Florida AG concerned about Wii Manhunt 2

[Lauren Tyler]

But you are absolutely and 100% correct. Parents today just don't take responsibility for what their kids do these days. How some kids act is completely self-evident of this fact. The only hope is that we take responsibility as parents (those of us who are already parents, and those like myself who are not parents but hope to become one someday), and actually do something remarkably different from the norm:

 

Actually raising our kids!

 

</soapbox>

 

I hear you right there. One of my friends had parents who just didn't do their job right. The kids pretty much ran the house, and if you got DSS in there, odds are the kids would've been taken out of there instantly. (Then again, I've seen worse stuff in the news, but still.) I mean, they refuse to let my friend play Mortal Kombat when it first comes out (he was younger then) but they have no qualms about letting his little brother play GTA: VC when he's about the same age as my friend was when MK debuted? Something's wrong here.

 

And let's look at an example of a parent clearly being defiant about being wrong:

 

SETTING: GameStop

SCENARIO: Cashier is working the register when angry mother comes in with her five year old son in tow.

 

CASHIER: May I help you, ma'am?

MOTHER [steaming mad]: You! You were the one who sold me this earlier!

C [recognizing woman]: Oh yes, you were here right before I went to lunch. So, what seems to be the problem?

M [slamming GTA game down on counter]: You gave me this garbage that teaches my son about killing people and being a criminal!

C: Ma'am, before you bought this game, I told you clearly that it was an M-Rated game, and was not for players under the age of 17 years old.

M: I heard that it was a game where you drive cars around the city and help people out!

C: No, ma'am, I told you clearly this was a game where you commit crimes.

M: Then why are you providing this trash to children?

C: Ma'am, we have a policy that we do not sell M-Rated games to anyone under 17, and we ask for ID if they look underage. You chose to buy the game yourself even after I explained the concept to you.

M: You're a rip off! I'm suing you for providing this trash to children! [storms out, stopping to get son who's crying that she won't buy him GTA SA]

C: Oh, sue-perstitious, huh?

(Note the last part was just added as a joke from a line uttered by Moe Howard.)

 

Seriously, though, if a parent asks for information regarding the game, and even after they know the content, they still buy it, then they're the ones who are responsible. They knew what it was, yet they chose to take it.

</rant>

[rockman_x_2002]

But you are absolutely and 100% correct. Parents today just don't take responsibility for what their kids do these days. How some kids act is completely self-evident of this fact. The only hope is that we take responsibility as parents (those of us who are already parents, and those like myself who are not parents but hope to become one someday), and actually do something remarkably different from the norm:

 

Actually raising our kids!

 

</soapbox>

 

Seriously, though, if a parent asks for information regarding the game, and even after they know the content, they still buy it, then they're the ones who are responsible. They knew what it was, yet they chose to take it.

</rant>

 

Caveat emptor. "Let the buyer beware." It's a lesson a lot of folks could really stand to learn. If some folks would just stop being lazy and actually do a little research.

 

Me being a gamer and all, I forsee that, as a parent (if I am thus blessed in the future), it should be fairly easy for me to discern what my kid should or should not play. But even for parents who are not gamers and have no real interest in gaming, I would HEAVILY (did I say it loud enough?) advise them to take out a few gaming mags, look on the Internet, read reviews, previews, and actually do a little research on the games their kids want to play. Not to review a game to see how good it is, but to see what kind of stuff is in the game.

 

All it takes is a little bit of study, here. And that goes a long way. I mean, it's not rocket science. Just common sense.

 

(And yes, irresponsible parents get on my nerves probably more than anyone.)

 

</soapbox again>

[ninjarabbit]

The game will probably suck and this way Rockstar can generate a lot of free publicity to sell millions of copies before word gets out that the game is bad. A similar thing happened with State of Emergency as it was the first game put out by Rockstar after GTA3.

[AtariJr]

The game will probably suck and this way Rockstar can generate a lot of free publicity to sell millions of copies before word gets out that the game is bad. A similar thing happened with State of Emergency as it was the first game put out by Rockstar after GTA3.

 

yea but the first manhunt was actually good... soooo

[AtariJr]

"Hopefully Take-Two has learned from its Manhunt 2 experience and will undertake preventive measures to ensure its future games, including Grand Theft Auto IV, are appropriate for families and gamers."

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yeaaa right, grand theft auto will be apporpriate for families hahahahahaha... wow NIMF is great... idiots.

 

http://wii.ign.com/articles/798/798779p1.html

Edited June 23, 2007 by AtariJr

[AtariJr]

Boston Globe on Manhunt: (btw, i think this is funny as hell... interperonal relationthip problem because of video games???? seriously.. although i do love the bit at the end that says since there have been more violent games there has been less teen crime.. hmmm , wonder why. and it sounds like that child shrink was losing some business and needed to get his name out there by talking about a controversial topic ):

 

"The Boston Globe is taking a look at the dark and sinister side of the Wii in the wake of the Manhunt controversy this week. Looks like the New York Times owned Boston Globe is taking pointers from their tabloid competition the Boston Herald. Oh well, it's about time the Wii got a little bad press from the mainstream media. It can't all be old folk's homes and military rehab fluff pieces.

 

The story explores the possibility of the Wii being used in a "sawing motion, one used to separate a limb from a body, and the scene on the screen shows all the gory details." They speak to Joanne Cantor, a researcher of media violence on children, who was cited in the "Violent Pac-Man" research, and she says, "The more realistic and involving the game gets, and the greater the similarity between the action in the game and real life action, the stronger the negative effects would be. No, your son may not turn into a criminal. But exposure will take a toll on his life somewhere, probably in interpersonal relationships. These are subtle effects. They take time to surface. A teen isn't going to notice them." The Globe also speaks to child psychiatrist who says that violent actions through the Wii may not make someone into a killer, but "could it make someone prone to domestic violence or child abuse?" They also speak to pediatrician Michael Rich who says, "Wii provides a double whammy ... very violent content and physical involvement, which we know is how learning happens."

 

There is a little counterpoint in the piece, by none other than GamePolitics writer and Joystiq columnist Dennis McCauley, who says, "No question Manhunt goes beyond the pale in terms of violence. I'm sure this one will be worse ... But that Wii interactivity adds an extra kicker to what happens in the brain is purely speculative. The Wii technology isn't as bad as some folks say or as good as Nintendo wants you to believe." There is also the simple truth from David Finkelhor, co director of the Family Research Lab at the University of New Hampshire who points out that in the 10 to 12 years in which violent video games have exploded on the scene, the juvenile crime rate has gone down. Oops! Could violent video games actually be giving kids prone to violence an outlet for rage rather than increasing the probability for violence?"

 

PS: i think these people also cant READ. kids shouldnt even be PLAYING a game rated M/AO. if this is so damn true why dont we critisize all the motion pictures out there in the Horror deptartement that are rated R and tell them to go take the movie out of theatres as little kids could go in there (even though they arent supposed to) and learn how to rape someone lol. and how many other things out there use physical coorispondance with a potential life endangering idea. someone mentioned Pinatas in the comments, what about half the carnival games out there. watch it billy, you just might learn how to drown and kill a clown with that squirt gun there.

Edited June 24, 2007 by AtariJr

[PressureCooker2600]

i think i'm in the minority of people who actually LIKED the first 'State of Emergency' a lot.

i think that game is fun as hell.

i need to play the sequel, but I'm hesitant since Rockstar had nothing to do with it and it was developed by a totally different company.

[Ross PK]

The majority of gamers are still children and teenagers. video game companies

bend over backwards to please this demographic because they make up the bulk of sales,

so in effect, video games are still viewed as childrens toys.

 

Over here in the UK the average gamer is in their mid twenties.

[moycon]

i think i'm in the minority of people who actually LIKED the first 'State of Emergency' a lot.

i think that game is fun as hell.

i need to play the sequel, but I'm hesitant since Rockstar had nothing to do with it and it was developed by a totally different company.

 

I liked that game as well. Haven't played the sequel either. I heard it was decent though. Granted this was coming from the folks that said the original sucked ass, so it must be very different.

[jbanes]

Looks like they've finished toning down Manhunt 2. Screenies of the changes are here:

 

http://www.geekrising.com/

 

[thomasholzer]

can't we all just play nice 'Barbie' games instead?