has some things that you're not quite ready to see."
Just like movies.
You wouldn't let a 9-year-old see Pulp Fiction, so why would you let them play a game that a board has stated has content that equates to the same rating as such a movie?