But then there are people who do not believe that the game is real, at all, and upon seeing it do not in any way experience any internal upset or confusion or change as a result of the game. They are not at the effect of the game and they do not GIVE it the illusion of having power to determine their sanity. For these people, it would not matter how violent or disgusting or horrid a game would seem to be, it would not `cause` them to do anything.
I agree, for the most part. Games/movies/books/etc. generally aren't going to change you into a serial killer, for example. Only someone who is already mentally unbalanced would actually try to act out a violent game/movie/book in real life, and I agree that the government shouldn't ban games just because this "might" happen.
My only argument above was that the level of interactive graphic violence in Manhunt 2 is just "too much" to the point of being repulsive. Of course, this really isn't an argument anyway (it's an opinion), which is why I asked the question "why is this not repulsive to you" (which seemed to offend Noel Cower, unfortunately).
I'd explain it as being repulsive to me this way: "The idea of someone enjoying being brutally, tortuously violent in a video game is similarly repulsive to someone taking pleasure in watching small animals being tortured (whether or not they do the torturing themselves)."
If FlameDuck's fish-and-chips explanation is correct, then Manhunt 2 wouldn't really be "fun" without the brutal killing part. Basically the dislike for Manhunt 2 is because a player who enjoys the game is either:
A. Deriving great pleasure from the idea of inflicting of great pain without actually doing it.
B. Completely ignoring the brutal part of it or viewing it with indifference.
C. Something I haven't thought of (remember my original question is still open if you think I'm way off on A and B)