What thoughtful criticism of videogames looks like
You’d think there weren’t many examples. And you’re right. But when you do find it, it looks like what Stephen Totilo and N’Gai Croal are doing with their dissection of Manhunt 2 (The MTV version: part one, part two; the Newsweek/MSNBC version: part one, part two, hopefully more to come).
Not having played the game, it’s near impossible for me to comment on the game itself. I’ve publicly commented that much of the Rockstar output seems to me to simply enjoy pushing buttons and boundaries, rather than really reach for social commentary or redeeming value of any sort. Today at lunch, I had the odd experience of describing Manhunt (the original) to a table full of people — and oddly, the description sounding more artistic than the actual game was.
Lots of comparisons to film are used in the discussion between Croal and Totilo; the question comes up as to whether Manhunt 2 is comparable to a Bonnie and Clyde, a Natural Born Killers — or whether it’s just the equivalent to a snuff film. In the end, we probably won’t get to decide, because pre-emptive censorship (both from the governmental and the platform-holder side) means that debates like the one that Croal and Totilo are having simply won’t be had. And that in itself seems to leave us all impoverished, regardless of the quality of the game.
25 Responses to “What thoughtful criticism of videogames looks like”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Heard that! Hey, have you played Mollendustria’s new game?
You feel impoverished for not having yet-another-pulp-asylum-game-didn’t-we-do-that-in-the-1980s made by a we’ll-look-cool-by-shocking-parents-developer?
I’ve got some interesting books you might want to borrow…
The discussion about Manhunt 2 is fascinating. Whether or not the game deserves the ratings that it’s getting, the whole thing bothers me on a core level. I’m an adult; if I want to watch an NC-17 movie or read a really racy book I can do that and no one will bat an eye. Yet if I wanted to experience a game like this I wouldn’t be able to, because someone has said it’s “not safe” for my consumption.
I can understand and respect why retailers might not want to devote shelf space to AO titles. That’s fine, it’s a free market. It opens the door for specialty retailers who will sell those titles. But it annoys me that Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft feel the need to block publication of the titles for their platform. There’s not a reason for that other than pandering to the media and the politicians and the Jack Thompsons of the world, at least not that I can see. All the platforms include parental controls, and the infrastructure is there and it does work, if people set it up and use it. Shouldn’t that be enough? Besides, let’s be honest here, the majority of current consoles were probably not really bought for children, but rather for adults who grew up playing games.
Given that it’s a game, wouldn’t it be dependent on how the content is consumed by the player when determining how artistic it is? All the thoughtful prose and deep-rooted symbolism in the world won’t help the game if the player fast-forwards through the story and just has fun running around killing people.
Granted, that’s a criticism you could level at any attempt at making a meaningful game with violence in it. I guess the question you have to ask is whether the game forces you to think about the reasons behind the violence and the consequences or meaning of the deaths, or whether it simply allows you to enjoy a visceral thrill of killing. That, in my mind, would be the difference between a snuff film and a work of art that addressed the concept of death on some level.
No, I feel impoverished by the fact that the debate in the articles cannot happen more widely.
Croal and Totilo did in fact have their debate — this in spite of government censorship of the game.
Having young sons of an impressionable age, I can’t say I’m all that unhappy that something like this isn’t going to show up on store shelves. If this economy were such that I or my wife could watch the kids 24/7 (We can’t. We work.) I wouldn’t even mind the reasoning that says “parents are 100% responsible for what their kids get into”.
As it is, we have the debate, but not the game, which is really the healthiest outcome from this drama.
Let me know if the debate gets censored, at that point I’ll be up on the barricades with you. Until then, ESRB-AO works for me.
What, Jim, you want journalists (who got lucky, in terms of being able to play the game) to be the only ones who get to have the debate?
If that stops 12 year old children joining in then I do, but that’s pretty much the issue isn’t it?
In response to David, let me defend Nintendo in particular for their decision not to let it be released. They have invested a lot of effort and money to build up the reputation of the Wii (like its predecessors) as a “family-friendly” console, and now they have to protect their brand. A game like Manhunt 2 could potentially damage their reputation and draw a lot of criticism from politicians, right-wing family groups, etc. The negative publicity could easily outweigh whatever money they might have made off of the release of Manhunt 2.
I’ve been told that to release games for these consoles, you have to sign a contract with the console manufacturer which basically includes a clause that says they can block the release of your game if they want to.
Rockstar has been pushing the limit of bad taste for quite a while now; at the beginning of production of Manhunt 2 they were well aware that they would not be able to release it without the blessing of Sony, Nintendo et al. They pushed it just a little too far; they gambled, and they lost.
Personally I won’t shed a tear for Manhunt 2 (in addition to being as morally bankrupt as you can get, the first game was so pathetic–in gameplay terms–that I gave up on it after about 15 minutes). It is disturbing though that the Thought Police of various countries are so happy to jump up and down on a tasteless videogame like Manhunt 2, but not equally tasteless movies like Hostel or whatever.
(Side note: did you know that in the U.S., the movie “Scarface” was initially given an X rating by the MPAA? The studio made cuts to the movie and re-submitted it *3 times* and each time, the MPAA came back with an X rating. Finally the studio went to the media, dragged the MPAA through arbitration and managed to make a deal with them to give the movie an R rating. The version that the studio put out to theatres with the R rating, was actually the original, un-cut version. Maybe 20 years from now, society’s tolerances for gruesome stuff in video games will have loosened up enough for an equivalent breakthrough).
I can buy Hostel and Saw at Target but I can’t buy Manhunt 2? Just because it’s a game? That’s just silly.
Nonsense! Here are some not-so-“family-friendly” games that have been released, or are going to be released, for Wii.
Call for Heroes: Pompolic Wars, Call of Duty 3, CSI: Hard Evidence, Far Cry: Vengeance, The Godfather, Mortal Kombat: Armageddon, Red Steel, Red Steel 2, Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, Scarface, Splinter Cell: Double Agent, Ultimate Duck Hunting, and WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008.
We seem to be having the debate too. 😉
In a bit of a vacuum, it’s true. But I’d be surprised if, even in the face of all the difficulties, you weren’t able to score a copy of the game yourself. We can’t even control jihadi sites on the web — completely controlling the release of an uncut version of this game? Unlikely.
I’m with Lacero on this one — I’ll agree there’s a cost to limiting Manhunt 2’s release. But does that outweigh the benefit of keeping it out of the hands of 5-year-olds, and the benefit of showing society at large is against this kind of thing? I respectfully submit that my vote is no, and my vote should count. So should yours. Let’s see who wins, and run with that.
Morgan — visual-only media don’t give you the dubious opportunity to act out (and with the Wii controller, with considerable vigor) the graphic slaughter of fellow humans. “Just because it’s a game” overlooks this important distinction.
First of all, if the game were rated M (as it should be) then 5-year-old children should a) be prohibited from purchasing the product and b) be prohibited from playing the game by a responsible adult. There goes that “protect the children” pseudo-defense right out the window! And as for depriving me of my natural right to choose what media to which I want to be exposed? I’m sorry, but if you’re saying that I should simply “move along” with my knees bent to the vocal minority, you’ve got another thing coming, pal.
1. Movies are not visual-only.
2. Waving a little toy controller around in the air is hardly “acting out” murder.
3. There are hordes of games for Wii and other platforms that enable players to commit acts of violence against other humans. And yet, whaddya know, they’re not banned from sale in up to four major countries and barred from distribution.
Morgan-
If you read through my previous posts you’ll find most of this already, but here it is again for convenience’s sake.
– Working parents just aren’t around to protect kids 24/7. Constantly policing kids just isn’t in the cards, when they’re out of our homes and/or our sight. Keeping them in our homes and in our sight just isn’t consistent with working life. People have gotten together politically and decided there needs to be some level of community help in the essential endeavor of raising the next generation. There are costs, but those don’t outweigh the benefits. (I used to hold your point of view, but that changed 180 degrees when I had kids myself.)
– It’s very unlikely you won’t be able to get ahold of a copy of the uncut version of the game via the internet. The current distribution limitations are a useful obstacle for my purposes, and not an insurmountable one for yours; it’s a useful compromise.
– I suggested leaving this up to democratic processes. My vote should count, so should yours (so should everyone else’s), and we run with that. I share your distaste for the vocal minority… but the vocal majority is a different matter entirely.
– Sorry, “visual-and-sound-only”, not “visual-only”. You’re splitting hairs here. Interaction is the important aspect.
– Sorry, “miming out” rather than “acting out”. Again, hair-splitting.
– I’m the sort to merrily ride down fleeing Celts and Scythians with Roman cavalry, myself. Or shadowbox various humanoids until their healthbar disappears on World of Warcraft. Yet these are not banned, because there are important distinctions between these game experiences and the Manhunt 2 experience.
Have a look at the justifications the ratings folks are releasing with their verdicts. They make very specific distinctions between Manhunt 2 and other games out there. Have a look at the debates from people who’ve actually played the game, to see if they contradict the justifications and distinctions. Have a look at the press releases from Rockstar, to see if they say the ratings folks are libelling their game. I haven’t seen anything yet that contradicts the ratings folks, have you?
Although if you fall back to the line “Well, if this has such stringent rating and distribution limitations then that should too” … I’ll be forced to agree with you. 😉 Unless some thoughtful and convincing distinctions are made, of course.
That’s not an excuse for irresponsible parenting. My parents used to take my sister’s keys to her vehicle away when necessary. It’s certainly not an impossible expectation that responsible parents would not leave media (e.g., porn, violent movies and games) within reach of their children or their children’s friends before they leave for work. It’s no more impossible than expecting responsible parents to not leave loaded firearms within arm’s reach of their children. Again, the “protect the children” pseudo-defense is thrown out the window.
First of all, I know people at Rockstar, and I know Rockstar is extremely secretive to the point of xenophobia. The only way such copies of products are leaked is by insiders, and despite what the media and critics think of Rockstar, the people who work there are incredibly honest, worthy of the highest respect, and can be expected to maintain their silence without suspicion. Nobody (except for those lucky journalists) will likely be able to play the original game until the ratings systems are no longer corrupted by political subterfuge and bureaucratic masturbation. Not to mention that Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft do not publish AO-rated games for whatever reason, so there certainly will not be any available ISOs for those platforms.
That’s what all censors say… because they abuse democracy as a mechanism for voting out what they personally don’t like.
Is it? Or is it the fact that politics has essentially taken arms against Rockstar because of “Hot Coffee”?
This difference isn’t a mere hair. There’s a big difference between actually bludgeoning someone with a sledgehammer, looking into their eyes as they gasp for their last breath of air, and feeling the rush of adrenaline that sweeps over you as you realize what consequences you face for your criminal actions, and waving a remote control in the air, staring at a television screen displaying game-y animations, while slugging down a beer as your friends in the kitchen cook up a storm. Are we to censor martial arts demonstrations by solo artists simply because they pretend to damage and kill opponents? How about lock up children for pretending to be cowboys of the Wild West, shooting American Indians? How much freedom are you willing to waste on an illusion of security derived from a paranoid fear of fantasy?
Well, you win no points there given my Celtic heritage…
They’re all nonsense, based on personal preference. They say that the industry is capable of policing itself, but that’s not the original intention of any rating system. Ensuring that people are blind and ignorant to media other people don’t want you to experience is not the point of the ESRB. It never was. The point was to rate games fairly, to provide consumers with the data they need to make informed decisions. I can’t respect any bastard who prevents me from the opportunity to make my own informed decision about the media I want to consume. While the ESRB isn’t nearly as bad as those BBFC book burners, I would prefer the MPAA take command of rating interactive media since the ESRB is clearly unable to properly perform its function.
Raph: No, I feel impoverished by the fact that the debate in the articles cannot happen more widely.
Then they can distribute a 3 hour video from the gameplay with think-aloud commentary. Based on the MTV discussion it doesn’t sound worthy of analysis, no hints of psychological depth and reflection.
This smells like a marketing campaign for me, the developer is keen on keeping their badass reputation, and stir up interest for a game that probably isn’t very good compared to what exists already in the asylum genre…
I totally agree with Jim here. I knew from my own youth that we had access to ALL games cracked, some even before they reached distribution. Your kids are going to play this over at their friends house, your kid’s friends big brother will have this wihout his parent’s consent.
When I was 10 years old, my brother and I used to go out into the woods near our house with all the other kids on the neighborhood and play “war” with toy waterguns, many of which looked quite realistic. You can still buy those things today (although they’re bright orange to keep cops from shooting kids now) and many children still do that type of thing.
To play devil’s advocate for a moment, how is that really all that different from a 10-year old kid playing a violent video game where his character on the screen shoots “bad guys” or other characters? How is it really all that different if he happens to be using the wiimote as the gun?
Whether or not Manhunt 2 is over the top, I think the more important question is should we embrace the idea of censoring content even when we have things like a ratings system and parental controls, or should we rely on the parents to use the ratings system and parental controls and try to make those tools robust enough and easy enough to use that they become more effective?
From my point of view, it’s the latter. Otherwise we might as well start getting rid of any toy or game that can be used to emulate violence in any form, because what we’re saying is that society has to compensate for parents who won’t control what they give their children access to, because we think (but we don’t really know) that emulating violence might be bad for the children.
@Morgan
Why the rant about the ratings board? They issued an adult only rating…info for informed choice just like you want.? It’s the hardware companies and the retailers that should be getting the vitriol.
Well, Nintendo of America apparently says that refusing to release Manhunt 2 on the Wii is “not an image issue”:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=78601
Personally I don’t believe him. Its perfectly true that “Wii welcomes games rated E, T and M” but even if Manhunt 2 somehow got re-rated Mature, I don’t believe Nintendo would let it be released.
@Morgan.. I’m with JuJutsu on this one.
I actually had a lengthy rant typed up about this yesterday, but Raph’s site overflowed its CPU quota before I could post it. =)
In a nutshell: there is no reason for the AO rating to exist, *except* to give the censors a way to discriminate between “not-for-kids-but-socially-acceptable” content (which gets rated M = 17+) and “socially-unacceptable” content (which gets AO = 18+). One year’s difference does not matter much. What matters is the Walmarts of the world who refuse to stock AO games, Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft refusing to publish them, etc. In effect, what has happened is that (to please the “think of the children” crowd, I guess) these other corporations have *granted* to the ESRB the power to cripple or kill the distribution of any adult-oriented content by branding it AO instead of M. And I think that sucks.
I’d rather see a rating system with 16+ and 21+. Then at least there would be an excuse for having two different ratings, and the higher rating would still of course be used for “anti-social” content like Manhunt 2.
[…] N’Gai Croal EGO…trip: Manhunt 2; Lucasarts; WiiWareSTH…It’s like we’re in their headsFPS…New mouse-like add-on for PS3 shooters […]
Talaen: To play devil’s advocate for a moment, how is that really all that different from a 10-year old kid playing a violent video game where his character on the screen shoots “bad guys” or other characters?
Such play can desensitize etc, but is less likely to lead to trauma and reenactment through play (because they are already reenacting… right?). That is not the case for strong visuals and interactive media. It’s not only what they do when they play the game, it is the effect afterwards.
Some kids and young teens unfortunately hang and suffocate themselves and other kids in reenactment acts. Such acts can, and are often, triggered by media-induced trauma, or inspired by media). Is Manhunt2 worth a single wounded kid or teenager?
what we’re saying is that society has to compensate for parents who won’t control what they give their children access to, because we think (but we don’t really know) that emulating violence might be bad for the children.
Ehm, a dead kid isn’t proof good enough? Any man claiming that parents should control what kids have access to is either suffering from a severe case of amnesia or being hypocritical.
Developers who create content which PRIMARILY young and juvenile players crave for have to be held to adult standards of responsibility no matter what rating their product gets. Kick them in their groins, that hurts less than the pain they transfer to some of these kids. They know what they are doing.
Right. And how is it really all that different from using controllers shaped like handguns and rifles in arcade shooters?
Because as moo wrote…
ESRB knows full well that the AO “rating” is the kiss of death. ESRB also knows that the organization does have the influence to work with the big three publishers to enable public access to AO works. In effect, ESRB is responsible for ensuring that the organization is not prevented from doing its job. As of now, it doesn’t matter if a work receives an AO rating because that rating does not inform consumers; it simply bars the work from distribution so that no consumer has the choice to be informed.
If you go to your local Blockbuster, you probably won’t find a shelf of XXX porn (at least, I don’t think you will). But I bet if you look you’ll find a few shops in your town selling them, and they’re only a few clicks away on the web.
This is why I said way up above that I understand and respect a retailer’s decision to carry or not carry a title based on its rating. Although I agree with you that it is silly that you can go buy movies like Saw or Hostel at Best Buy and yet not pick up a title like Manhunt.
The reason that this is acceptable to me as a consumer is that there is still room for specialty retailers to carry the title. Of course, in the video game industry, there aren’t very many specialty retailers left, and that’s an issue, but there is still room. If Take Two were allowed to publish the game, they could still find ways to distribute it – via a web storefront, if nothing else.
While I agree that the AO and M ratings are way too close to really be a meaningful distinction, I don’t think AO really is the kiss of death for a game like this as long as it can still be published. It might be the kiss of death if you’re counting on big box retail as your primary distribution channel, but there are alternatives to big box retail.
Right. At that point, I wouldn’t care about the AO rating; however, the AO rating as it stands now is effectively a mechanism for blacklisting games. ESRB has become a censor and therefore has failed in its responsibility to inform consumers.
[…] you regret courting Rockstar to to get “Manhunt 2” on your […]