About Us | Game Reviews | Feature Articles | Podcast | Best Work | Forums | Shop | Review Game

Manhunt 2 – Review

Daniel Weissenberger's picture

I wish I could talk about Manhunt 2 without addressing the endless debacle over its censorship. The press coverage of the game's AO rating, its near-cancellation, and eventual bowdlerized release has been so overpowering that it drowned out any discussion of the game's actual merits and flaws. Unfortunately, there's a very good reason for this situation, since the game, as released, is quite obviously the product of a troubled development and compromised release, and most of the things wrong with it can be laid neatly at the feet of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.

Manhunt 2 is the rarest kind of videogame sequel, one that jettisons all plot elements from the first game, carrying over only play mechanics and tone from the first title. The most notable absence this time around is the first game's theme. Manhunt made a statement about voyeurism, suggesting that the player was every bit as deviant as the villainous ‘director' for enjoying the violence they caused onscreen. This time the violence is framed in an entirely different manner; instead of happening in what amounts to an elaborate film set, everything takes place in the ‘real world', or at least an extremely nihilistic interpretation thereof. The player controls a doctor named Daniel Lamb who, along with his murderous alter-ego Leo, must avoid being killed by government assassins long enough to discover just how he wound up trapped in an insane asylum with a vicious killer playing timeshare with his body.

Manhunt 2 Screenshot

The player is asked to accomplish this task primarily by murdering an awful lot of people. In that, Manhunt 2 differs very slightly from every other videogame available. The thing that sets it apart from other notable highs and lows of the stealth genre is that the murders are more immediate, plausible, and yes, realistic. While the Hitman slinks around garroting people to death with almost surgical precision, and Tenchu's ninja flit about supernaturally, leaving geysers of blood in their wake, for all intents and purposes, Daniel Lamb is Just Some Guy, and his weapons of choice, including baseball bats, ball-point pens, and battery-powered circular saws can be found in the average home. Even his pistols and shotguns are ordinary, everyday items, if we're including American households in the count. So when Agent 47 snipes the Vice-President of the United States from the roof of the White House, it's not controversial because a government official being shot is completely fictional, while depicting someone's head being cut open with a rusty saw could be classified as instructional.

The game is helped immeasurably by the quality of story that occurs between (and sometimes during) all of these brutal slayings. It's nothing that's going to win any awards, but everything progresses in a clear and logical fashion. Questions are raised, then answered in a satisfying manner, and it's all presented by extremely solid voice acting. The one problem in that respect is the actor playing Leo, the bad angel on the player's shoulder. From the moment the game begins, he's always there, urging the player forward to more gruesome and excessive acts of violence, taking on Brian Cox's role from the first title. Sadly, he just doesn't bring any gravitas to the role, and more importantly, just isn't scary enough for the part. It's too bad, though, because the game's treatment of Daniel's deviant personality is among the best I've seen in a long time. Especially because the character's status as a figment of the imagination isn't used as a twist or kicker. From the first moment he appears onscreen, players know exactly what Leo is, and that they're controlling a character with serious problems that extend well beyond the people trying to kill him. There's confident storytelling on display, and that deserves compliments, even if the story being told is one that very few people will ever want to hear.

The gameplay sticks pretty close to the series' previous entry, in that there's literally almost nothing to do but stalk and kill people. Sure, every now and then a key item needs to be tracked down, but beyond that, the game swings wildly from utterly competent stealth gameplay to woefully ill-conceived gunfighting. That's not to say the gunfighting is completely awkward—the Wii controls ensure that it's easy enough to sight and execute victims, but the game's movement and cover engines, while fine for ducking into shadows and waiting to slit throats, just aren't up to dealing with the sheer volume of gunplay the game requires, especially towards the end of the game. This is the exact flaw the first game suffered from, and I can't imagine anyone involved in that game coming away from the experience thinking "You know what that needed? More shooting." Only the inclusion of much needed 'firearm executions' keeps the inclusion of gunplay in the game from being a complete wash. The humor of tapping someone on the shoulder and having them turn around to see a shotgun aimed at their face goes a long way towards mitigating the terrible combat.

Manhunt 2 Screenshot

The Wii controls are also an incredibly mixed bag, with only one of the new ideas on display being worth anything at all. This is the hiding mechanic—when villains are peering into the shadows, looking for Daniel, the player has to hold the controller completely still to avoid being seen. This is a great idea that really goes a long way towards putting the player in the character's shoes. Especially because the camera switches over to first-person mode whenever it happens, so the villains lean right into the television screen as they search the darkness. Less successful are the ‘vicious murder' commands that got the game into so much trouble in England. In the first Manhunt, the viciousness of murder was determined by the amount of time the player spent creeping up behind their victim. Now, in addition to that time spent stalking, the player is asked to crudely mime various actions in order to see them reproduced onscreen. The motion detection works well enough, and I think there would probably be some visceral thrill to be gleaned from shaking both controllers from side to side, approximating the experience of strangling someone with barbed wire, if the omnipresent censorship didn't keep me from being able to tell what was going on.

That's right, the biggest problem with the game is just how overpowering the censorship is. When I heard that the game's violence had been toned down, I imagined simple touches, such as removing excessive amounts of blood, or tastefully panning away from the worst atrocities. After all, how may films have held onto their R rating by showing an axe swinging, but leaving the point of its impact just off camera? The solution offered here was to add a black and red filter over all of the execution animations. Whenever the player starts to do something nasty, the screen shakes badly and random shapes fly in their face, while everything gets so dark that anything but the broadest details are almost impossible to make out. This is one of the few occasions where I'd recommend playing the game on a smaller screen, because I played the game on a large HDTV, and wound up suffering from eyestrain and minor headaches. It's only natural, especially when playing a stealth game, to really get into the action, leaning forwards a little and focusing on the screen while sneaking up behind a victim. Having the screen essentially go schizophrenic at the climax of these sequences is not wholly dissimilar to having the game slap the player in the face for following the rules. The kicker is that the 'murder simulating' Wii controls, with all their thrusting and stabbing, lose any purpose in this version of the game. Every kill involves a series of steps, in which the player has to perform a new action to keep the kill going. The game offers no incentive for the gamer to play along with this, though—following the onscreen instructions only prolongs the amount of time the screen is covered in static.

In his review of The Punisher, Brad Gallaway pointed out something I had missed when covering the game—just how badly the game's inexplicable censorship crippled what little fun could be gleaned from that title. Manhunt 2 is a far better example of the same problem. Yes, it's an incredibly, borderline obscenely, brutal game, but within its own context it tells an interesting story and provides some great thrills for the player—or at least it would if it weren't so busy trying to give its players seizures. As a story, it's a minor success, but anything Manhunt 2 could have accomplished as a videogame is undercut by the changes forced on Rockstar by the ESRB. Given how willfully it wades into depravity and disgust, Manhunt 2 might not be the ideal poster child for a workable adult rating for videogames, but it's the game that started the discussion, and hopefully that discussion will lead, somewhere down the line, to someone making a game without worrying what might happen if a child stumbled upon it. Rating: 3.5 out of 10

Disclaimer: This review is based on the Wii version of the game.

Category Tags
Platform(s): Wii   PSP   PS2  
Developer(s): Rockstar North  
Publisher: Rockstar  
Series: Manhunt  
Genre(s): Stealth   Horror  
ESRB Rating: Mature (17+)  
Articles: Game Reviews  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You give Rockstar too much credit

I have been a gamer for twenty years. I am also a law student, who has never shied away from arguing passionately on behalf of protecting and expanding civil liberties.

That said, Manhunt 2 is artistically meritless, exploitive, immoral, snuff that should never have graced store shelves. While I would never advocate censorship as a means of response, I think it is incumbent upon gamers--and especially professional critics--to take a stand against such blatantly cynical titles like this. Developers are under no legal obligation to tailor their creations to popular morality, but they do have a social and professional responsibility to at least not glamorize nihilistic brutality. Games like this do nothing more than confirm the usually dishonest, hyperbolic accusations of the Jack Thompsons and Bill O'Reillys of the world.

A retort to aesquire.

Whether you like it or not aesquire, violence is human nature, it's a trait that goes deeper then morals, ethics and conscience. It's primal, it exists as a need still within us from a long since useless need for survival. The quality of life has changed over time but that need that urge is still there, and be it law student, hobo, or stereotypical overweight nerd gamer, we all enjoy it and seek it out just a little. That is why gaming has become what it is today, which is a long string of shooters from the first person perspective, meaning we want to feel like we are doing the killing. The biggest game in the universe HALO is of the same kin. I don't believe that Halo is snuff whatever that means, in fact I don't even like Halo, but in said game you're encouraged to kill like most games. Manhunt 2 is no different. I wasn't a fan of the game really and I've never even played the sequel, but after hearing about its concept I thought finally a video game tackling a real issue, our need for that violence, our enjoyment of it. I enjoy watching violent films horrors movies and such and I loved God of War, a game that tapped into that primal urge so perfectly that it scared me a little, and you know what? I'm not ashamed in the least, because what Jack Thompson, Bill O'Reilly and Hillary Clinton could never understand is that a normal well balanced person knows the difference between right and wrong. A killer will kill, no matter what video games he plays or what movies he watches and especially what music he listens to, it's unfortunate for everyone else that a person with urges stronger then the norm gravitates to healthy outlets such as games and movies, but it's to be expected.
We need to understand our relationship with violence and except it as it is, not repress it until it bursts out in some other manner. Manhunt, whether Rockstar meant it to or not, did that for most people, it helped them understand it a little more and it changed gaming just a little because it was the first game to address that need directly, so much so in fact that it makes people like you, who are on some moral crusade to protect the world from itself, feel uncomfortable.
You said "they do have a social and professional responsibility to at least not glamorize nihilistic brutality" that is incorrect. Rockstar's holds no responsibility with the game they've made neither do the publisher or even the store that sells it, the responsibility whether you want it or not lies on you. It's up to you to do what you will with that experience. You referred to it as snuff, if snuff is the enjoyment of viewing violence then even you a law student has more then likely committed that crime.

Thank you for your civil retort

But I disagree.

Quote:

"Whether you like it or not aesquire, violence is human nature, it's a trait that goes deeper then morals, ethics and conscience. It's primal, it exists as a need still within us from a long since useless need for survival. The quality of life has changed over time but that need that urge is still there, and be it law student, hobo, or stereotypical overweight nerd gamer, we all enjoy it and seek it out just a little. That is why gaming has become what it is today, which is a long string of shooters from the first person perspective, meaning we want to feel like we are doing the killing."

I do not accept a priori that violence is an inevitable or pervasive feature of human existence. Worldwide, the better part of most people's lives are spent peaceably, with violence occurring as a brief punctuation to an otherwise quiet existence. This may seem counterintuitive given the prevalence of violence in the news, but tell me, how often have you been the victim (or perpetrator) of violence?
Moreover, while I can't speak for other gamers, I do not play games out of enjoyment of simulated killing. I enjoy problem solving; I enjoy exploring strange locales; and I enjoy immersing myself in a story, and divining its themes, purpose, and method. Game violence is a tool for generating conflict, providing motivation, and illustrating ideas. It is not--and should not--be an end unto itself.

Quote:

"The biggest game in the universe HALO is of the same kin. I don't believe that Halo is snuff whatever that means, in fact I don't even like Halo, but in said game you're encouraged to kill like most games. Manhunt 2 is no different."

Halo may be similar to Manhunt in that both game feature killing, but surely you can recognize that there is a difference in degree and kind. The primary joy of Halo is in outsmarting and out-shooting your (formidable) opponents, not the verisimilitude of killing itself. Indeed, the ultimate act in Halo is obscured by so many layers of artistic license (purple blood, exaggerated/humorous death quotes, etc.) that the player barely recognizes the nature of his act. This artistic license turns killing into an abstraction; more Hogan's Alley than Abu Grhaib. While this will not inspire players to conduct a deep, personal moral inventory, it also does not desensitize them since they are never actually confronted with the implications of death--or even a realistic depiction thereof.
This isn't the case in Manhunt, where the game's primary feature and source of amusement are the grisly, explicit, one-on-one murders. Whereas Halo's enjoyment is derived from the tactile pleasure of battle-play (moving, shooting, flying, driving, etc.), the core of Manhunt's experience is the deliberate, brutal dispatch of enemies. Halo's pleasure is kinesthetic; Manhunt's pleasure is emotional, and flows from the power rush that accompanies the execution of an unsuspecting victim. If this weren't enough, Manhunt rewards progress by giving the player increasingly novel weapons with which to commit evermore violent kills. Not only does the game celebrate killing as emotionally satisfying, but revels in its aesthetic qualities.
To say that Halo and Manhunt are both "about killing" is sloppy reductionism. Applying your logic, Manhunt is no different from Robotron or Space Invaders. I think we can both recognize the absurdity of that conclusion.

Quote:

"I wasn't a fan of the game really and I've never even played the sequel, but after hearing about its concept I thought finally a video game tackling a real issue, our need for that violence, our enjoyment of it."

How does Manhunt accomplish this? How did you come to the conclusion that Rockstar is critiquing this impulse, rather than cynically exploiting it?

Quote:

"I enjoy watching violent films horrors movies and such and I loved God of War, a game that tapped into that primal urge so perfectly that it scared me a little, and you know what? I'm not ashamed in the least, because what Jack Thompson, Bill O'Reilly and Hillary Clinton could never understand is that a normal well balanced person knows the difference between right and wrong. A killer will kill, no matter what video games he plays or what movies he watches and especially what music he listens to, it's unfortunate for everyone else that a person with urges stronger then the norm gravitates to healthy outlets such as games and movies, but it's to be expected.

This is a strawman argument. I never said that video game violence causes actual violence. I think it *may* desensitize us to violence in the real world, and thus *may* make us more tolerant of violence as a means of solving conflicts in the abstract (for example, the degree to which people will tolerate political violence). I think it *definitely* reflects poorly on video games as a medium, and does nothing to dispel the popular conception of gamers as reclusive sociopaths.

Quote:

"We need to understand our relationship with violence and except it as it is, not repress it until it bursts out in some other manner. Manhunt, whether Rockstar meant it to or not, did that for most people, it helped them understand it a little more and it changed gamingjust a little because it was the first game to address that need directly, so much so in fact that it makes people like you, who are on some moral crusade to protect the world from itself, feel uncomfortable.

Again, you haven't articulated how Manhunt affected our understanding of violence, or how it "changed gaming." I will not dignify your "moral crusade" comment with a response.

Quote:

"You said "they do have a social and professional responsibility to at least not glamorize nihilistic brutality" that is incorrect. Rockstar's holds no responsibility with the game they've made neither do the publisher or even the store that sells it, the responsibility whether you want it or not lies on you. It's up to you to do what you will with that experience. You referred to it as snuff, if snuff is the enjoyment of viewing violence then even you a law student has more then likely committed that crime."

This is nonsense. How can you possibly divorce the moral culpability of the artist from his creation? You can't have it both ways. If Rockstar can be credited for (supposedly) critiquing the human relation to violence, than they must be open to blame if their creation amounts to depraved exploitation. Games are either capable of effecting our thoughts and emotions, or they're not. If they're not, and games are just morally neutral ciphers for the player's subjective experience, than Roger Ebert is right, and video games are not art.
I don't believe this to be the case. I've always defined art as two way mirror: the audience sees himself in the reflection, but how he sees it is determined by how the artist shaped the mirror. To that extent, the artist is responsible for how his audience sees his work.
Manhunt is art. It just happens to be bad art. Art that glorifies moral relativism, violence, and the will to power.
Manhunt is the art of fascism.

Someone's jumping to thematic conclusions....

"Manhunt is art. It just happens to be bad art. Art that glorifies moral relativism, violence, and the will to power.
Manhunt is the art of fascism."

As someone who hates Manhunt 2 with a passion, it pains me to come to the games defense in any way, shape, or form. I had to take issue with this comment, though.

The Manhunt games are not about glorifying violence. If anything, the killings on display in these games are decidedly inglorious. Whereas most titles (the above mentioned Halo, for example) gloss over the killings, never questioning the players motives and thus implicitly condoning them as moral/heroic/entertaining, the Manhunt games are all about exposing the senseless and horrifying nature of killing, as well as the odd preoccupation we as gamers (and as film goers, couch potatoes, and internet surfers for that matter) have with simulated killing. That some people enjoy them purely on a superficial, sadistic level is more evidence of this worrying trend.

That you jumped to such conclusions leads me to believe that you've never actually played either game. (In the case of Manhunt 2, you'd be forgiven as it is an awful, awful game--review be damned--and a disgrace to the original) That however doesn't excuse you from misrepresenting its themes and implying that reviewers should judge it based on your agenda instead of its merit as a game.

I do agree with you that violence is not endemic to the human condition, though.

An interesting point

I still believe in what I wrote, but I don't entirely disagree with you.
On a separate note, I did play the original Manhunt, but I have not played the sequel for the aforementioned reasons. I truly think that whatever social merit might be attributed to either title is completely swallowed up by the game design, which implicitly condones and exploits the sadism I decried.
Again, I would never advocate that a game be banned or censored. But I do think we gamers need to "police" ourselves, and be mindful about how games reflect on the community. I'm not saying games need to be purged of violent content, only that explicit, realistic depictions of violence be directed towards some meaningful end, and not be promoted as an enticement in and of itself. Game designers also need to make sure that their games are thematically coherent, and that the mechanics do not implicitly condone what the game is ostensibly criticizing.

I understand

While I don't agree completely, you do make several good points. I agree that publishers should not promote the violent content of their games as the main selling point, but I would argue that is more of an advertising issue than a design one. I just happen to believe that the violence in Manhunt is meaningful and that conscious self-regulation amongst consumers based on societal mores and not personal preference is itself a soft form of censorship.

aesquire

Please don't quote logical fallocies to me as I'm well aware of them, I was not getting into a formal debate with you and I have no interest in that. It wasn't a straw man argument either I was simply extrapolating an implication based on your argument I apologise if that's not what you meant.
You may enjoy gaming as a mental stimulant solving problems and such but how can you deny that primal enjoyment of blowing someones head off, and while we're quoting straw man I never said that I was a victim of violence because it's inherent to the human condition, I said it's part of us, we may not tap into it all of the time but it's there whether you like it or not. I do believe that Halo as sloppily reduced as it may seem is about killing if it helps you sleep at night to say that it's the tactical aspect that you enjoy that's fine then you're just lying to yourself. You can call it tactical if you want but in the end you're still putting a bullet in some one's head be it alien or human you're killing, and you do it for entertainment.

Finally I myself am an artist and art envokes an emotional response at least the good stuff does, and Manhunt even did that for you, so maybe it isn't bad art after all. Morality can be constricting at times especially when it's not called for and in the case of a b grade game that barely anyone played I really don't think it's neccessary. I don't know you at all but I'm willing to assume that you piss people off with your self righteous opinions and you wanna know why? Because people don't like to be told what they can and can't do, and as long as it doesn't harm anyone I agree. No one needs people like you judging them for what they play or why. Dude seriously leave it alone I don't want a formal debate and quite frankly I don't like you and I only debate people I like. Let's just agree to disagree you were short sighted I wasn't. If you want a debate we can set one up live and you bring your briefcase and I'll bring my ipod cause I probably couldn't stand hearing you talk.

Remember your morals aren't mine and yet I'm a descent person that works hard and is generally good to people, so maybe you should think before you try and correct every one elses moral standing.

I'm done with this if there's anything I can't stand it's an online debate, I just wanted to offer up an alternate opinion, but apparently my opinion is not the right one.

Dude,

Quote:

You may enjoy gaming as a mental stimulant solving problems and such but how can you deny that primal enjoyment of blowing someones head off, and while we're quoting straw man I never said that I was a victim of violence because it's inherent to the human condition, I said it's part of us, we may not tap into it all of the time but it's there whether you like it or not. I do believe that Halo as sloppily reduced as it may seem is about killing if it helps you sleep at night to say that it's the tactical aspect that you enjoy that's fine then you're just lying to yourself. You can call it tactical if you want but in the end you're still putting a bullet in some one's head be it alien or human you're killing, and you do it for entertainment.

I believe I've adequately explained what I think to be the distinction between Halo and Manhunt in my previous post. You are welcome to disagree, but I would thank you not to assume my opinion to stem from mental delusion. I have at least attempted to support my thesis through rational argument. Instead of repeating the same unsupported statements you made previously, maybe you could do the same.

Quote:

Finally I myself am an artist and art envokes an emotional response at least the good stuff does, and Manhunt even did that for you, so maybe it isn't bad art after all.

Again, try supporting this assertion through argument. You might actually change my mind.(Oh, and believe it or not, calling yourself an artist is not an argument.)

Quote:

Morality can be constricting at times especially when it's not called for and in the case of a b grade game that barely anyone played I really don't think it's neccessary.

Constricting in what way? What is it that morality and ethics restrains you from doing? Why should moral reasoning be sequestered to certain mediums or areas of life? Has it occurred to you that morality is not some monolithic doctrine of behavior? That there are many schools of ethics? Have you even begun to ask yourself these questions?

Quote:

I don't know you at all but I'm willing to assume that you piss people off with your self righteous opinions and you wanna know why? Because people don't like to be told what they can and can't do, and as long as it doesn't harm anyone I agree. No one needs people like you judging them for what they play or why.

You're right: you don't know me. If you did know me, or possessed basic reading compehension skills, you would know that I am not given to telling people how they should live their lives. I don't recall condemning, at any point, the players of Manhunt, or telling them that they should not play the game. My criticism was aimed squarely at Manhunt's developer and publisher.
I reserve the right to criticize games and the people who make them. I also reserve the right to judge individuals where appropriate. You may not agree with that judgment, and it may not carry any authoritative weight, but I will continue to pass judgment on whomever I please.

Quote:

Dude seriously leave it alone I don't want a formal debate and quite frankly I don't like you and I only debate people I like.

So let me get this straight: you don't like people who disagree with you, but you only debate people who you like. A "debate" with people you agree with isn't a debate: it's a circle jerk.

Quote:

Let's just agree to disagree you were short sighted I wasn't.

I'm not convinced you know what "agree to disagree" means. What I know it to mean is that two people consent to mutual acknowledgment and respect of each other's divergent opinions, without conceding their respective position. As you have accorded no respect to my opinion, and freely indulged in baseless speculation about me and my views, I must decline your offer.

Quote:

If you want a debate we can set one up live and you bring your briefcase and I'll bring my ipod cause I probably couldn't stand hearing you talk.

Maybe you'd be a better debator if you listened to your opponent.

Quote:

Remember your morals aren't mine and yet I'm a descent[sic] person that works hard and is generally good to people, so maybe you should think before you try and correct every one elses moral standing.

You haven't articulated a coherent moral stance for my to criticize. And as I've stated previously, I reserve the right to judge you and your moral standing. However, In this regard, I will pay you a favor you've denied me by refraining from passing judgment on that which I am woefully ignorant.

Quote:

I'm done with this if there's anything I can't stand it's an online debate, I just wanted to offer up an alternate opinion, but apparently my opinion is not the right one.

I have kept myself receptive to contrary opinions throughout this exchange. I can hardly be blamed for your unwillingness or inability to confront my arguments head on. There is no such thing as a "correct" opinion; but there is such a thing as a poorly supported one.
You have not supported your opinions--or even engaged the arguments I've proferred on behalf of my own. What you have done is stated conclusions; speculated about my personal qualities; and when backed into a rhetorial corner, signaled hostility to even the idea of discourse on the subject. To call what you've done "debating" is too high a compliment.

A retort to aesquire.

Dude I hope you've had a great time ludicrously tearing apart my posts bit by bit I think in the end I've won because I didn't put nearly as much time into this as you clearly have. The problem with a debate on morality is that I don't have to articulated a coherent moral stance for you to criticize, morals are a personal thing, they are the choices we make from day to day and don't ask me to elaborate because I won't. Even though I specifically said I don't want a formal debate you completely disregarded that and laid into me with some extremely hollow verbose posts that I'm still in complete disagreement with so we ended up no where, which is where most formal debates end up. I hope I've given you enough self gratification that you can go on in life with that extra skip in your step and a warm smile on your face, enjoy it while you can cause you know what this is the last post you'll get out of me. I'm sure you'll have a great time going through this post and tearing it apart piece by peace and carefully planning each rebut and in the end I guess this is where we differ, I was flying by the seat of my pants and you were carefully wording each phrase so as not to make any "logical fallacies" you might say that's my down fall, but I'd disagree and no I wont elaborate. Calling me sic as you so ignorantly misspelled was a low blow also considering you don't know me. My two posts are not nearly enough to determine whether or not I'm sick jack ass. My opinion is that we are evolutionarily prone to enjoy violence on some primal level, no I don't have solid proof that's just an opinion of mine, if you don't disagree with me then fine, there are just as many people that agree with me that don't and I respect that. Also the basic reading comprehension skills comment was a low blow, now you're insinuating I'm an idiot, so screw you. I'm pulling out of this debate as clearly you where on the high school debate team as the master debater, HA!

Bravo, dude

So you win by not trying? Gotcha.

Also:
sic/ –adverb Latin.
so; thus: usually written parenthetically to denote that a word, phrase, passage, etc., that may appear strange or incorrect has been written intentionally or has been quoted verbatim: He signed his name as e. e. cummings (sic).

lighten up

youre just gay. why split hairs over a video game. Im not going to sit here and argue with some over opinionated selfrightous asshole. But lighten the fuck up. I enjoy all games. puzzles, strategy, rpg,and even first person shooters. Its just in fun and entertainment. Im not violent and never have been. Im very light hearted and have tons of friends. Im social and have my ideals in line. It is he who buys the game and takes it serious that you should worry about. not me a normal guy who has fun playing games now and then. just make word to the parents about the game and place an age restriction on it as you would alcohol, ciggaretes, and fire arms. once we all get to an certain age we have rights and choices. just lighten up and let the parents worry about what their child should and shouldnt play not what someone old enough to make a proper decision do.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Code of Conduct

Comments are subject to approval/deletion based on the following criteria:
1) Treat all users with respect.
2) Post with an open-mind.
3) Do not insult and/or harass users.
4) Do not incite flame wars.
5) Do not troll and/or feed the trolls.
6) No excessive whining and/or complaining.

Please report any offensive posts here.

For more video game discussion with the our online community, become a member of our forum.

Our Game Review Philosophy and Ratings Explanations.

About Us | Privacy Policy | Review Game | Contact Us | Twitter | Facebook |  RSS
Copyright 1999–2010 GameCritics.com. All rights reserved.