Talk:Manhunt 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Gameplay does not affect alternate endings

It doesn`t matter how violent your style of play is, you automatically get the "release therapy" bonus level upon beating the game once. This should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.172.240 (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.141.33 (talk) 17:52, 21 June, 2007 (UTC)

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)
I came to this article to learn why this game is considered so violent. I would also like to have that section added to this article.--216.101.11.66 15:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is considered "controversial" unless someone is upset. The game isn't controversial because of the violence, but rather the affect of violence on the children who might play the game; hence the reason they (ESRB) wanted to rate it AO (adults only). But this isn't good for Rockstar because Wal-Mart and Target won't carry AO games, and now Sony and Nintendo say they won't allow AO games to be distributed on their systems by third-party publishers. Mark321123 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

It's fine without anything. Everything is "currently", this is warned in the notice at the top of the article, and it even warns in the wikipedia disclaimer that information is subject to change, there is no point using that. There is also no need for "initial", as this implies there will be another rating, which would be predicting the future. This may be the final rating. The sources verify that it is rated AO, the fact that it may not be released under this rating is irrelevant, the rating body has nothing to do with whether the publisher/console decide/allow it to released. They were asked to rate, and they have. John Hayestalk 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] France, Spain and Japan

Can anyone verify if it was going to be released uncut in France, Spain and Japan before the suspension.

I would assume that the game hasn't been localised for Japan yet (if it ever will be) - so I doubt whoever rates Japanese games has seen it yet. EvilRedEye 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK and Italy are not Europe

This seems like a no-brainer to me. UK and Italy are not Europe, so it should not state it is banned in Europe. It's like claiming it's been given an AO rating world-wide because it got one in America. DarkSaber2k 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say it's banned in europe. It says there are ratings rejections in Europe. There are. John Hayestalk 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
And it's not just UK and Italy. Ireland? Germany? John Hayestalk 15:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually Germany doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article, I'm sure I saw a source for that though. John Hayestalk 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
NOT Scandinavia according to sources though. DarkSaber2k 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree, but that refers to the fact that there are rejections in europe, which there are, it becomes too longwinded for the introduction if we say due to rejections in United Kingdom, and Ireland, and Italy. The fact that Scandinavia allowed it is irrelevant to that, they didn't withdraw the game because scandinavia allowed it. John Hayestalk 15:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
And people should not be expected to draw their own implications based on the presence or absence of sngle 's' at the end of a word. DarkSaber2k 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This is possibly true, would you be happy with the compromise of "in parts of Europe". This avoids a long list of countries. John Hayestalk 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no long list of countries. Unless 3 has been suddenly redefined as lots. DarkSaber2k 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't be if the countries were relevant to the sentence, but they aren't, only the fact that there have been rejections is relevant. It just seems much more concise to me to only mention Europe, or parts of it. Either way neither of us can edit revert it again in the next 24 hours, due to WP:3RR, so that will allow time for other people to comment and a consensus to be reached. John Hayestalk 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to the BBFC and ESRB's decisions - At the very least, the UKs refusal of a rating is specifically responsible for the game being suspended. The rest os Europe maybe not, but Manhunt 2 has been reported by the company as being suspended because of the UK and US rating decisions, not because of 'rejections in Europe' DarkSaber2k 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. So what about a further compromise of "in the United Kingdom, and other parts of Europe"? John Hayestalk 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen your edit at the time I wrote that. I'm ok with what is there now. And I don't know if it counts as a revert, I doubt it, as you edited your own revert. John Hayestalk 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Great! Just to point out, I was wrong about Italy. The source only says it looks likely to be banned, not that it has actually been banned yet, so putting that in the title was incorrect of me! DarkSaber2k 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which version?

Do we know which version or versions of Manhunt 2 received the initial rating of AO from the ESRB? 72.69.111.146 16:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The PS2 and Wii versions received an AO. No one knows about the PSP version. The Ðark Crusader 04:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PC-Version

Shouldn't it be mentioned that there has been some rumors about Take Two releasing a pc version of the game with 18+/M rating? A milder version with other words?

No, because they are just rumours. DarkSaber2k 17:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
anyway M is 17 plus AO is 18+ so if you could find it you could play it
Well, are there any news/announcements about an uncut Adults Only version being released on the PC? Because if so I'm willing to wait and buy that copy... Icefox111 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T2

T2 says that the game is to be released before the end of September. Or the first quarter of the year. This was confirmed by T2 during a conference about the future for the game. HeavyWikiMetal —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeavyWikiMetal (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 July, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R* Appealing Ban in UK

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/2007/08/01/rockstar_appeals_against_manhunt_2_ban.html

http://www.techspot.com/news/26411-rockstar-appeals-manhunt-2-uk-ban.html

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/a69155/rockstar-begins-manhunt-2-appeal.html

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/08/01/rockstar-appeals-to-vac-for-manhunt-2-ban/

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/01/2113259

[edit] Controversial?

Should Manhunt 2 be called a controversial game. Though the game is not out yet, but though it has been having trouble lately, and websites are calling it the sequel to the first controversial video game Manhunt. --HeavyWikiMetal 11:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)WikiHeavyMetal

What do you mean?
I mean that should we put controversial on the manhunt 2 page.
In what form? John Hayestalk 02:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

it already has a controversy section, people know it is contorversial from that section and we dont need to add other tags and crap when it is all out in the open...REexpert 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay may change

Does Manhunt 2 really need to have Gameplay again. The game's gameplay may change once it actually gets released. --HeavyWikiMetal 05:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)HeavyWikiMetal

The games pretty much going to go GOLD(final stage of production where everything is being copied to disc and shipped)by this September but they can't change that much of it from where it is now especially with graphical effects of blood and stuff after the AO incident I REALLY REALLY hope they kept the castration kill--Change is coming and potter should have died I might be Trolled and I just don't care 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FORUM John Hayestalk 23:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncensored version for Holland

It's true Manhund 2 will be released uncensored in Holland? It seems the Justice Minister of Holland wants the game to be uncensored.

‘The current law is based on the principle that every adult is considered capable of deciding for himself which games he wants to play, unless it contains illegal material.’

About children being able to play a game ‘the joint responsibility of parents, the audiovisual industry and the government,’

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/28176/Manhunt-2-given-release-in-PAL-territory http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7005&Itemid=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.10.8 (talk) 21:07, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

it's the parents problem really it is if they buy it for little adolf(don't know common holland names and if that name offends anyone I'm sorry) it's their problem not mine if he shoots some one later in life--Change is coming and potter should have died I might be Trolled and I just don't care 21:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What an ignorant statement. You are an absolute and bar none idiot. People are responsible for their actions, video games are not responsible for the actions/choices of human beings. Quit blaming video games and get the hell over yourself. By EVEN remotely suggesting video games are in any way, shape or form, even partly responsible, you only seek to remove responsibility from the free agent committing whatever 'immoral' act. 72.49.194.69 22:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Joshua
be WP:CIVIL comment on content, not contributors. John Hayestalk 23:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot from leaked version

I've added everything in the plot that i'm up to in the leaked version. KNowing that Rockstar wouldn't have drastically changed the storyline in the censored version, i feel it warrants posting up. Tr1ckydr1v3r 12:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly it needs sourcing, no original research. Secondly I don't think we need every plot detail. John Hayestalk 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna shorten it, why did someone delete the WHOLE THING? Tr1ckydr1v3r 21:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it is unsourced, original reasearch, based on a leaked version which may not be the final game. I realise that you have played it, but that isn't a good enough source for Wikipedia. Leave that to the fansites. John Hayestalk 07:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The changes in the censored version were released recently, revealing no change has been made to the storyline, only the executions. May i pu a summarized plot up now (When i finish the game of course)? Tr1ckydr1v3r 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not from having played it. You need to provide third party sources which are independant of the subject. For example from the article on the changes there may be references to what is in the game. John Hayestalk 00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tr1ckydr1v3r, write an article about the leaked version and try to get a fansite to post the article, then someone else can use it as a source. --Mista-X 21:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

"The request was rejected; Her Majesty's Government supported the BBFC in their decision to ban, and refused to get involved in the appeal.[25][26]" Notwithstanding Burman's overinterpretation at [26], the Government did not say that it supported the decision to ban. Rather, it said that it had confidence the existing *process* for deciding on bans. This is a different thing (particularly since the Government also states its support for the existence of the appeals process). It is like having confidence in the courts - it doesn't mean that one supports a particular judge's decision (particularly if, as in this case, it's not even the system's final say) - it just means one supports the system itself. 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)~~

Good point. I have slightly changed the sentence, is that better? John Hayestalk 22:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Manhunt 2 Wii Box Art FINAL.jpg

Image:Manhunt 2 Wii Box Art FINAL.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certification difficulties

I think this section needs to be re-organised, it has grown into a bit of a mess, a little from this country, and little from that, back to the first etc... John Hayestalk 13:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] leaked version

I have played it and have not noticed any sound out of sync, also, is the game even supposed to have any music? All I hear is environmental ambience which is what would be expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.177.240.75 (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that unsourced addition, it just states that it was leaked as per the source. John Hayestalk 13:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do a citation for something I saw on the news. It was on the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.8.128 (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not today?

"...it was announced that Rockstar submitted a modified version of the game, which was re-rated with an M by the ESRB and allowed for an October 31, 2007 release date in North America.[3] This modified version was again rejected by the BBFC on October 8.[2]"

So it's not going to be released today (10.31)? That's a pity, it would be quite a gaming experience. What's the new release date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.63.211 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. But if you are refering to Britain there currently isn't a reliable source for the release date John Hayestalk 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating by ESRB.

The rating is offically M. Release date is today, October 31st.

Source is http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp?titleOrPublisher=Rockstar&searchType=publisher&rating=&ratingsCriteria=&platforms=&platformsCriteria=&javaScript=0&searchVersion=compact&content=&searchType=title&contentCriteria= Ellomate 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It was supposed to be the 31st, but it was released on the 29th. Kalidascorp 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

"In the end of the game, it is revealed that Leo is Daniel"

Thanks for ruining it for me... 76.180.1.8 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It was unsourced so it may not be true, but for future reference it was decided that spoilers can be included in articles without any warning, as the reader has to expect an article on a game, film, book, etc. to include the full story. John Hayestalk 09:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdates?

The birthdates in the character section don't make any sense. Both Pickman and Whyte ingame look to be in thier Fifties (or Sixties or older), Leo and Daniel look younger than either of them, yet according to these birthdates the protagonists are much older than the scientists. What is the source for this information? Is there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyeagleisrocker (talk • contribs) 06:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manhunt 2 Release Date.

As most of us know, the official release date was slated to be on October 31, 2007. However, all sources that I have found show that the official release date was CHANGED to October 29, 2007. The official site also said the game was "Available in Stores" on the 29th.

I believe that is would be more correct to say the official release date is the 29th, while it was originally going to be the 31st, rather than saying the official release was the 31st and some stores just decided to release it on the 29th. Kalidascorp 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Player

Can you make up your own player or do they give you someone to start with?--FrosticeBlade 03:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

you start out as daniel lamb, and you play as him through out the entire game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean-napalm (talk • contribs) 11:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FORUM John Hayestalk 13:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New controversy, a la Hot Coffee

PSP modifiers have removed coding in the game that blurs gory content. I don't follow the game, nor do I plan to buy it, so I ask that someone read the article and add information accordingly under the controversy section with a properly named sub-section. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071105/tc_nm/manhunt_dc_1 Socby19 18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC

The offical codebreaker website released special codes unto which the player can complelty unfilter all the execution sequences. The codes remained for less than 5 minutes before being taken off due to the controversy surronding the game. However, you can still get these codes as many have already posted the codes throughout the web.

[edit] Plot

I tagged the plot section as unsourced. Nothing has changed. I will leave it for a day or so more, but after that I will just delete the section, as at the moment it is just original research or possibly even wrong. John Hayestalk 11:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Will delete now, per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT. John Hayestalk 10:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You sir, are an asshole and a prick. Put it back, there are plenty of other plots that are unsourced but people know they're correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.0.77 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil. Just because one article does something one way doesn't mean this one should. The section broke a large number of policies and guidelines. It did not establish why the plot was notable, it did not provide any sources verifying it, and it broke WP:NOT#PLOT in that it was just an in-depth plot summary with any real-world context or analysis. For any of it to be reinstated it needs to provide third party sources which describe the plot, and show why it is notable, and give it some analysis. John Hayestalk 10:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PSP hack

Why isn't that in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.155.208 (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no source for it. Find a reliable source and it can be put in. John Hayestalk 12:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watermark 20

Has anyone found out what this does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.103.43 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to Manhunt 1

There IS a reference to the first Manhunt. In the level "Broadcast Interrupted," The man in the rabbit suit in the insane asylum from the first Manhunt has been hanged in the studio. Can someone please add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.23.109 (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Versions Released?

I'm confused. Is there an Uncensored version of Manhunt 2 available for sale? 71.163.162.75 (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK ban lifted.

The ban in the UK has been lifted after Rockstar won their appear successfully. The article is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7137212.stm

It was never banned, it simply wasn't giving a rating, which prevented it from being sold. The appeal win forces the BBFC to look at it again, but it's too early to say whether the "ban" has been lifted. Still useful for the article though. John Hayestalk 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Game will now be released as an 18+ : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7296278.stm pcfreakshow (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] redoing this game was a dumb idea.

they should not of re-made certain parts of manhunt 2. such as the scene where somone was castrated, a person was castrated in hostel 2 and it was uncensored, and the movie still got an R rating. and withn the blur effects, it blocks most of the executions out to where you cant even see them, whats the point of playing a game to kill someone, when you can't even see the person being killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean-napalm (talk • contribs) 11:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Sillygostly (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GTA Reference

In the manual, it stats that Daniel Lamb came from San Fierro,SA, graduated from San Fierro University. Should this be mentioned? Neon6419 (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK release date?

No way can it be late August, I mean multiple news sources said they could of released in December if the BBFC didn't go to court so why would it take nearly half a year to port it to the country it was made in? I'd find another source. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)