The Scratchpad

The following is an open letter, replying to the "VS Mode" discussion about Manhunt 2 between Newsweek's N'Gai Croal and MTV's Stephen Totillo which is hosted here and here.

N’Gai & Stephen,

Not only has the Manhunt 2 situation been very interesting, but both of you have provided a joint effort that is thought-provoking and high quality. I have enjoyed reading it very much. But there are a few points that I feel need covered still:

Relativity: Across almost all dialogue on this subject, Eli Roth’s Hotel 1 & 2 are used as examples of movies with similar graphically violent content. They received an R-rating from the MPAA, while Manhunt 2 didn’t receive the somewhat equivalent M-rating from the ESRB. But does Hostel’s rating invalidate the rating of Manhunt 2? Would the ESRB have given Hostel an R-rating? Should the MPAA have given a more strict rating?

Focus: N’Gai references Silence of the Lambs as one of the more violent movies that he’s come to appreciate. Although he’s correct in referencing Silence as containing violence, it also serves as an example of what’s may be problematic with Manhunt 2’s violence. Recall the scene where Lecter assaults his prison guard. It’s shot focusing on Lecter, his rage at his imprisonment. It does not care about the guard or the violence being done to him. It’s secondary, not the point of the scene. But what do we get in “Hannibal”, the poorly rated sequel to Silence of the Lambs? Hey kids, it swingin’ entrails! The mistaken change of focus underlines how gore wasn’t the thing that made the first movie compelling. It was compelling because of the insight into these people and what drove them to kill. It did not focus on the kill.

In Grand Theft Auto, we mowed down millions of schmucks beneath our grills, rejoicing not in the killing but in being above the law and flaunting it, not to mention the skill involved in staying one step ahead of the authorities. We didn’t focus on the kill. Manhunt’s primary game mechanic doesn’t just focus on the kill, but on the visceral killing itself. It pushes buttons that Mortal Kombat’s fatalities dance around through extreme hyperbole. We shouldn’t be distracted by the fact that the Manhunt series contain realistic brutality and gore, because simply containing the violence isn’t what disturbs middle America. The easy-to-miss point is that we are wired to be disturbed on a fundamental level by how the Manhunt series focus on the realistic brutality and gore and that it does so without flinching or regret. Whether it inflames our lizard forebrain or our diluted Puritan culture, there’s something there that pokes you with the pointy stick.

Responsibility: Another key point in the Manhunt 2 discussion is plot-related, and possibly hampered by non-disclosure agreements, but it rises to the fore when discussing the difference between the first Manhunt and the second. In the first Manhunt, your character was kidnapped straight out of his execution, and then was forced to kill. No information was given on the background, so we didn’t know how to feel about our avatar, James Earl Cash. He was a relatively blank slate, forced to kill by the Director, a character that constantly speaks into your character’s ear via headset. This established a simple in-game structure for the player to work within. These visceral acts of murder are being done as self-preservation in a situation where the antagonist has placed the player character. Those that are killed by the player are instruments of the antagonist, and therefore the player can cathartically pass all responsibility on to the antagonist. The murder simulator comes complete with a morality escape clause.

***Speculation may contain spoilers**


As for Manhunt 2? Not so much. Your protagonist is crazy. Period. Several references are made in previews as to how power-ups and weapons dance and skitter as if alive, in order to underline how you are viewing the world through the dark glass of a broken mind. This renders all events suspicious to some extent. How loony is our loon? Are we dealing with an unreliable narrator? I have read a few previews of the game, and apparently our hero, Daniel Lamb is assisted by another inmate, Leo Kasper, who may go so far as to assume duties of that voice in your ear. He helps the protagonist embark on a journey of self-discovery, investigating what occurred during the lost years. But the protagonist is crazy! Could Leo be just another Tyler Durden? Or even if he’s real, what else is wrong? Maybe the player character is a failed sleeper agent, and his whole history is an implant. You don’t know.

Worst of all, maybe there is absolutely no justification for the murders you commit in the course of the game. Maybe the player is ultimately guilty for each act of electronic murder. Maybe it turns out that the only way to do the right thing is to lose. Maybe it’s better off if you just don’t play.

This could put the violence in the unremitting light that approval boards refuse to accept.

***End speculative spoilers***

As for my opinion of all this? Speaking candidly I’d say that the ESRB made an excellent political decision, else they would have chanced invalidating their ratings system in the eyes of those that would replace it. Furthermore, I enjoy the “conspiracy” angle on Rockstar intentionally doing this for free press. They are too much veterans at pushing boundaries to have not been aware of their content level. Furthermore there are way too many people involved in its production, up through muddled Take 2, for no one to have called it on the floor for being a dangerous investment. I refuse to believe this to be the work of a single charismatic iconoclastic individual or organization. First and foremost, ya gotta get paid!