Talk:Manhunt 2

Article needs to be changed

The game isn't even going to be coming out in its current state.

(Sign your comments) We don't know that it will be changed yet. Rockstar is appealing the rating. What changes do you think are needed though?--Toxicroak 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section not informative

I read the controversy section and it didn't really tell me anything other than who is upset. Why are they upset? How is this violent game different then other ones? What part of Manhunt 2 is so controversial? jay

Agreed. Manhunt 2 is getting banned left right and centre, but the article isn't telling us why. Darien Shields 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Carcer City

In the article it doesnt make any reference to it is there any info on the location at all? Turk brown 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and Console Clarification

I fixed a grammar mistake "games" to "game's", where necessary; and clarified what consoles the original game was released on. It was on PS2, Xbox, and PC. 75.74.203.173 04:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but what platforms the first game appeared on is not pertinent in the sequel's article. Good catch on the grammar fixes, though. Geoff B 08:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a spelling mistake, it said Rockstar Vienna was its former "devloper"

A note on speculating....

Can people please refrain from drawing conclusions about the plot based of a tiny trailer and a letter sent as part of a marketing plan? The letter confirms three things: An asylum apparently features, there are apparently two lead characters, and apparently two doctors are involved. Note how often the word 'apparently' is used. This is because none of the sources make it clear about any of the stuff that was speculated about in the plot section. Making conclusions that 'mental illness will probably play a large part in the game' based off the letter is completely wrong, and will be removed until such time that it's is actually verifiable that mental illness does indeed play a large part in the game, and the same goes for all the other speculation on plot and gameplay. The Kinslayer 09:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A note on spelling...

Can people please refrain from spelling errors based off of the false assumption that Wikipedia editing equals intelligence? The English language confirms one thing: 'Apparantly' is not how the word is spelled. It's not just a typo, as it was not only typed 4 times, but it was put in quotes. The proper spelling is 'apparently', as another form of the word 'apparent'. Nobody is going to take Wikipedia seriously if established editors would fail a 5th grade spelling test.

Furthermore, note that per my title, an ellipsis has three dots, not four. This, having happened once, can be considered a typo. 75.74.203.173 22:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So what do you want, a gold star for your spelling ability? The Kinslayer 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith per Wikipedia standards. As I mentioned before, people will not take Wikipedia seriously when the editors lack basic language ability. Thank you. 75.74.203.173 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk section. It doesn't matter if there are spelling mistakes in the talk section because this is just for discussing the actual article. I could understand if you trying to point out spelling mistakes in the actual article, but it seems to me you're just trying to make personal attacks. The Ðark Crusader 04:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong Film reference?

I know this as speculation cannot be placed in the article unless an official statement is made or similiar speculation is made by a significant enough quoteworthy source (Ie someone within the production team). Anyway does anyone else think that the Character Daniel Lamb (refered to within this article as a former scientist, and may have been refered to as Dr. Daniel Lamb in earlier revisions of the article) may be named after the character played by Simon Yam in the infamous (and almost as controversial as Manhunt itself) 1992 Hong Kong film "Dr. Lamb"? AKLR 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it'll be rated M

I think it'll be rated M for it's violent nature nature and things like that. It can't be rated T or AO. Can it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.230.109.48 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

AO is a very small possibility, considering that the ESRB has only rated one or two games (to my knowledge) an AO rating based on violence. T is definately out of the question, considering that the game includes the ripping off of an adversary's testicles. We'll see how this plays out. - UnL337

Very unlikely, most major retailers won't even sell an AO game. So if the ESRB was considering such a rating It would most certainly be altered for an M rating to generate sales. --69.156.207.117 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

IT IS AO!!!

BBFC rejection - why does it prevent sale?

has currently been refused certification by the BBFC, preventing sale (for now) by UK retailers.

In what way does the refusal of a BBFC certificate prevent sale by retailers?

I was under the impression that, unlike DVDs and home videos (for which BBFC certification is, in most cases, mandatory), video games were specifically excluded from the 1984 Video Recordings Act, which means that BBFC certification for games is purely voluntary.

Of the games I own (or of the ones I see on shop shelves), very few have BBFC certification. 217.155.20.163 18:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Games with certain content and/or themes must be submitted to the BBFC for classification. Most games don't, so they don't need a BBFC classification. Geoff B 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So if somebody were to purchase the game from outside of the UK such as on Amazon.com and get it delivered to the UK, that would be perfectly legal as it wouldn't be a UK retailer making the sale?

AFAIK, that would still be illegal. Geoff B 21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Negative, that would be legal... as owning the game is legal, taking it with you (read: importing it) from another european country is legal too because of the free transit of goods and people between countries og the EU 85.149.120.16 17:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sony and Nintendo's policy not to accept AO games

Could I get some proof of this?

I agree, this seemed to be thrown in without any reference. John Hayes^talk 07:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Both Nintendo and Sony will not allow it apparently http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172830.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;1 Nat495 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of that policy is that the game simply won't be licensed by Nintendo. However it can still be released unlicensed. For example, there were a couple biblical games that came out for the original NES back in the early 90's (late 80's?) like Noah's Ark and such. Nintendo refused to license these as NOA has a very secular position (i.e. zelda titles were edited to remove religious references for NOA sales)... however the games were still released, unlicensed. Just like some accessories come out that are "unlicensed." Trcrev 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC) -However, i think that since Rockstar/Take Two are licensed by Nintendo, they would have to go along w/ Nintendo's wishes on this. If they were some small 3rd party then they could probably get away w/ releasing it anyway... however doing so would probably hurt Rockstar's business relations in the long run...

They would probably have to violate the DMCA to reverse engineer Nintendo and Sony's lock out. Remember when Tengen and the other third parties started doing unlicenced games for NES there was a lawsuit over infringing on the 10NES chip, but they later figured out how to make unlicenced games without violating the law. Now with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, I'm almost certain they would get burned. If they don't want to edit it, and want to stay within the bounds of the law, they would probably just have to release it for PC (or see if Microsoft will allow it for 360). 70.191.213.103 23:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Current hysteria

Regarding the dramatic editing that has taken place over the last 24 hours, please note - there is a clear difference between banning and refusal of a certificate. The current BBFC ruling means only that UK shops will won't be able to sell it. IT DOES NOT mean that it will be illegal to own. Can editors please refrain from POV and check their facts? Also, some anon editors appear to have a COI of interest regarding the Parkeerah boy, please, this is not the place to vent your frustrations--The internet is serious business 12:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant "will not be able to sell it" ;-) John Hayes^talk 12:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

corrected... LOL I is liek a n00b 2day ;)--The internet is serious business 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made a change to the intro, it doesn't need all the information that was there, as this is duplicated below, in a section more appropriate to the subject. I would suggest it is enough to say it has not been certified and cannot be sold in those countries. John Hayes^talk 12:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is now banned from both sony and nintendo consoles. time for an update to the main article. source: http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/adults-only-manhunt-2-homeless-270768.php

it isn't banned, it is currently refused certification, there is a difference (I think I may have said this earlier ;-})--The internet is serious business 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And it isn't banned in America. Sony and Nintendo are refusing to allow distribution becuase it rated Adults Only, but this is NOT the same as a ban. DarkSaber2k 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

US Release Date

I'm not going to edit it on my own, but I think that the US release dates should be changed to "Pending" until the chaos is resolved.

No it should not. RP is an official placeholder rating used by the ESRP for games they have not yet rated. Since they have come out and has been AO rating they it would be inacurate to use the RP rating. If it does change we can simply alter it then. --65.95.19.6 02:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the release date, not the rating.F 04:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazon has the release date for all three versions pegged as Sept 1st. Any other sources for new release dates? T ConX 14:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be highly sceptical myself, considering that Rockstar/Take Two haven't even announced what they are planning to do about the current ratings problems. DarkSaber2k 15:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo and Sony ban AO games...

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/manhunt2/news.html?sid=6172830&om_act=convert&om_clk=newlyadded&tag=newlyadded;title;1 This is a big ouch. ZuljinRaynor 00:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Impressed

I must say that I am genuinely impressed with the work done on this page. The news leading up to the game and now through the controversy has been updated almost to the minute and it has been on the whole easy to read and often easy to understand for someone that doesn't know anything about the gaming industry (and with the British tabloids, there will be a lot of people interested in finding out about this "Manhunt 2"). Excellent work guys! Wikipedia often goes wrong and pages are a complete mess, but considering what you all had to deal with here, you have done a stellar job! If I could I would give out barnstars to everyone, but instead you will have to accept barnstars in spirit ^_^ JayKeaton 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I've been working for the past few hours getting this damn thing readable. Nice to hear your work is appreciated xD PyroGamer 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Initial vs. Official.

Here's the deal - however you look at it, the info box is incorrect.

Manhunt 2 will *not* have an ESRB rating of AO on the PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portible or Nintendo Wii. Period. Sony and Nintendo have stated (as sourced in this very article) that they will not license an AO title on their systems. Either meaning that we've got to take those three systems out of the info box or make note that the AO rating is the initial rating - and could change (depending on T2/R*'s appeal or further edits to the game).

Ref 23 states in it's opening "The ESRB has issued an initial rating of AO (Adults Only) for Manhunt 2." This is very different from the product being officially released or marketed with an AO rating

Anywhoo, which do you want to do? Take PS2, PSP and Wii out of the info box or note that the AO rating is the initial rating? Because leaving it as is is 100% incorrect. 72.69.111.146 13:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither is correct. The game has been GIVEN an AO rating. In response to this Ninetendo and Sony have said no to the game being released (BECAUSE of the AO rating. It had to have that rating BEFORE Sony or Nintendo could make that decision). In response to that Take Two are suspending the game to consider their options. Regardless of whether it is being released for those systems at this time or not, it is still for those systems. At this time Rockstar and Take Two have NOT announced what they are doing. They have several options, including an unrated PC version, appealing the rating, or re-cutting the game. There are different outcomes to this, some might result in the rating being changed, some wont. But to say the rating WILL change based on your assumptions of what is going to happen next is both original research and predicting the future. The rating is from ESRB, it is official as it gets, and they HAVE not said they will consider changing the title in the future, only that the option to appeal is available, but this makes no guarantees that the rating will change. Labelling the rating 'Initial' implies that rating WILL change, which is wrong for the predictin g the future reason I mentioned earlier. If the rating does change, it will be recorded in the article, but we should not be implying that it will change when none of us knows. There is already plenty of information in the article about the on-going situation. DarkSaber2k 13:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, just as this article (and many other sources) state - Manhunt 2 will *not* be released on any of these three systems with an AO rating. Period. Either the systems need to be removed or the Rating needs a note that it is the Initial Rating (just as the article at Reference 23 says). If you cannot decide which needs to be done, I suggest we RfC to reach a decision. 72.69.111.146 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm just reading this as 'If you don't go with one of my options, I'm going to cause a stink.' As I said, the game DOES have an AO rating, whether or not it will be release as such is irrelevent to recording it in the article. It already says in the article that it wont be released with that rating. When more information is available the article is updated. You are merely proposing adding something that is moot as it is already covered, and would be out of date in a couple of months anyway if the rating does change. And like I said, released or not, the game is finished and is for those systems. As an example, check out the never-released Thrill Kill. Was never commercially released, but was still FOR the Playstation, regardless of rating ot release status. As for Initial vs Official, the source you supply for the use of 'Initial' is labelled'It's official...' so your source contradicts itself. DarkSaber2k 13:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel asking for other wiki editors to comment is "raising a stink". Personally, I welcome the opinions of others.

Seriously - The idea that infomation shouldn't be included in the info box because it's in the article is crazy. Pretty much every info box on Wikipedia is a condensed version of infomation contained in the article.

Additionally, the Thrill Kill info box does state that the game was cancelled. This info box does not. I suppose we could put that in the info box (since there will be no date announced for the AO release of Manhunt 2 on any of the three listed platforms). It's up to you.

As for the article - yes, it is "Official" that the ESRB has given Munhunt 2 an initial rating of AO. But since TakeTwo/Rockstar will not be releasing the game with an AO rating on any of the three systems listed, either the rating will be changed (either through edits to the game or appeals process) or the three versions of the game in question will be cancelled. Since we can't speculate on if the games will be edited, released as-is with a new rating through appeal or cancelled altogether, the common sense thing would be to note that the AO rating is an initial rating. Will this change later as it becomes "out of date"? Yes. And we can edit the article then (either change the rating if it changes or list the game as cancelled). It's like saying that we shouldn't list the game's release date as "TBA" since that info will later change and be "out of date". 72.69.111.146 13:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For the 4th time in this discussion, here and now the game is for those systems and has that rating. You don't know if the rating or the systems are going to change, so putting in any assertion that one or the other is going to change is preditcing the future. This an important core policy of wikipedia. We should not be implying the rating or the systems will be changed, only reflect that as the game stands now it has those ratings on those systems. After all, if the game wasn't on those systems, it couldn't have been given an age rating for those systems. IF they go with the PC route, then the systems are wrong, but we don't know that will happen. If they re-cut the game and get it re-graded, then the rating might change but we don't know that will happen All this is on top of the fact that there is NO official word about what is happening with the game, so any implication in the article that either the system or the rating WILL change is original research (another core policy) which is wikipedia does not allow. DarkSaber2k 13:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, we shouldn't speculate. However, the following is not speculation:

• The ESRB has given the game an initial rating of AO

-Thus we need to make mention of this in the info box.

• Nintendo and Sony have both said, regardless of the development, an AO title will not be released on their systems

-Thus, if the title is listed as AO in the info box, we need to make note that there is not a PS2, PSP or Wii version of this title being released.

Listing that the game has been given an initial rating from the ESRB is not speculation of any kind. Because, quite simply, that's what it's initially been given. 72.69.111.146 14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already changed the release date to read 'Indefinitly Suspended', which at the moment seems to be the only actual thing that should be noted in the infobox. It is still for those systems and it still has that rating, to say this WILL happen, or THAT will happen is preditcing the future. DarkSaber2k 14:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Capcom also said that the Resident Evil Series was going to be exclusive for Nintendo. Then they ported RE4 to PS2. Companies can make new buisiness practices. If the ESRB says that the games current rating is AO, then the games current rating is AO. And if Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft say that they're going to release the game for their systems, we have to take their word for it. When things change, they can be changed. If the rating is lowered, then you can lower it, and if Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft back out, then remove them. But as it stands, it's rated AO and planned to be released for those systems. DurinsBane87 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

However, Sony and Nintendo *have* said that they're *not* going to release the game in it's current state (i.e.: the AO rating) for their systems. Just as it is stated in the article. Thus, according to your own statement, we can remove them because it is *not* going to be released on those systems with the AO rating. Thanks for clearing it up. 72.69.111.146 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberatly missing both point and other examples of banned games. It is not about whether or not the game WILL be released, which is in the future and something Wikipedia is against. What matters is that here and now the facts are: It has been finished for PSP, PS2 and Wii. It has a rating of AO. It won;t be released with an AO rating. Despite this, it is still FOR the PS2, PSP and Wii, and has an AO rating. We are not claiming that the game is going to be released with that rating or for those systems in the future, just that here and now these are the verifiable facts. I also note you got your desired third-party comment, then promptly ignored it.DarkSaber2k 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it. In fact, I agreed with it. Since Sony and Nintendo (Microsoft, currently, does not play into this situation) have said they aren't going to release the game for their systems - and thus we can remove them, just as DurinsBane87 suggested. Personally, I think it'd make more sense to note the rating is an initial rating, but I'm willing to go with DB87's suggestion. 72.69.111.146 13:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a complicated matter. I can see both sides of this issue. We can verifiably prove that the game is currently rated AO and is currently headed for the Wii, PS2 and PSP. We can also verifiably prove that, with an AO rating, it won't be coming out on any of those systems. That's an obvious conflict that's tough to balance. I'd say that, in light of the problem with the release and Rockstar's intent to contest the AO rating, I would simply put a parenthetical addition after the rating in the info box. One that says "(under review)" or "(contested)" or something to that effect. Such an addition would make it clear that this rating is official but also most likely temporary. --Bishop2 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. DurinsBane87 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Except I can't find anywhere that they have said they ARE contesting the rating. At the moment it's basically a case of a game still in development, albeit one that now has a rating. And Bishop, your right that it wont be coming out with the rating, but the verifiable facts are that the game is for those systems and has that rating for those systems. Wikipedia is about verfiability, not truth to quote policy. We can verify it is for those systems. We can verify it has that rating. What we can't verify is anything that is going to/might/could possibly happen with this game in the future. DarkSaber2k 14:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then we can verify that it's coming out for those three systems, and we can verify that it's currently rated AO, and we can verify that both Sony and Nintendo have made official statements that no AO games are allowed to be licensed on their systems. We still have a serious factual conflict there. We can also at least cite that Take-Two "strongly disagrees" with the rating and is "exploring their options" on how to get an M rating. I still think a parenthetical addition would be the best possible compromise. --Bishop2 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about we just say (Currently) there with a view to updating as more information comes along? I know this sounds similar to Initial, but I feel there is less implication of a change in currently since it means 'Now' whereas initially means 'to start with.' Also, Take Two have not specifically said they are reviwing their options to get the game rated M, just that they are reviweing their options for the game (which currently include releasing it unrated onto the PC according to sources). Given the current situation, we should only be putting in things that have come directly from Take Two and Rockstar via reputable news sites (in regards to what they are doing with the game at least). I think we can all agree that avoiding any specualtion in the article is the right thing to do? DarkSaber2k 14:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine idea to me. And I always like to see someone using dictionary definitions to support their stances around here, so good on you. --Bishop2 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

While I personally feel that putting "(Currently)" or "Initial Rating" by the ESRB rating accomplishes about the same thing and I personally favor using the same wording as the official announcement by TakeTwo/Rockstar regarding the rating, I can agree to putting "(Currently)" in the info box.

Looking back over this mess of edits in this section of the talk page, I think we can all agree on one thing. We have too much time on our hands. :) 72.69.111.146 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there, but it's either this or do the (very boring office) work I'm being paid to do! DarkSaber2k 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

---

An interesting read, (in-)directly from the ESRB: http://kotaku.com/gaming/adults-only/manhunt-2-rated-adults-only-270337.php

"It should be noted that ESRB has already assigned a rating for the Wii, PS2 and PSP versions of Manhunt 2, and that rating has in fact already been communicated to the publisher. However, we are unable to publicly release the rating at this time as it is our policy that ratings be posted to our website 30 days following assignment, unless the game is released prior to the end of that period. This is done to give publishers the opportunity to consider modifying and resubmitting their games for rating or appealing the rating assigned to our Appeals Board should they wish to do so. We have not yet been notified by Rockstar as to what they intend to do with respect to our rating assignment." - Patricia Vance, President, ESRB

Fron this, we can conclude that the ESRB has rated the game and the rating hasn't even actually been officially released (and won't be until 30 after the assignment). Thus, officially, at least, simply stating the game has an AO rating is speculation as there has been no official announcement of the rating - per ESRB policy. Go ahead and search ESRB's website and come back and tell me what they've rated it. 72.69.111.146 14:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because the ESRB hasn't officially announced the current rating doesn't mean that Take Two hasn't. And obviously, they have. --Bishop2 14:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit convlfict) That is a badly out of date news story. Take Two confirmed that it was AO rated a few days ago, and the next day ESRB confirmed. Just have a look at www.gamepolitics.com . THat was just ESRB policy being stated when questioned. Things have developed since then. How could Nintendo and Sony state they wont release the game because it's AO rated if the game hasn't actually been rated? This discussion is getting more absurd by the minute. DarkSaber2k 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be incorrect here, but I don't believe Nintendo or Sony has officially said "Manhunt 2 will not be allowed on our systems". I think their official statements have just been along the lines of "We don't license AO rated games". Thus, they haven't "officially" comment on Manhunt 2 in particular, just reminding the community they don't license AO rated games. Again, I could be wrong on this. 72.69.111.146 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Take Two has announced it. Their exact statement is "The ESRB has issued an initial rating of AO (Adults Only) for Manhunt 2,"

"Initial Rating". Why does that phrase sound so darn familiar? :) 72.69.111.146 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Did we have this entire discussion this morning for nothing? 72.69.111.146 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently "Currently" doesn't sit well with everyone, since all games are "Currently" rated something or another. However, since "Initial Rating" only applies to the thirty day period that the ESRB gives for the company to appeal their rating, and since "Initial Rating" was the exact phrase used by the TakeTwo/Rockstar to announce the rating, I'm gonna give that a shot again. If someone would like to suggest an agreeable alternative, please do. 72.69.111.146 13:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection; Clean Up Needed

I submitted for a semi-protection tag to the article given that mis-appropriated information, incorrect references, and erroneous information seems to be appearing. It seems that some users are choosing to interpret this in their own form and manner and relay that through Wikipedia. Whether this be the case or not, the article is severely in need of clean up. Therefore, I placed semi-protection on it until such can take place. No I am not an administrator although I do believe one would have no problem with this, if it is a problem, it is of course up to their perogative to remove it. Evilgohan2 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)