and yet they passed manhunt 1.

So, the UK is a free country that's not really free, isn't it?

Have they even played the game?

Yes, we have Freedom of Speech in this country, please, get over yourselves.

They passed Manhunt 1 with a huge rating on it saying "We're not joking. This isn't for kids. Even slightly. No, really." but Manhunt 1 wasn't on the Wii. You couldn't use the nunchuck controller to simulate piano wire around someones neck. You couldn't use the wiimote to stab.

Manhunt 2 is an entirely different kettle of fish compared to Manhunt 1. A lot of the stuff going on in Manhunt 2 is psychological horror as opposed to the gorefest of Manhunt 1.

Also wasn't manhunt 1 shit?

As for the obvious 'YET THEY LET SAW AND HOSTEL THROUGH' argument, that doesn't really work as an argument in this case. One is created to scare you, the other is participation for fun. Sure, you're not actually killing anyone, but the game has no other purpose than to serve gratification for doing so in a virtual context.

If it's not banned anywhere else in Europe or America it won't be that hard to get a hold of if you really REALLY need to get your fix of ripping a mans balls off with your bare hands.

Has anyone considered the fact that this game really might be too sick and immoral, and that the BBFC are actually just doing their job, and doing it well. Considering this is the first game they have banned in 10 years, maybe the game really is worthy of being banned.

Well, in Britain at least, Saw and Hostel both had cuts made to them, hence why the DVD releases have Uncut versions. So Saw and Hostel didn't get a free pass.

" Have they even played the game?" - uh, no, they haven't. Far as I know, they don't play any games they review, they just watch videos provided by the publisher. In this case, they watched playthroughs of the whole thing, and all the cinematics, according to their ruling:

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/5F0B91FB15D5B748802572FF0...

Both games and films can get a straight red '18' here.

I can understand that Saw and Hostel are created for scares, but surely Hostel also depicts torture and killing for thrills? I also feel that the ever more elaborate traps in the Saw films are there to satisfy the needs of an audience who came to see lots of pain. Perhaps other people see the films differently, but I have always seen Manhunt as very similar to Saw.
In any case, could you not also argue that Manhunt 2 is meant to be dark and scary instead of fun? Of course, I haven't played it so I can't speak with great authority about the game, but when they appeal, I reckon that's one line of argument they could try.

Saw and Hostel don't last 15 hours and make you think 'If I kill this guy and then that guy quickly then I can take out that guard over there without anyone seeing... Just gotta get the timing right'.

The only thing I thought during Saw was 'Jesus. I could be at home right now feeling my ass grow.'

Oh and one more thing. BBFC says that the game publisher can still call for an appeal, which means they've given Rockstar a chance to explain themselves. So it's not TOTAL censorship.

How long 'til Keith Vaz pipes up about this one, then? And I guarantee we'll see JBT talking about Manhunt 2 as "banned in the UK" in the very near future.

I'm completely against the BBFC having the power to effectively censor content in this way. I'm a goddamn adult - what I play, watch or buy is nobody's business but my own, so long as nobody else is affected.

But that's just it. I spent a year working in GAME and during that year I realised I was the only person that bothered to check the ages of kids (ID please) and warn parents. Parents can only do so much against the vast marketing machines that Sony can wheel out. And before everyone leaps all over me for blaming the retailer I blame the parents to.

I'm an equal opportunity responsibility shirker.

See, I don't get this action. They're refusing the rate it, which means it won't be sold, correct?

In that case, what they're really saying is that the rating system is flawed. Every single piece of work should receive a rating, even if that rating is "OMG Don't Buy This, it's NASTY!" Have a rating that store refuse to sell. SuperMEGAadult or whatever. But by refusing to rate it, you're saying that your system is incapable of dealing with the material.

Darrel:

Actually importing is not an option. A game/film or other media that is rejected by the BBFC cannot be imported. If you were to travel overseas and bring it back with you and claim it was for personal use only, you are not commiting any crime nor customs offense, but to import it with the view to sell it to someone else, or if you were to buy it and someone send it to you, that would be illegal. I'm unsure on what the penalty for this would be or who would be liable (the person receiving or sending it) but the BBFC makes it clear that importing for someone else is not an option.

That ofcourse doesn't stop you from trying or risking it, but you have been warned.


As for the decision itself... Well to be honest I thought the first game was a complete pile of **** and frankly was only there to stir up controversy. The sequel has done the same again, except this time they took it too far. I'm not about to slag off the BBFC as frankly they are one of the better ratings boards out there, so maybe rather than just defending the game because we feel were under threat as a group, we might need to accept that this one is a bad egg?

Yeah I don't like over the top censorship either for the record, but I am shocked that Rockstar didn't have someone look over the game before it was submitted to see if it would pass or not...

Luscan Says:
So you’d be okay with a game that has a child being molested by an adult (lets say you play the adult) where you have to move the right stick to assault the child? I mean, it’s all about the character of the adult and what drives him to do it… but he’s still raping children.

If you believe that argument, you must also be of the position that hacking people up in Fable is just as bad as doing it in real life.

I wouldn't be "okay" with that game, but so long as there wasn't any real harm to real people involved at any point of the game's production I don't see why it should be banned.

@gibbage

you read waaaay too much into my 1 line of text. i didnt imply they were exactly the same but manhunt 1 featured "sustained and cumulative casual sadism" and im just wondering what manhunt 2 has that crosses the line.

Ive sent a email to the bbfc with a couple of polite questions about their descision and included was the whole wii angle (yes i know its on ps2 aswell). Im not positive i'll get a responce

This descision could be over the media shitstorm created by the first game who knows.

Luscan Says:
Are children harmed when paedophiles just look at photos of them? I mean, what about drawings of children? What about the stuff that’s specifically banned on 4chan.org? You can get away with most anything on there but not Japanese illustrations of children being violated.

As I've said elsewhere (as you well know, Luscan, since you and Ninchilla are just recycling each other's arguments) viewing those images willfully is complicity in the abuse that occurred when the photo was taken.

Secondly, the reason that stuff is banned on 4chan is because it's illegal, not because of any moral outrage on the part of /b/tards. I don't agree that cartoon drawings should be illegal, since there's almost certainly no way children were really abused during their creation. I don't agree with them, but I don't see any compelling reason why they should be banned - "I'm offended" just doesn't stand up, for me.

I don't care how violent a game is; censorship of any degree should be a crime against human rights.

I love internet arguments

"YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME THEREFORE YOU ARE ATHE ENEMY WAAAAAAAH"

My stance? Completely neutral. Censorship is bad at times, but then again who's to say Rockstar is completely innocent? These are the same bastards that put the blame of Hot Coffee on a bunch of modders who just unlocked what was already there and never apologised for it.

Also, Manhunt sucks and so will this game. Move on with your life.

Thank God for the First Amendment in the U.S.A and thank God the OFRB in Ontario can't ban anything anymore. They used to be able to but a court ruled that this was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a few years back.

The biggest question I have is, is it all versions, or just the Wii version

@Chuma

No, the only way that should be brought to attention is if they used real animals or minors in the involvement of the game, such as Live-Action FMVs or sounds or something. Fiction is fiction.

It's a double standard and I don't like it. I think the government is putting special restrictions on this simply because it is a game. It seems like games are seen to some as a negative influence on society, and it isn't fair.

Sad, they actually think they are going to stop people from having it.
people who truly want to game are still going to go it.

Flawed? If it's so disturbing, don't watch or play it. You don't need to restrict everyone else from playing it just because you feel offended. Again, if it is real, it already violates other laws and can be dealt with, with existing laws. This "indistinguishabilty" could be rectified by, you know, asking the development team, looking for models or renders and such.

Just wanted to mention...

You know how people always complain about censorship? Funny thing is, there is no real censorship going on in gaming except this. See, this is a real example of censorship. Censorship requires a government to take freedom away from creators and consumers.

FWIW I think the game and concept are vile, but lots of things aimed at adults are vile. For perspective, I'm a huge fan of God of War, GTA, and other violent games aimed at adults. Of course kids shouldn't play them.

But censorship is always and clearly wrong.

Jakethe8lf:

Are you deliberately missing the point here? There are standards of decency in all areas of your life. If you don't like that, you can go to some far remote island somewhere. When you live in a country of 65 million, there has to be some level of risk assessment, decency, order and legality. Where you set the line is how liberal or conservative you are as a nation. Some nations ban alcohol, some allow pot, some refuse to allow women to show flesh in public.

The UK is pretty decent where it sets its lines, and whilst I disagree with some of its laws and policies, I don't disagree with censorship as a concept. What I will discuss with people is the degree to which the line is set. If you don't think there should be a line at all, frankly I think YOU are the reason we need censorship...

@Chuma

Would you ban Nabokov's Lolita too? What about Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus? What about the Anarchist's Cookbook? Would you ban the Communist Manifesto, like McCarthy? Do you agree with those who held book burnings for The Da Vinci Code?

I bet if Chuma read A Modest Proposal, he'd ban that too.

If they put a big sticker on the first saying "seriously, not for children," why not do the same for this, but put it behind the counter?

Stinking Kevin:

My own personal beliefs don't come into it. I am making the point that in any given nation there is a degree of conformity to a set of standards that people live by.

If certain images are so profoundly disgusting, explicit, depraved or horrific that even the most liberal person would be disturbed by them then something needs to be done. Censorship happens all the time in games, but it is not often that it is rejected out of hand. I personally think there was something about the nature of the game that made the BBFC think it was unsafe to release it to the masses.

I wish I could give you evidence as to why this might not be a bad decision, but alas I haven;t seen what they have seen. I just disagree with those that say censorship should *never* happen. In this PARTICULAR case I may get to see the content and say "you know what, I don't think it should have been banned" but that doesn't mean I disagree with it in principle.

I also think that a lot of you are being very two-faced; I would suggest that if this had been a film and not a game, noone here would have given a damn.

janwanker:

An appropriate name.

Anarchist’s Cookbook IS banned for the record, and given that its only purpose is to explain how to make a variety of lethal weapons, I don't see why it shouldn't be. Sure I love watching explosions and I'm fascinated by the way they are made, but given that as a result of this book a number of crimes were committed, I think that justifies "risk" and censorship.

As for your other examples, I will just roll my eyes at you. If you are going to troll, try harder.

(oh and burning the Da Vinci code is probably a good idea - as Stephen Fry called it "total loose stool water; arse gravy of the worst kind". Apart from the complete lies and falacy, it is just a really really terrible book - but no I wouldn't ban it)

What gives them the right to decide that it is too horrible to be released to the public.

I believe that a game like Manhunt 2 should not be banned because we
would not be living in a free society that the amendment rights say.
Basically the amendment rights are not true if they cant simply let us play
a video game in our own home. And from what I have experienced
playing a violent video game makes me feel alot better when I am mad
at some idiot. I think that this new wii remote will be even better because
a person that is mad can actually feel alot better acting like they are killing
with the movements of the wii controller rather than just simply push a
button. I believe that from what I proved the people that find fault with
Manhunt 2 should stop their complaining.

The BBFC is, now a days, a very reasonable organisation, they never want anything to be banned and will do their best to work around it. If they think this game can not be salvaged, that has exteremely curious as to what the game is like.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the BBFC, if they've taken this action there must be a really good reason for it.

With the exception of actual real harm being done (such as child porn, snuff films, ect.) censorship of all forms is wrong. Dead Wrong. Nothing and i mean nothing should be banned, censored, regulated or restricted by the government just because it is found to be offensive.
If it can be found that the Speech in question is actually harmful to those who play, read, watch or listen to it then the government might have a reason for banning or restricting it. But the evidence linking violent media with actual harmful effects whether it be for children or everyone is extremely weak and inconsistant, incredibly flawed and of course biased.

If a person finds something offensive, they can walk away or stop watching/listening/playing/reading it.

If a parent finds something offensive or unsuitable for their children (such as a violent video game, Harry Potter books or hell even the Holy Bible), it is their sole responsibility to make sure their kids aren't exposed to it. Not the Nanny State.

Can someone PLEASE tell me where to get this Gibbage game!!!????
Has it been banned by THE GOVERNMENT for featuring rude words like 'bottom' and 'poo'????!!!!
We are living in a nanny state think of the children it's all them foreigns fault.

@Chuma

No, you're wrong, The Anarchist's Cookbook ISN'T banned, yet. According to the website, it's being challenged in the States. It's availible on Amazon...

Way to hurt my feelings, jerk. Troll indeed. You spelt my name wrong, btw.

You missed my point. History is filled with people like you, those who claim that in the name of decency that certain things should be censored. Sure, it seems ridiculous now to talk about banning the Communist Manifesto, or Lolita, or a work of Shakespeare, but in their time, it was people like you, who called for their censoring on the basis of decency. Decency is overrated.

Decency is

...the means through which the mob subdues the individual.

PS

The scary thing is that in their time, the people who screamed INDECENCY always made some kind of sense.

jonwanker:

"No, you’re wrong, The Anarchist’s Cookbook ISN’T banned, yet. According to the website, it’s being challenged in the States. It’s availible on Amazon…"

Except that we are talking about the UK...

@Chuma

Sorry, I guess I messed up there. My bad, yes you are right. It is banned in the UK.

Way to not respond to anything else I wrote.

@Chuma

I didn't and don't mean bad by you, but perhaps arguing me is beyond you. I border somewhere between libertarian and anarchist (basically do whatever you want without directly hurting or endangering others). Speaking of which, banning the Anarchist Cookbook doesn't mean you can't find other ways to create mischief. Example: The 4400 taught me you can make plastique from boiled down bleach or such. Hell, I think Fight Club included (humorously false) ingredients for napalm.

You shouldn't be subjected to "harmful" material as a child if your parents did their job. True, you cannot be around children 100% of the time, but you should keep a good degree of awareness where your child is, what they're going to do and any potential sources of the material. Once you reach the age of consent, I'm pretty sure you'll have a decent judgement on what is or may be "harmful".

To counter your film point: I hate censorship and editing and recuts of any kind. Mainly because I'm a Rob Zombie fan, but who knows. People's visions and ideas shouldn't be tampering with when relating to fictional, avoidable products.

Authority shouldn't be your common sense for you (or your kiddies).

@ Chuma

I still have a problem with the ban. People have to spend good money to purchase it. They are not being force fed this game or any movie. It could be a constant gore-fest that wouldn't change the personal responsibility or the individual who bought the game. I'm of the opinion that if a game affects a person so much that they go and hurt or kill others, they were already disturbed. I've pointed out the Son of Sam as the perfect example of how anything can set some people off before, and I do so now again.

There have been tons of films that have been banned or edited? What do you mean by edited? The recent Fantastic Four movie was prepared in a way to get a PG rating (the original got a PG-13) because the company wanted it to be more family friendly. The movie made roughly 2 million more than the original in opening weekend and a spokesman had the nerve to say it was a success. Bull. That was barely and increase. And since when has PG-13 been such a bad rating? I can barely tell the difference between PG and PG-13 movies.

Just because something has happened before doesn't make it right. Like I said, I never like censorship. I laugh at CDs that don't have a "Explicit Content" warning label. If some bureaucrat decided to take out all references to Naruto's Sexy Jutsu (or Ninja Centerfold technique) I'd cry foul.

Um, you have more games then I've had breakfasts? Hate to break it to you, but that's not saying much. You could have 8 games and you'd probably beat my breakfast count. Unless you count eating at Waffle House at 1 am with friends....

Right, first up for everyone who has mentioned the passing of the original Manhunt, the quote on GP is cut somewhat short in the middle, and missing is a section detailing why this was not accepted when Manhunt was.

Here it is:
"Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game’s unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game. That work was classified ‘18’ in 2003, before the BBFC’s recent games research had been undertaken, but was already at the very top end of what the Board judged to be acceptable at that category.”

So the BBFC justify it based on the different narrative context in which Manhunt 2 occurs, which they presumably consider to be more morally reprehensible than the forced killings of Manhunt. We aren't in a position to comment on this, since they played it and we didn't (yes, they did play it, that's how the BBFC works).

Next up, something to consider is that due to the wrongful but nonetheless prominent association of Manhunt with the murder of 14 year-old Stefan Pakeerah in the minds of the general British population means that the game would probably seldom be stocked at major retailers anyway. That's an effective ban. We can also hazard a guess that this perception of the Manhunt brand had some sway over the BBFC's decision. But also we must remember that due to Manhunt's reputation it is unlikely that this will set a precedent - it is Manhunt that is called into question because of its tarnished name, rather than videogames in general.

Personally, I'm unhappy that the BBFC refused the game classification, but I don't see it as a "Bad Sign" of things to come, and because of this I'm not going to get up in arms about it.

Not that you necessarily accused me of it, but I don't believe I am being two-faced at all. I will admit to being American, however. In this regard, I have been an active opponent of government censorship of all kinds of media, including periodicals, recorded music, films, and games, over the last 20 years.

You might blame it on my being an American, but I believe that any government-enforced censorship of ideas is always wrong. "Any given nation" may have its conformity to a set of standards, but you'd be wrong to assume the government of my nation has any place trying to enforce those standards through direct legislation.

I don't need evidence of what was censored in this game to know that censorship is wrong. Instead of saying, "I'm not bothered by this content but I support censorship," I feel that I have to support the protected distribution of content that does bother me, because I believe government censorship itself to be greater danger than any given narrative.

Maybe that's where the disconnect -- your perception of two-faced-ness -- is coming from. Perhaps the American concept of "freedom of expression" protections seem as backwards and foreign to you as the BBFC's legally enforceable judgments of a fictional narrative posing "unjustifiable risks to…adults" seems to us?

I'm generally against censorship. I also work in the games industry on adult only content. But I cant help remember the first time I played Postal 2, I just thought "This is utter vile, and I'm ashamed this stuff exists in the games industry."

I think it's good for the industry as a whole if there are certain punishments for really stepping over the line - like removed sales markets.
Note, I'm also happy that Raplay (Japanese game where one of the aims is to sexually abuse a child) will never come out over here.

I guess it is a really difficult line to walk, not liking all censorship but being for some, but it's an interesting personal moral issue. I dont have a problem with people on either side of the extremes, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

...Doesn't the BBFC have an 18+ and R18+ rating last time I checked?

Or are those the equivalent of the ESRB's AO rating here in the United States?

So when we do we start banning cops and robbers?.

Oh I definitely get where you're coming from Michael, I've read 1984, I am really worried about the state of China right now. But I'm not convinced America is a completely 'free' state right now.
Can children walk into a store and buy porn and alcohol? Can an adult buy a rocket launcher - even if it's not intended for human harm?

There was a really good interview on Game Theory podcast a few weeks back where a psychologist was talking about the idea of entertainment harming individuals. He was saying the extremes of the media saying "violent games cause kids to kill" and the opposite from gamers "games have no affect" are both wrong... viewing violent images has long been found to desensitise the viewer and in some cases increase violent behaviour... however only in really small amounts. Also that doing violent actions (in video games or punching a bag) don't actually relieave violent moods. I'm not sure how right the guy was, but it's definitely a good interview to listen to.

Stinking Kevin:

Gibbage has beaten me to the punch in pointing out that the BBFC is not government run; it is independant.

And I am not about to castigate you for being American. We have different views on different subjects and there are some areas of your constitution and acts that I find disturbing also. I guess part of it is cultural, and part of it is just us differing as people.

I still believe that if some type of media has the ability to offer a risk then it does not matter if it is a film or a computer game. I understand there is an ovious distinction between fiction and real life, but where there is the possibility the content is of a type where it can disturb or harm, then it needs to be censored.

I will however be swayed by one over-riding argument - If someone can offer proof beyond my own experience that images do NOT disturb or harm then I will be more neutral. What I can say is having seen a number of gorey films, a couple (literally 2) scenes genuinely were disturbing and saying "just don't watch it then" doesn't help after the event. Now as a kid a lot more things terrified me than they do now as an adult, so I make the distinction between age as well, but.. how can I put this... I this game is so depraved that it can harm an adult, it needs someone to do something.

I'm afraid I lost my idealist viewpoint on censorship and other issues some time ago. I'm not in favour of having my civil liberties eroded, nor do I believe everything I read or watch on the news and I certainly don't believe everything my government tells me. I feel the need to point that out as people seem to think I am pro every saction a government gives in a "nanny state" style authority just because I side with the BBFC here.



Michael:

I'm glad to give a feeling of superiority to someone insignificant. I will consider this to be my good deed for the day. However your "amendment rights" don't mean shit in the UK, which is what this topic is about. Thanks for playing.

CHUMA

I am also talking about Europe by which Europe is suppose to be a so
called free country like America. I believe that any country that would ban
Manhunt 2 is not an actual free country by the law. The way you was
talking chuma, you was acting like it would be alright to ban Manhunt 2
anywhere just because of the brutal violence and the wii remote. You could not actually answer my questions about the rights of a free country
being taken away just over simply a video game and the fact that it is
better to take your violent urges out on a game especially now that it is
even better because an angry person will feel better about moving around
a wii remote. And by the way godmil it has been said many times by a
professional that doing something to pretend that the object is the bad
person to relieve stress reduces the urge to attack someone at the bad
moment.

1) Standards ARE set by society. If you look at history that has been the case since mankind began. Views on sex and violence are indeed fluid and change as you suggest, but trying to pin the blame on me for pointing it out isn't really fair or reasonable.

You say the Majority rule the Minority and that is bad, but here on this small community I am in the minority and look at you all trying to tell ME how to think! Not that I blame you per se, people are that way by design I feel, but I find it mildly amusing.

2) You cannot deny that controversial films have no caused problems. You may not remember the 80's and the term 'Video Nasty' which was used to portray ANY horror film, just on the back of a couple of more gorey ones, but I do. In time ofcourse things change and now the hollywood horror films probably surpass anything that was in those films. 28 Weeks Later has a scene with a helecoptor that is reminicent of Peter Jackson's Infamous BrainDead scene with the Lawnmower.

Games like this WILL affect the industry, whether it is right or wrong. That in itself is not a reason to avoid making them, but it should be accepted by people that it will do so.

3) The Child abuse angle is one I was trying to stay away from because frankly it is an extreme angle. I would prefer to stay looking at Manhunt 2. IF Manhunt 2 was a game that involved you sexually molesting children, I would not alone be backing the BBFC I would be congratulating them.

As for the actual game itself and it's extreme violence, lets think about it in comparison to a film or a book. Would a film that was just a collection of violent and gruesome bloody murders without any plot make it past the censors? Would it be free speech or an excuse for a sick mind? What about a book that just described the deaths of people without any surrounding moral or storyline?

Let's not beat about the bush, this is a game out to cause a stink. It succeeded. I never thought it would be effectively banned, but it has been. I must admit I am subsequently intrigued as to what it was like, and I am hoping it is worse than I think so as to justify the BBFC's position, but I do believe that powerful and graphic violence can have an effect on people, not the way JT believes, but if you are going for an all out mindfuck then the ratings board have a duty to do what they think is right.


Thankyou for your well though out reply.

Michael:

1) Europe is a continent not a country.
2) No country is Free. If you want to live in america feel free to do so, but your rights to a free health service will be exchanged for your rights to purchase Manhunt 2. Don't dare to imply the US is perfect.
3) I never once mentioned the input device nor the Wiimote in particular in any one of my replies. Don't suggest that I did.
4) There are no clear studies on the effects of interactive media. I have seen studis claiming they increase violence, and I have seen ones, taken seriously by the same BBFC that you are slagging off, that claim the interactivity allows people to disassociate themselves from it.

@Chuma

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe censorship on the sole basis of offensiveness is very, very wrong and until the government can prove with strong, consistant, conclusive evidence the violent media will in fact harm people who watch, play, read or listen to it in a significant manner, they should not have the power to ban or restrict it. You're not going to change anyone's mind here and we are not going to change yours. I believe your opinions are very wrong and even dangerous but i'm not going to attack you personally but rather voice my disapproval in a civil manner.

I’m afraid I lost my idealist viewpoint on censorship and other issues some time ago.

That is truely unfortunate in my opinion. I hope the same never happens to me.

I'm still really surprised this happaned. I haven't played the first game but I've heard it does have some artistic merit. Could this game be so utterly devoid of suitable content?

Rockstar have long had great publicity campains based on the content of their games (worked a treat for GTA1). It seems as people get more accepting the level you have to push becomes greater.... did they really take it way too far here?

still can't wait for the reviews.

Honestly I believe that it would even be alright to have it set were you can
post someones face on the characters that you go against in games like
Manhunt 2 along with using the new wii motion controller because that
would make an angry person feel more like they are getting back at the
person that they are against feeling wise. Us being able to play what ever
video game we want would make us feel like we live in such a free
country by which we are not committing any crime in the first place. If this
is the case then I would say WAY TO GO AMERICA, WE ARE THE FREE
SOCIETY THAT WE ARE CLAIMED TO BE.

Michael:

Yes mr troll. You and your free country with its free patriot act, free health service, free litigious society... I say it again, suggesting the US is great and free because you haven't yet banned a computer game really doesn't say much for you.

Manhunt 2 Told Us It Was Hardcore...

With the (still planned) upcoming release of Manhunt 2 for the Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation 2, and Sony PlayStation Portable just weeks away, the time has come for the outrage and the bannings over the content found within developer Rockstar's...

Why the suprise. Such announcements by the state in apartheid South Africa, nazi Germany, maoist and current day China, and Stalinist Russia were commonplace, and Blair has taken the police state in Britain far beyond what any of those monster-led nations ever dreamt of.

You will notice the BBFC has never banned 24 or Hostel. The significance? Well senior US military commanders have reported the terrifying fact that members of their forces use the torture depicted in these dramas as blueprints for their operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. On the other hand, only weeks ago, the BBFC published their findings about video games, showing that players DID NOT associate themselves with the actions of the characters they controlled, and that 'violent' computer games should have ratings set lower as a result.

This is Blair's Britain, however (and Brown is only going to make things vastly worse, while Blair, on the international stage, prepares for genocidal war against Iran), so the truth can be safely reported and then treated as if no-one noticed. Blair is preparing for a massive expansion of censorship of ADULTS, including the targetting of consenting scenes of sexual sado-masochism. Very soon, possessing such video imagery, or indeed games like Manhunt 2, will result in you being placed on the sexual offenses register.

Of course, government shills will quickly state that the BBFC is not an arm of the government (which is a complete nonsense), and that they have a duty to protect us from ourselves (the daily chant of chinese thugs, as they ban their people from seeing anything that would illustrate the atrocities of those currently in power). Remember, the man in charge of law in the UK is Blair's old flatmate, Goldsmith, and this monster created laws allowing British mercenaries to carry out any crime in Iraq without fear of punishment. YES, YOU CAN RAPE, TORTURE AND MURDER IN IRAQ, AS A MERCENARY OPERATING FROM THE UK, AND YOU HAVE BROKEN NO LAWS EITHER IN THE UK OR IRAQ. Don't believe me? Go google the facts- they were once again exposed in British newspapers a few weeks back. You see, Blair has no problem with you 'playing' Manhunt for real, so long as you butcher the 'right' targets.

In history, nations that allowed their citizens to carry out very real atrocities in the nations of others, had the most extreme censorship in their own land. In the nazi empire, for instance, the real horrors never happened in Berlin.

By having his people ban Manhunt 2, or even by having his people suggest that it is video game players responsible for atrocities in Iraq (as Fisk of the Independent has recently proposed), Blair seeks to create the circumstances that will allow the extermination of millions of Humans in Iran. Most of you will not understand the connection, even though you can easily read about the work of censors in China, the USSR, nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa etc.

What can you expect in the future? Well for video game players to be demonised even more. Also, for the glorification of those that torture or murder in the name of the West's military, religious and political ambitions to continue in dramas given a green-light by the BBFC.

And by the way, for all you government shills, here's a fact that you won't wish people to remember. Apartheid South Africa BANNED Salmon Rusdie's infamous work because it was 'harmful' to race-relations in the racist state. Can you believe that hypocrisy? It is the exact same hypocrisy of a government agency directly connected to the actions that have butchered many many hundreds of thousands in Blair's wars telling us that we need to be protected from ourselves when playing computer games.

The same agency that gave a child friendly rating to the depraved racist garbage 'Stealth', a film that had 'brave' US pilots blow up a sky scraper in the heart of one of the biggest muslim cities. Now there certainly can't be any 'harm' in suggesting to people that muslims should be treated like sub-humans, can there?

Ban a few high-profile games like Manhunt 2, and the BBFC is free to carry on promoting racist pro-war, pro-torture propaganda like Hostel, Stealth, 24, or any of the hundreds of other depraved productions flooding from the BBC, Murdoch or Hollywood.

Know this. If you are a UK citizen, you will very soon witness people being sent to prison for extended periods because of the video games they play. At the same time, you will see the UK extend the nations that UK mercenaries are allowed to defile without any legal penalty first to Iran, and shortly afterwards to many other muslim lands.

Those that refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The UK is now the world's greatest sociopath (even if, by and large, we leave the 'wet work' to our brutal dull-witted child, the United States of America). The purpose of censorship in sociopathic regimes is well understood, and is not up for debate.

Decent regimes do not censor adults (and it is not censorship to seek to eliminate media created by the direct abuse of unwilling humans like child exploitation material). Instead decent regimes desire a well educated adult population, skilled in the art of identifying and understanding the use and abuse of propaganda.

Disgusting regimes (like that of the UK) require that the adult population are absolutely susceptible to the government controlled weapon of propaganda. In these regimes, the power of the police and other government agencies will grow without limit. New laws will be created at ever accelerating rates. The prison population will be massively increased. Certain ethnic groups will be targetted for constant attack. War will be proposed as the only useful method for solving geo-political problems. The right to protest will be increasingly curtailed. Censorship will be a constant issue, and citizens increasingly punished for breaching censorship rules. The disgusting regime will constanly refer to itself (and its people) as victims, while butchering ever increasing numbers of Humans in other nations. The mainstream media within that regime will shamelessly promote the racist pro-war lies of the government, and then, even if later forced to admit those lies, will actively promote the new lies to enable the government's new wars.

Once again, the BBFC censoring Manhunt, and the BBFC promoting Blair's racist pro-war propaganda dramas are two sides of the same coin, just as with censorship in the time of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tojo etc.

Want an example of how this works? Recently saw the obscene racist garbage 'Shooter' (sadly directed by a black american). That film has the american 'hero' murder more black people (in their own african nation) than the KKK killed in any given year. In the comments in the IMDB, one poster wrote that the film made him want to join the US army. For the BBFC, another job well done!

@Everyone who has tried to compare this game to child pornography or general pornography.

You're trying to score brownie points in a completely unrelated discussion. Violence is not equal to obscenity, and can't fall under obscenity laws, at least not in the U.S.

Why? Though the critieria for obscenity in your country may be different, in the U.S. we have something known as the "Miller Test." For those of you who haven't heard of it, the Miller Test is a three-pronged legal standard for determining what constitutes obscenity. If a work meets all three steps, then-and only then-can it be considered obscenity. It follows as such:

1:Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

2:Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [2] specifically defined by applicable state law,

3:Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary and/or artistic, political, or scientific value.

Pay very close attention to the third condition, as it is the only one that does not differ from person to person of from region to region. If a work, despite showing sexual acts, has some redeeming value of any such kind as is listed in the Miller Test, it can't be considered obscenity. If the pedophie game described here DID exist and DID lack any (S)LAPS value, then it would be obscenity and it would be illegal, just as you say it should. However, if that game included powerful storytelling that gave a serious perspective of pedophila, then it can't be banned, because it has redeeming value. Under this approach, pornographic works have a standardized, rigid set of criteria under which they can legally exist, instead of the decision being left to a legislative body or ratings board that may only take the work's subject matter into account, and not its (S)LAPS value. This approach minimizes censorship of serious works while allowing the government to restrict non-serious and patently offensive ones.

Now, I've settled the matter of "Is banning pornography censorship?" As I've already pointed out, however, it is a completely different discussion than the one at hand. Violent works cannot be declared "obscence," nor can they be judged using the Miller Test. In fact, the attempt to do so is what partially led to the demise of many game censorship bills in this country. I could present an alaphabet's soup of judicial rulings on the matter, but suffice it to say that, unlike pornography, violence is largely dependent on context. If I told you about a game which involved biting into peoples' skulls and using your own dismembered body parts to cause grevious injury to others, might you believe that the game is "too violent?" Now, would you STILL believe that if I told you the game I'm refering to is Stubbs the Zombie: Rebel Without a Pulse? This is why it's so hard to determine Miller-esque criteria for violent works. For every time it's been tried, there has been too much disagreement on what works can be considered "excessively violent." Here is one example from this very site:http://gamepolitics.com/2007/06/14/eu-declines-to-legislate-against-video-game-violence/#comments

Considering all of this, what is the BBFC basing its ruling on? Certainly not legal precedent or legal criteria on "excessive violence." The only thing they can base their decision on, then, is their own personal standards. Does this board have the right the partially decide the moral tone for the entire U.K.?

The irony of this is, we here have been saying for years that violence does not equal porn, even back in the days when GP was an LJ site. However, when a game we don't approve of comes along, some of us choose to compare it to child pornography. You can't have it both ways, people.

@Chuma
I'm agreeing with you 100% there. Same with MountainMan.

The BBFC aren't the sort of organisation (anymore) to do something like this lighting.
And judging from this preview ( http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/792/792012p1.html ), it certainly seems like Manhunt2 is a whole different type of experience from anything thats come out before.

AdamM: "Why the suprise. Such announcements by the state in apartheid South Africa, nazi Germany... "

Ha! It's ok everyone, arguments finished, you can stop posting.
We just hit Godwins Law!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

I kind of expected this. They'll appeal and it will eventually get through in a mangled format, then some time far in the future it'll be released in full.

The worst thing about this story? The replies. The jury may still be out on whether Manhunt 2 can evoke violence, but it's pretty damn clear it can evoke xenophobia.

nrad99: "And the BBFC possesses an inherently superior sense of morality that makes banning a game from an entire country ok? There are many things that are perfectly legal which are considered by much of society to be harmful. Forget movies and media. How about cigarettes,"

Firstly cigarettes have nothing to do with the BBFC, dont mistake the BBFC for the government.
Secondly the moral opinion of the BBFC is based on the moral opinion of the UK citizerns at the time. They try really really hard to make sure they are on the same page as joe public. I really doubt this is the BBFC trying to be asses, rather I'd have to imagine Rockstar has done something spectacularly wrong with this title.

The funny thing is in lots of previous decisions, people would bring up the video nasties and claim the UK wasn't really free, only to be told the UK doesn't do that anymore. Well, here you are.

Everyone, please get back on the current subject... rather than debating the value of censorship of games in general, the debate on this site should refocus on what "Manhunt 2" specifically does to deserve its banning. I, for one, wonder what it contained to cause its banning. The BBFC

"The Godfather: Blackhand Edition" for the Wii also allows players to strangle people with the Wii remote. The Wii remote may also be used for punches, jabs, throwing, and even smashing peoples' faces into furniture or cold-bloodedly decapitating them after taunting them or first breaking their limbs with a baseball bat.The victims could be gangsters, innocents, or the police. Despite all these factors, the BBFC gave the game an "18+", but did not ban it.

I would genuinely like to know what "Manhunt 2" did that was worse. Further argument about the value of censorship, using "Manhunt 2" as a rallying point, is pointless without knowing WHY "Manhunt 2" should be a rallying point.

Now, David Cooke of the BBFC says this:

"There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game."

Now, for the record... I thought these actions in "Godfather" were refreshingly fun and cathartic, yet afterward I found myself wanting to do a few of those acts to people on the street like drug dealers and jaywalkers. Yes, jaywalkers. And also prostitutes, and those stupid women with the dogs that fit in their purses. And those damn teenagers in the park who are always spitting and littering while smoking and eating junk food. Even though I'm a pretty well-balanced individual (hehe, you only have my word on that, though), I still felt in my body the desire to emulate the actions I perform with the Wii remote, because killing while using my body (rather than just pressing buttons) feel REALLY good.

Now, if "Manhunt 2" does, as David Cooke of the BBFC says, "There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game," and if someone like me can get an adrenaline high --even a teeny bit-- from the violence level of "Godfather", and if "Manhunt 2"'s pace of close-up and personal violence is unrelenting ("Godfather"'s hand-to-hand combat was only a part of the gameplay)....... if both of those points are true, then I would truly worry about the psychological effects of such a game on less-stable people (at least with the Wii version) because of my personal experience of the excitement I feel whenever I smash a thug's head repeatedly, again and again and again, against a cash register in "Godfather", before picking him back up and throwing him through a window into the street below. The physical actions of doing these things are so much more fun and visceral than, say, pressing L2 and tapping the triangle button.

As being Part of US i would say thank god i live here.... where noone can do that without violating the Constitution... I would also like to point out that as i do live here i do not know what laws or rights govern your country therefor i cannot make a real decsion on weather this is Government Trying to wrangle votes or someone who actually thinks that this is what is best, Having said that i do belive they had their own reasons for banning it and i am sure that what they did was what they thought was in the best intrest of the country. They simply do not have the time to just Ban MANHUNT 2 on a whim.

"Banning" is an inaccurate term. The BBFC has rejected Manhunt 2 after it was submitted for classification. In other words, they are refusing to classify it.

This means that it will be legal to import Manhunt 2 for one's own personal use, provided the content does not break any laws. It will, however, be illegal to sell it in a shop to the general public.

Well I guess you brits are going to have smuggle it from Ireland or france. Oh well.

to all you censorship nuts, I have a quote for you.

"Censorship is like saying a man can't eat a steak because a baby can't chew it" - Mark Twain

What might be shocking and inacceptable to one might be perfectly Ok to someone else. You mention child molestation and act like that will be unacceptable to everyone on the planet, well I'd like to point you in the direction of NAMBLA. Also so what if they make a game where you molest children, where actual children molested to make the game? No. Does it effect real children or virtual ones? Virtual. You may want to wipe it off the face of the earth but to assume everyone agrees with you is stupid. You say you want to protect the decency of your state, one game will not cause the decency levels to drop. It is also incredibaly unlikely that Manhunt two will cause people to be more accepting of the type of sick kiillings you can do in the game, nor will it suddenly cause an increase in violence.

The bbfc assuming that the general public can't handle is being a police state. Think about it, they say that the public can't handle it which is just what they assume. So let's see the government deciding what the entire population of the U.kK can and can't handle, that doesn't sound a bit totalitarian to me at all (sarcasm). They may have their motivation and they may have good intentions but that doesn't instantly make it right.

This is bad. BBFC banning games, The CofE getting public and political support for doing similar... Another reason to move to America to work in the game biz.

Anyway this is another time the BBFC has flip-flopped. You can have Hostel. You can have Casino Royale get away with a 12a with a scene of torture. You can lie about being behind the games industry. You can get away with anything there. It's about time the BBFC is destroyed and an organisation that knows about the media can be formed.

I'd like to add to what jonwajer was saying

Even if a game sets a new for record for the sickest killings has the most depraved insane individuals imaginable and contains every disturbing act known to man (bestiality, incest, necrophilia, killing newborns etc.), there is still no reason to ban it entirely. Sure ban it from kids, from the mentally unstable, that's all well and good, but there is no reason to ban it from adults. It's a work of fiction, it can't harm you, most adults can establish reality from fiction and if they can't they have bigger problems then video games. The game won't jump up and shoot you, if you like the story or the game that's great, if not just ignore it, it won't effect your life at all. Yes I know that fiction inspires real life events (like 1984) but it's the message and the themes that inspire, not the acts of violence. Oh and if you're going to tell me we should ban them so that the mentally unstable can't get them, just see the quote above from mark twain.

@sir james,

except the fact that in GTA there are consequences, if you shoot a cop 99% of the time you will get a two star wanted level, which means that you will be chased and be fired at by cops until you can lower your wanted level, which isn't always easy. And like you said the game is rated for adults, it's not Rockstar's fault that some deprived kids got their hands on them. Just because some kids got their hands on them when they weren't supposed to is no reason to ban games from everyone else in the country. Punishing the many for the actions of the few (of which the others had no control over) is stupid and illigocal unless you're trying to make the whole country act like a team, which is an absurd goal. It's like prohibition (the ban of alcohol during the 1920s here in the U.S.) just because some people can't drink alcohol without getting drunk doesn't mean the whole country can't.

Tom, if they could don't you think the BBFC would make it illegal to import the games as well? I mean if they say it's unsuitable for the U.K. wouldn't it logically follow that they wouldn't want the game inside the U.k.'s borders?

The main reason we are concerned about this is because it could be a start of a slippery slope, where it starts with manhunt 2, and then they keep banning othe less violent games until eventually . . . Of course we could be wrong but I don't think anyone here wants to take that chance (also we are used to the religous nut bags over here who want to abolish seperation of church and state and do so a little bit at a time).

To Chekhov's Gun.

If only it were theoretical I would have no worries. I'm going to go out on a sweeping generalisation here and say that the average GP reader is going to be Middle-classed aged 20-24. This in a way makes it much harder for us to empathise with the neccesity to ban specific materials from being viewed even by adults.

It is in Britain's more deprived areas that I would argue that censorship is essential. And it is here that my anecdote is set. As I said earlier, I worked for a short while in a nursery in one of these areas, we are talking kids who are unable to go to the toilet by themselves at age 3, their parents are not taking care of their children in the way we would expect them to. And this extends to the videos, and video games which they are being allowed to watch. It's shown in both the language the children use (words I wouldn't have even known at that age!) and their actions. It is a very sad fact about our society, but none the less it is a situation which exists.

As these children grow up they become the violent teenagers that are shown so often in British media.

To Father Time, the children have no reason to worry about the intricacies of the game, at age 3 it is most likely far beyond them anyway, what matters is that they are hitting people and there is blood at the end of it. The children do not play their way through the game in a goal based manner as an adult may, they simply find the punch button and hit someone until they fall over if they are "arrested" they just run forward again. The next day when they get into an argument they just hit out.

To other posts the BBFC has no legal footing, they merely provide the reccomendation, law dictates that trading standards are to follow the BBFC advice, the BBFC itself is a privately owned independant industry regulator.

I'm not actually surprised to be honest, like I said previously, it's some of the best advertising for the game that RockStar could hope for, what with the reactions across the board, they've finally done it, they've made their Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and they've led the 'fear' brigade on by the nose to the point where Manhunt 2 on the Wii will become a 'must own' for anyone under 18.

Way to go, kneejerk censors, you're probably putting this game into more hands than it would ever have reached in the first place :)

@Chekhovs Gun

The BBFC are one of the more stable bodies in recent times and has an effective ratings system. With the example of Casino Royal the scene of torture is not graphic and has a motivation and a reason. The 12a rating for the film proves that they would not make the withholding of a rating lightly.

For people saying that why can you have have hostel and not manhunt its simple.

With film you are a passive audience the only decision you make is to watch or not watch you don't have to agree with the direction of the film and motivation for what happens.
With games you are an active audience you have to want to play, you make conscious decisions for your actions and while you may not agree you have no choice but operate as the game dictates (in the manhunt case killing).
Like it or not there is a difference between being a passive viewer and an active participant, especially with the enhanced realism of modern videogames.

The fact is Manhunt 2 is a game out to be the most bloody and violent it can be, which is fine if there is a valid reason and motivation for it. But if its violence for the sake of violence what is the point? The game would have passed if the creators were not so fixated on the killing for the sensationalism to the point of obsession and came up with a reasonable motivation for it.

And for those saying how great it is that it will be coming to America it has an Adults Only rating, so it may as well be banned as most retailers won't stock on AO title. Sure you can get hold of it (with greater difficulty) but its a joke to think that it is not being censored.

BBFC Used to stand for British Board of Film Censors, considering their original purpose, and the fact that people like Keith Vaz are constantly trying to tell them what ratings to give (I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few 'Vaz' letters are involved with this decision) they don't normally do a bad job.

People should also be aware that the chances are extremely high that this game will now start an 'underground' existence in the UK, it's only going to be a matter of time before the US version gets downloaded/hacked or otherwise accessed and brought over, that's the nature of digital media. I don't neccessarily think that it's a good thing by any degree, but the BBFC have, by banning it, more or less encouraged it to happen. For my part, I'd have rather had it in the shops where parents could be aware that such games exist and aren't for children, than to have it as part of a 'secret underground' like Slasher Movies were for many years, that actually makes it more attractive to younger players, not less.

I have a suspicion that it's more about the visual content than the interactive level, remember, it is the GAME that is banned, not just the Wii version.

Okay, while I was catching up on the debate here I was also listening to the news (I'm in the UK) and this was mentioned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6768695.stm

I have to ask the 'all censorship is wrong' believers, what would you have done here? I'm not intending to troll; I'm genuinely interested, because my position is that the developers took the right line (i.e. even though it's an old game, they pulled it in the UK).

@Matthew

You do realize you're comparing two very unlike things, don't you?

Yes, the government reserves the right to restirct substances that may be harmful to people, but that isn't comparable to this case for three reasons:

1: Things like E. coli and medicines are not speech. They cannot convey ideals or beliefs, and they are not a valid form of expression. However, this game CAN convey ideals (whatever they may be), and it IS a valid form of expression on the part of Rockstar. Saying the two are the same is like comparing GTA to cigarettes, which we've already established is ridiculous.

2: Whichever body is tasked with analyzing food and medicines in your country surely has to do extensive testing on a particular substance. This likely involves analyzing the formula of the substance, testing it on animals and/or humans (assuming that is legal in the U.K.), and other rigirous examination. Only at the end of this long procession and by gathering all their findings can they come to a decision. By contrast, the BBFC spent what must have been a very short time playing what would have to be an early build of the game. From that limited experience, they conclude that the game is not fit for human consumption. Yet you believe that both tests are just as rigorous. Where were the BBFC's tests which showed that this game may cause actual harm (and not imaginary harm)? Where are the studies that they are basing their decision on? If they had neither, then the process used for determining harm is not the same for both entities, as decisions on food and medicine are based on science and research, while the BBFC's decision is based on-by your own admission-political pressure from the public.

3: You say that the only difference between the two examples is that one is physiological and the other is psychological. However, that is a very big difference. Physiological harm is (relatively) easier to prove because our physical layout is fairly standardized. If a certain drug makes you ill, it is certain that it will make others ill. However, psychological harm is hard to establish, as each person has a unique, multi-layered mental layout (if it was uniform, we wouldn't be having this debate!). This makes finding a causal(A causes B) relationship between a certain stimulus to a certain response very difficult. Even if a correlational (A and B exist together) relationship is established, the process is further complicated by an almost infinite number of other variables (family upbringing, domestic life, mental illness) that can muck up the results. Thus, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine if a violent video game would incite any siginificant proportion of the population to commit violent acts. Why do you think that the "studies" presented by state legislatures to justify retail restirictions on games were thrown out by the courts? None of them were able to demostrate a relationship as strong as forcibly ingesting E. coli and becoming physically ill.

Putting additional nails into this coffin is the fact that Saw, Hostel, and the first Manhunt were all given the green light by the BBFC, despite the fact that they have the same tone as Manhunt 2. In none of these cases did mass numbers of people become physically ill, and none of these were conclusively linked to a real-life violent act. The only attempt to do so I can think of was a incident in the U.K. involving Manhunt that has already been discussed (the "link" was later disproven by the authorities). Yet when the BBFC claims that Manhunt 2 will be different, you believe them, despite the fact that they have not used any scientific methodology.

Finally, I would like to address your claim that the BBFC is doing this on the insistance of an overwhelming majority of Britons. How do you know this to be true? Does the BBFC uses polls or surveys prior to each decision, or do they attempt to listen towards some groups of people directly? If they use the first option, then how many people cared enough about the issue to reply to such a poll? If they use the second option, what's to stop some PTC-wannabe from influencing their decisions? If they use neither option, then how else can they determine whether a majority supports their decisions?

Let's assume for a minute you are correct, and that a majority of British DO oppose the game enough to call for a ban on it. If that's the case, then I must have no recourse, right? Because the majority is always right and always knows what's best for every single person in a society, correct? You don't even need to back up your views with facts, because you're the all-knowing majority, true?

Wrong. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, a society can't consider itself free if 51% of the population can take away the rights of the other 49%. So don't just say "the majority supports it!," PROVE that this game will cause grevious harm to society. PROVE that there is no other recourse (i.e. a less restrictive one) possible. Otherwise, you're tactly admitting that this is a case of the majority dictating its morals to the minority. No matter how you look at it, that IS censorship.

Terminator44

I'm not suggesting that Rockstar are trying to produce something that would make you physically ill. I used the comparison in an ideal sense, not a literal one. Do the BBFC believe that Manhunt 2 will cause physical harm, or initiate violence in players? Maybe the latter, maybe not. That wasn't my point. The point was that they determined that the country as a whole would be better off without the game.

Perhaps a better comparison would be with highly processed foods rather than actual pathogens. There's nothing wrong with eating crap (as long as you do it in moderation) but food standards bodies would object to a product that was high in crap and encouraged you to eat a lot of it. It may well be safe to eat, but their analysis concludes that the country as a whole would be better if it were off the market. The BBFC has found that Manhunt 2 has insufficient nutritional value to offset its unhealthy content and has declared that shops should not stock it. Saw/Hostel/et al are not the same as Manhunt - the length and interactivity are crucial differences between the game and any violent movie you can name. Their analysis of the game may not be as scientific as simply determining that the content is toxic to humans, but considered opinion is all they can go on to make a judgement.

The BBFC does use a range of examiners so as to hopefully survey the common British opinion. Their site doesn't appear to say exactly how many people make up their teams.

As for the rhetorical questioning and calls for freedom at the end, slow down a bit. The BBFC's decision suggests that the majority of the country believes the game should not receive a rating and thus should not go on sale. Those who don't want it banned have a recourse - they can appeal, and the BBFC do have a history of listening to appeals. The majority is not always right and does not know what everyone else wants; it only knows what the majority wants itself. And it has a tricky time deciding on even that.

May I propose another way of thinking about this: Manhunt 2 stands accused of being unsuitable for public consumption. A jury of impartial examiners has found it guilty. It has the right to appeal, but for now it is being removed from society.

The BBFC hasn't taken away anyone's rights. You have the right to play Manhunt 2 if you so wish. You just cannot sell it to anyone.

It's the 'focus on stalking' comment that makes me laugh to be honest, it's very much buying into the 'games made me do it' line. You use stealth in Splinter Cell as well, but you do it in a different context, so that's ok apparently.

The UK has a paranoia about 'stalkers' and 'pedophiles', if our press were to be believed then every street in the UK has a Pedophile on it.

How do the public react? Let me put it this way, when I was about 10 or 11, I was constantly playing by rivers, or in Dump-Yards, there was a Washing Machine factory down the road from me that made industrial sized Washing Machines which they used to sit outside the factory. They made better roundabouts than anything you could find in a playground. Nowadays, a lot of kids in the UK are, quite literally, house-bound for a large amount of time, there's no encouragement to explore and investigate the world around them, no-one is to be trusted.

So what we end up with is a dichotomy we are too stupid to see, our children spend all their time on computer games because we are too afraid, thanks to a different form of media, to let them out and experience real life.

Basically, most parents seem to want to have their cake AND eat it, they want a nice sanitised world where their children get bored, hang out on street corners and don't trust anyone, and then they complain about the gangs hanging round on street corners giving them suspicious looks.

You might be wondering what all this has got to do with Manhunt 2, the link is the fact that, once again, it's assumption of a 'worst case' scenario, which is the imagery in this game may upset or disturb maybe one in 50,000 people and that person probably didn't even choose to buy they game for any other reason than to find something to take offence at.

I sometimes genuinely worry for our culture. An 18 certificate is understandable, and I would have supported it, even a Restricted certificate would have been acceptable, but playing on paranoia, popular 'gossip' and Media-led 'spin' to reach a decision is totally unacceptable, and I DO plan to point out the BBFC's own double standards to it in this case.

So you Americans have your precious First Amendment that will allow any game complany to produce ANY violent game out there. Good on you. You also have your precious Second Amendment whereby you have more gun related deaths per annum than most war zones.

I guess countries like Britain and Australia (.... I'm fully expecting it to be banned here as well) have rating systems for their own reasons. Don't impose your politics on us.

PS2 = PS3 in my last post.

I'd be more in favour of legal weight behind ratings for ALL media if it HAD to happen in the US. I think the problem in general is the whole discrimination that takes place against computer games, I mentioned the 'Ratchet' system earlier, and this is another example of it.

If a legal system is enforced for 'only' computer games then people like Hack Thompson have moved on up to the next level in the ratchett. They can now start claiming that this is evidence for their claims that computer games 'program' people, because they are treated differently to Films etc. It actually gives them a new, higher launcherpad from which to spout their rhetoric that anything 'morally unacceptable' to themselves should be banned. These people won't stop if they get their way, they're in it for the money, nothing else, it's a multi-billion dollar industry, and Jack REALLY badly wants a slice, putting power of law over games alone would not only drive most of the industry off of American shores entirely, but would also let people like Thompson and his sidekicks to milk the cash-cow they've been massacre-chasing for years.

Heh, I meant to type Hostel, not Hostel 2, but I sort of got confused between Saw 1,2,3 and Hostel and got the average ;) Anyway, I probably won't get a reply, but at least I stated my point.

Which is why I stated that I'm certain their reviewers have seen more detail than I and only asked that they ensure the decision was made for the right reasons ;)

GoodRobotUs, please tell us if you get a response. This is quite a shock after the BBFC's report and after they stood behind Bethesda after all the furore over Oblivion.

i totally agrree with Chris S, films like saw 3 are way worse than manhunt and look so much more realistic, yet no one gives a toss about them!?! its ridiculous!!!!
I hope rockstar can get the ban overturned!
i've been wating for months for manhunt 2 n not they just go and ban it!
I've been a gamer since i was like 9/10 n im 16 now, i've always had and loved violent video games, yet i've never had any desire to kill someone

The continuing comparisons to films in which violence is depicted in entirely different ways, for entirely different reasons and apart from anything else, for much briefer time on screen, are still largely irrelevant. Kill Bill is comic book heroic violence, as tame by modern standards as the 70s exploitation flicks it venerates.

The difference with the context of the 'assassination' plot thread in Oblivion, in a nutshell: 1. In Oblivion, killing is a choice which has an ethical dimension. The player must actively seek out the Dark Brotherhood and make their own choice to take their missions, some of which the game's script goes out of it's way to show as being amoral. No such choice exists in MH2. 2. The level of sadistic violence that can be employed in MH2 is on an entirely different planet to the fairly abstracted 'D&D' hack-n-slash combat of Oblivion. 3. The assassin's guild plot in Oblivion ends with the consequences of the assassins' actions (they get their just desserts). The absence of any mitigating factors of this kind in MH2, as we've seen, weighed heavily on the BBFC's decision.

I take your point that you're only interested in making sure there isn't a doubt in the BBFC's procedure having been followed correctly, and I haven't played MH2 either, but the reviews and previews I've seen, and Rockstar's own publicity material, doesn't seem to significantly contradict what the BBFC are claiming. If biased parties like JT were coming out with these claims (as he crazily has about vastly less violent/questionable titles) I'd probably be much more sceptical of them.

fuck manhunt my penis is getting cut off with a knife lol sorry anyways according to this they should have banned resident evil 4 but they didn't that game had decapitations with chainsaws and gallons of blood!

"i’m trying VERY HARD not to impose an ‘arrogant, blinkard, outmoded’ faith on y’all"

Amazing preaching and denial in the same paragraph...

@AdamM

'Know this. If you are a UK citizen, you will very soon witness people being sent to prison for extended periods because of the video games they play.'

Do you truly believe this will be the case? I cannot believe that anyone in this country would tolerate a government that enforced this kind of ludicrous restriction on its citizens. It sounds to me like you expect the UK to become the next big communist nation and I have to say I find this highly unlikely.

"It is YOUR responsibility, not the government’s to uphold an ethical code." "Don’t make decisions for someone else based on your personal moral code. "

You mean like... laws?

And one more time. The BBFC is not a government organisation it is privately owned.

Whether people like me bringing up Oblivion or not? Tough Shit. It's a gamwe where one of the sub-plots involves being involved to kill people. Don't like don't play it, don't like Manhunt 2, don't buy it.

You may choose to roll over and squeal 'But its the BBFCeeeee!!!!' and just accept every word they say without even bothering to question it, which is what you sheep here are doing!

Listen to yourselves! It's fucking pathetic! 'Waaah! Don't question them, don't ask them to make sure they're doing the right thing, it's the BBFCeee!'

No Fucking Backbone.Whatsoever. You disgust me, you don't even have the courage to question any more.

Oh, and one final thing before I leave this thread in disust at my countrymen. When I was young, we had protests on Poll Taxes, Censorship and a great deal of other things. For my Parents it was Ban the Bomb and Vietnam.

Is this generation in the UK going to be our first 'indoctrinated' one? That takes every official claim with question and doesn't even consider the possibility that the BBFC might simply be wrong? Did you even read the 'reasons' given for banning it?

Seriously people, I know the UK is a dump, and I know the people have had most of the will kicked out of them by the government, but the game playing generation is supposed to be a future generation, not a group of people who curl up in a ball and hope the government do it right because they are scared to question the 'accepted'.

And we move onto personal attacks and insults thrown at my home country? Best to start with your first post then.

I asked you to stop mentioning Oblivion for one reason and one reason alone, it is entirely irrelevant to the argument. It is like comparing a death scene in Romeo and Juliet to a death scene in Saw 3, they are entirely different things, handled in entirely different ways. Yes they are both games which allow you to kill, that does not in any way mean that the level of graphic detail and, and this is the BBFC's point, the motivations and punishments, and "alternate pleasures" available in the game. In Oblivion killing for the assassin’s guild can come at costs to your characters later progression, in Manhunt you are killing for the sake of killing with no punishment. And yes you are right, it is the 'BBFCeeee' a censorship board with over 50 years worth of experience in making cuts and modifications. In other words, someone with more experience than you or I. They act in accordance with the law (Video Recordings act 1984) which makes it illegal to sell videos - later extended to games that are of an illegal nature, or that are deemed harmful to society.

Your next post argues that I have given in to the might of Thomson by agreeing with the BBFC. There is a difference between these games being "targeted" at children as you put it, and games falling into the hands of children, which is entirely inevitable. I gave the example earlier of the three and four year old children who have watched 18 rated films and played games such as Grand Theft Auto. This is not a hypothetical situation. That story was rooted firmly in reality. Take the blinkered approach of "It's entirely the parents fault" if you want, but don't try to deny to yourself that children would have found themselves with copies of this game.

Continuing with this post, surely these 'hypothetical' situations, these 'worst case scenarios' are exactly what a censorship board, doing its duty to society, should be looking at. Once again you bring in an entirely unrelated, irrelevant point here, Music is a different medium to computer games, perhaps if there was a video game in which the only goal was to have sex, and the only reward was more sex then your point would carry weight. So I'll continue down your line, lets say this game is released, as a result it is not too much of a stretch of an imagination that rape rates may go up, and should that happen I would quite happily watch the ban brigade march in and order the cancellation of the game.

In your next post you compare the impact banning of a video game to that of Vietnam. This speaks entirely for itself in terms of ridiculous and irrelevant lines of argument. For your sake I will point to the protests over the war in Iraq as an example of a protest in our time, also to the G8 protests in Edinburgh and the protest concerts throughout the world. I think here the key point is just how foolish protesting about a mediocre game would be. If you feel so strongly about it, please feel free to organise your own...

Moving to your final post, whether the government enforces the rulings of the BBFC or not the fact is that it is an independently run organization. This instantly removes any argument of the "police state" or of the government exacting its control over what we view. The BBFC has no obligations beyond it's attachment to law in terms of the ratings it gives. And in law its only job is to do what is morally correct for society.

You call me spineless? I shall end purely by congratulating you on the dedication of your spine to such a worthy cause. A mediocre game that you have yet to play.

sir.jamesgreen, in many ways I take my hat off to you. And yes indeed, why all the fuss about banning a sordid, second rate tea-coaster. The cause has rarely been so unworthy.

"What exactly should the government uphold then?"

Preventing people from harming one another in any fashion. Preventing this game from getting into even responsible adult's hands serves NO PURPOSE. Tell me in you opinion what is the worst case scenario that could occur if someone plays this game.

I would have thought that 'Preventing people from harming one another in any fashion' IS a government decision based rather lucidly upon an age old ethical code of human rights, or if not what the hell is it then? I'd suggest that the ban HAS prevented psycological hurt (however minor), upon many individuals who ought to know better. And it could be argued that no 'responsible' adult in their right mind would be insidious or unpleasant enough to want to buy what is effectively and undeniably a vessel for glorifying violence and fuelling the virtual psycopath with cheap thrills from inflicting agony upon the fellow man, without having endure any physical consequences. The fact that 'its only a game' is a brittle masking of what speaks volumes about the kind of person who's willing quite literally to sail the high seas in order to gratify their desire to, oh , i dunno, prod someone's voicebox with a blunt chopstick. I'm trying to keep apace with the game's endless innovation (and failing miserably).

"Yes, extreme situations - but that is what you asked for, I put this forward as my worst case scenario, now you tell me which part of this is impossible, I don’t want a “well it’s not likely” I want it shown to be impossible."


I won't tell you its impossible. Much like any medium, games are subject to mimicry. But still this is not ample reason for censorship. The only way I would back censorship such as this is if somehow the game removed the person's ability to make decisions on their own accord. Even were a friend or family member of mine hurt in a manner similar to this or any other game I still wouldn't request its banning. These people aren't told or forced to do these things, they do it of their own free will. All the game is is a chunk of plastic encoded with 1's and 0's. It can't harm anyone as its an inanimate object.

I want you to prove to me just how a game can inhibit someone's free will.

OK, let me get on thing clear and out of the way local and federal government should not tell us what games we can and cant play, for GOD's sake I am 28 years young and I can play what I want, I you are afraid that children will get a hold of this game and play it then the it is the parents who should say so, and if the parents allow their children play the game then its on them. Video Games are a form of entertainment just like movies are Hostel 1 & 2, the SAW series, Texas Chainsaw Massacre series, they were movies full of gore and senseless killings, where was the Adults Only rating on those movies I have a 5 year old cousin and he has seen all of those movies I for one would have not let him watch them until he was a little older but that was the parents choice not mine! Take Two and or Rockstar the first game was a hit and the second one will be too do what you did on the release of the first one, GROW A PAIR and RELEASE THE DAMN GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apply your argument to the other side.

Why should the non-gaming population have to live with the risk of the release of this game just so the gamers can have their way.

The "Guns don't kill people,people do" line of aproach?

I don't buy that argument when used as a defence against gun control, and I don't buy it here. I have admitted that it takes a certain predisposition of person to be triggered but when the conditions are correct then the likelihood of the trigger being reached increases.

Manhunt rewards a player from being remorseless and violent, while not providing any other sidelines of gameplay or punishment for your actions. This type of game is clearly more likely to trigger a violent mind than even Grandtheft auto, in which there is a built in reminder about the consequences of violence.

You seem to think that everyone's mental state is equivalent to yours, that everyone has the ability to make an unprejudiced logical choice as to which courses of action to take. Consider the mental fuzz of a drunken night, clearly your ability to make a logical choice in this situation is hindered. Now consider a similair mental haze, allow this to be representative of the mind of someone who is mentally disabled, remember this haze is permanent. With such a lack of ability to perform what we would consider "normal" logical decisions it is clear that when they make a choice using their free will it may not be acceptable by society's standards. It is for this reason that legally if a defendant can be shown to be mentally disabled the punishments are altered to reflect the fact.

My argument is not "the devil made me do it" it is that a series of your "inanimate" objects, and a series of events, can quite easily provide both a situation and a catalyst for murders to take place.

Well said luscan! i agrie that it is a bit to violent but i live in spain where the "uncut" version is available, so its a bit unfair if i was to say that i feel bad, im getting it in a week. Ball ripping anyone?

downloads gratis...

That''s poker texana on line video poker gratuites...