Talk:Manhunt 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It was, quite rightly, declined. None of the IP users who this would affect have had any notices or warnings on their talk pages, this is the first step you should take. If individuals continue after a warning, warn again or request blocks. If there is a large amount of vandalism (rather than just misplaced good faith) then you should request protection again. John Hayes^talk 12:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I just did to User talk:148.122.229.27 John Hayes^talk 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)