This story may technically be five years old, but the British tabloids're going to have a field day after we just refused to even released Manhunt 2.
It's rare that anything genuinely shocks me these days, but this manages it.
Here is why this is such a bad thing (see also this for more recent coverage which was never even seen in the UK and this for moments that were).
Follow-ups from when the publisher was available for comment:
You have to wonder what the developers were thinking in this case - who put the content in and who'd done so little research into what the developers were using as sources that they cleared it (since the case isn't unknown in the US).
Self-contained fictional violence (like the Manhunt titles - and for the record, I find video games based on actual wars distasteful, but at least they depict violence between comparatively consenting adults) is one thing, but I personally class drawing on a real-life crime for fictional evidence - particularly one not just from recent living memory but that's still got the potential to be so shocking and sensitive, and through such an iconic image - as crossing a line.
*walks in and whispers to Sammy*
We've already got a topic for this...
I'm more in favor of the AO rating it got here in US land. This way, we aren't limiting freedom of speech, but we aren't letting anyone get it.
By the way, here are the other 22 games that have received AO ratings in the ESRB's history.
*whispers back to Stewie*
Actually read the post and links, please.
I'm not talking about Manhunt.
lol @ Exchange. Anyway
They probably wanted some realism added to their game or something. I can't see anything else inherently criminal about the photo other than it's real life origin.
I think this bit of history wasn't quite dusty enough to throw in there yet. This was negligence on the developor's part to consider the public emotion's. Poor lady.
I'm not talking about criminality - just the bounds of taste.
Which I know're subjective, but it's such an iconic image here in the UK, and such an individual crime that's even well-documented Stateside.
Although using RL evidence from any crime so recent would be over the line in my book, I can't think of a US equivalent in terms of child-on-child murder, but I suppose it'd be like putting footage of Klebold and Harris prowling Columbine in a game focusing on breaking a school siege, in terms of what the original crime did to the national consciousness of people old enough to take it in - which would even partly be the target demographic for a franchise like Law and Order.
I wonder if the developers'll investigate whose idea it was, as well as just remove it.
To clarify, I meant: since there's nothing "criminal about the photo" (it doesn't look criminal), it's real life origin must be why it was pinned on the fictional bulletin board.
Yeah, honestly, I know I shouldn't think this, really, but... she's making a mountain out of a molehill. She's technically allowed to, I guess, seeing as it's a crime that involved one that was close to her, but then, I've seen enough people screaming "STOP SELLING THIS GAME, WE'RE MILDLY OFFENDED" at retailers that I can't help but feel really cynical. I mean, how old was this game? And they're just NOW complaining? What the hell are they doing, are they actively looking for things to complain about?
That the retailer is pulling their five-year-old game and putting a new image in its place is nice and all, but, I mean, it's a five-year-old game. You think you can find something more RECENT to complain about?
And yeah, I wouldn't have given that image a second thought, honestly. It's not being trivialized as entertainment, it's being used as decoration to give something a tad bit more realism. Unless this picture really IS a clue to be actively used in the game, she's making much ado over something incredibly negligible.
She's "technically allowed" to be "making a mountain out of a molehill" because "it's a crime that involved one that was close to her" but "it's a five-year-old game" so she's on about something "incredibly negligible".
I agree. You shouldn't think this. c.c For starters, time matters little in this situation. She probably just saw the game, reguardless of when it was released. Not to mention she still cares (I find it hard to believe that would be "mildly") about the actual incident which occured 14 years ago. The photo still reminds her of her 2 year-old son being beaten, raped and hit by a train.
If you just mean to say that her efforts toward having the game pulled were in vain, I agree. But her motivation shouldn't be scrutanized, and that motivation definately isn't just looking for something "to complain about".
I suppose. I'm just used to that actually being the case (read: Jack Thompson and pals), so by this point I've begun to just not care about the other side's arguments, since it always seems to be the same flawed bullcrap that it always is.
Regardless, I still feel calling for the banning of a game over one detail is flawed logic, even if I can empathize... normally, it wouldn't happen. That it did is some genuine good nature on part of the developer...
She was calling for a boycott, SH - not a ban. That puts the decision in the hands of buyers, which is fair enough.
Quote:
since it always seems to be the same flawed bullcrap that it always is
Doesn't that logic sound a little circular to you? I don't like Thompson, either - but surely that means that you're seeing what you want to see, as you did in this case?
Well put, Acrio. Again, since the two little swines who perpetrated the whole thing're still only in their early twenties, already out of prison after a grand total of eight years and guaranteed lifelong anonymity with even their new nearest and dearest not knowing the truth behind their government-funded (yes, we still pay for their police protection, including safe houses and paying them an allowance when they first got out - a privilege not normally given to murderers) fake IDs, there're lots of reasons why this case has never really left the public imagination.
This game would've been released sometime in the year after they actually were - when they were back in the news for a sustained periods for the above reasons.
Again, what fascinates me is that the developer had so much little control over their content that they didn't realise that it was there.
Whoever inserted it had to know what it was. The lack of respect really does stun me.
Or ignorance is a bliss: maybe whoever put that picture there didn't had a clue about it.
I'd hope so - but that still shows a shocking lack of research, and poor checking procedures.
I still find it hard to believe that you could find any copy of that image without its history attached, though - especially at that point in time - or that someone could be silly enough to just blindly shove it in without seeing what it was first.
Was this like, some critical component to the plot of the game? Or was it (as far as I can tell from skimming the many articles up there) a photo in a background and an off-handed comment by one of the characters? I mean, sure, I can understand if this thing was referenced, lampooned, or belittled - but having it just be there and acknowledged as a previous real-world case doesn't seem like a big deal. To continue Sam's previous comment, referencing Columbine in a game about school shooting seems logical, as long as the material is handled carefully, not unlike hazardous chemicals.
As an aside to all of this, Law and Order? For real? Not only, as was said, is this game several years old, but it wasn't even good. I call PR stunt.
Quote:
As an aside to all of this, Law and Order? For real? Not only, as was said, is this game several years old, but it wasn't even good. I call PR stunt.
I highly doubt the quality or title of the game is of any concern to the victim's mother.
What's more she was obviously unaware that this image was even used until now, so she obvious wasn't even asked if they could use the image in the first place; as she said in the article, they treated it as public property, despite the emotional attachment it holds to the mother.
My opinion though, I find this very disturbing, the developers should have been more respectful and have taken action to avoid placing or at least consult with those connected.
Quote:
I still find it hard to believe that you could find any copy of that image without its history attached, though - especially at that point in time - or that someone could be silly enough to just blindly shove it in without seeing what it was first.
Well, first off, that's pretty much exactly what Google Images does. 😛
Secondly, though, it could've been that they knew EXACTLY what it was - they just didn't expect there to be any backlash. I can't say for sure that's the case (I'm not the developer, after all), but it's certainly possible!
Someone actually bought that game?
~Tobe
What business does some random photo of kids in a supermarket have doing on a police bulletin board? The origin of the photo must've been known by the developers. Though I suppose one person could have collected the photo, knowing what it was, and an other shoved it up there.
