Mass Effect 2 Secrets Revealed
12 hours 12 mins ago
Rob Faheys editorial at gamesindustry.biz questions Rockstar's decision to make a game with over the top violence and why the BBFC is justified in denying a game a rating for the first time in 10 years. He also compares the game to movies such as Hostel and Saw saying they only give the viewer the role as an outside observer while Manhunt 2 places the player in control of the predator who enjoys inflicting pain.
In other words, with Manhunt 2, Rockstar has crossed the line - and crossed it at a full tilt run, it would seem, since the BBFC was unable to suggest any cuts that would bring the game in line with its guidelines.
In making such a game Rockstar has been juvenile, shameful and irresponsible. The right of creators to push the boundaries of media and society must be balanced out against a simple sense of social responsibility - something with Rockstar seems to entirely lack.
Comments
I am, however, of the opinion, that some of the most dangerous things begin with just a tiny change in thought. Accepting violence, even within a video game, is still accepting violence. Of course, that leads back to the issue of personal responsibility.
There's also the fact that a lot of the drama comes from videogames being associated with children or teenagers, even though the average gamer is the same as the average playboy reader - a thirty-forty year old man.
It may be hard for many of us to see, since most of us probably are those that want to just simply enjoy the game already. However, to illustrate the point, consider the scenario where:
some developers made a game where you are a Rapist. It's enjoyment is to come out of the detailed steps, psyche, planning, and execution of raping women indiscriminately.
Now, I am guessing many, if not all of us, regardless of whether it might be enjoyable to play or not, see this game to be quite disturbing nonetheless.
And if in fact, this game was rated M and released in stores like target, walmart, what have you, and you saw it advertised and sitting on the shelf, what would you think? Especially sitting next to other games like "Kill and eat the babies of Sudan," "Do Jesus Up the Rear: With Realistic Graphics!" . . . What do such games say about what we as a society deem acceptable?
Ok, Okay, it doesn't mean we're saying murder and mayhem is okay for an individual to do. We know the difference between real life and video games, we say. But, having a Game about it means that there are some people who enjoy (albeit a simulation) the acting out of gruesome violence of taking away another person's life. It suggests that such things are no longer becoming taboo and more of the norm. And for many people, I guess it is scary to confront the uncomfortable truth that the human capacity to have a craving for violence is perhaps as much a part of our humanity as it is our desire for peace and love.
Games also differ slightly from other mediums in that, movies, literature, and paintings have all been accepted at a scholarly level and deemed worthy of artistic freedom and critique. Gaming has not reached that point yet because of how young it is still and how few "creative/artistic" (ie: Madden Vs. Shadow of the Colossus) games have been released so far. Most games are seen to have soley the purpose to entertain as much as a pop song, unlike the other forms that are believed to have cultural value in their ability to educate, enlighten, and advance the field of Art.
Hitchcock's Psycho for example, may have been very violent, but it is seen as an important piece of cinema due to its excellent execution of narrative tension, editing, and story telling.
Manhunt, however, focuses more on the simple dynamic between you, as the player, and the character on-screen committing the gore. The game is About your Killing, not centered around some moral or psychological or social dilemma about the character and his philosophical situation in life. No, the game is almost-only about You and how you kill virtual people. There is little the game adds to the library of artistic insight and formal-creative-expression.
But . . . I have to disagree partly with the writing above. I think many games Do contribute a lot to society and the world of art on many fronts. It is an innovative medium that I don't think is taken as seriously as it should. Games speak a lot about the possibilities of applicative and fine arts. Interactivity raises a lot of questions and uncharted territory to explore in terms of witness/participant differences, interpretations of real-life actions into beautiful, intuitive simplifications, tensions in passive listening and active decision making, and all sorts of dimensions worthy of serious study.
The onlly problem is that no one yet approaches games like this. Sites and magazines like IGN or GameInformer have the potential to re-invent how gaming is seen and accepted in society by having such sections that seriously inquire into innovative games and how they are contributing to the more artistic side of the industry, using all that art-academia jargon and colored with a slight pretensious tone. haha,
then games like Manhunt 2 can be defended by nailing it within this new art-game context, putting it side by side with other serious artworks like francis bacon or egon schiele, or kafka and Joel-Peter Witkins.
People make movies, books, and drawings/paintings/etc depicting, or centering around gore and violence all the time, and they haven't been 'banned' or refused to be released to the public. And the whole "But it's a game, you CONTROL the violence and gore" is bullshit. Video game design is as much a creative/artistic outlet as any other, and it should not be treated like this.
This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.