Manhunt 2 Banned in Britain
Manhunt 2 Banned in Britain
June 19, 2007
Rockstar's upcoming Manhunt 2 won't be sold in the U.K., according to a report in MCV.Citing "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying," the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has refused to rate the ultra-violent sequel, effectively banning it from U.K. shores. Said BBFC exec David Cooke:
Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly... Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing.
There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game...
Against this background, the Board’s carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.
MCV notes that the only other game to be refused classification was 1997's Carmageddon. That decision, however, was overturned on appeal.
Comments
As if those films don't have 'sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed'.
Have they even played the game?
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.
I don't see why this matters though, a ban just stops the normal retailers, there'll be importers if they are arsed enough for it.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/5F0B91FB15D5B748802572FF0...
Anyway, bollocks. looks like i'll have to ship it on from France now.
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.
1. The first game was made just to shock people. On it's own, it kinda sucks.
2. They didn't ban it completely, they blocked it, meaning that regular retailers can't get their hands on it. Which means importing the game is still a viable option.
The only thing I thought during Saw was 'Jesus. I could be at home right now feeling my ass grow.'
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.
I'm an equal opportunity responsibility shirker.
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.
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.
Or is that okay under an 18 cert?
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...
There are issues that ratings on games are not taken seriously, and that games are seen as a childrens' medium, which may be the reason for this, but I'm an adult. I've been legally capable of making my own decisions for 12 years now. The BBFC should put more effort into getting the message across that games aren't all for kids, and making sure the retailers know they can get fined for this.
I have no problem with classification, but I find it a little offensive that they have seen fit to ban this game.
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.
It's not the BBFCs mandate. It's there to rate things and stay the hell out of everything else. That's a very clear thing for them. They're not there to do the ESRBs job. The ESRB has an awareness thing, that's their field. Making sure retailers can be fined for stuff like this would be a lot easier if parlament got in on the act. Further still it'd be easier if there wasn't a cycle of:
Retailers - 'Developers responsibility.'
Devs - 'Parents responsibility.'
Parents - 'Retailers responsibility.'
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.
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. "
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.
I mean, fantasy games like Fabel are obviously fantasy. Elves, magic and XP. I'd love to poke at this to see how far your liberal sensibilities go but I'm afraid I'd be banned for posting obscenities.
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.
they go to 11?
Wow - simply wow. You are a conformist and ever expanding government's dream voter. I particularly liked the description of the 'worst case scenario' you presented. Oppressive government depends on convincing voters of the 'next natural iteration' in order to enact overbroad measures. Terrorists use cell phones and the internet?!? - result is the Patriot Act. Someone can make a computer program that shows animated scenes of violence and that program could be used in a disturbing manner???@? Well, why not simply ban the things?
There are two types of people in this world: those who don't buy somethine if they don't like it; and those who want to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do. Constitutions and the courts were created to protect the first group of people from the second.
I don't even know if I would buy this game but I enjoy the freedom to do so if I so choose. And really, its not about video games - if you let your 'government' ban this without a fight, what precedent are you setting for the next bete noire?
"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.
Im going with what they say also, just curious as to all the factors in the decsiion. After all the BBFC are more often than not fair handed and theres not much that does get the ban, just a few cuts here and there and they make no effort to hide the fact that somthing has been altered to get a release.
mabye rockstar will apeal, mabye they will go and snip a few things out the game and re-submit it.
Your argument falls over at the very first hurdle. The BBFC is NOT a government run organisation; it is independant.
However, on the subject of government censorship, standards of taste and decency are in every aspect of our lives. If you walk outside naked, expect to be arrested. Want to fight someone in the street? Illegal, even if you both consent. Think your right to free speech extends to being able to walk into any building and shout at the top of your lungs? Wrong again.
jakethe8lf:
"I don’t care how violent a game is; censorship of any degree should be a crime against human rights."
So if there was a game with explicit sex involving minors/animals or one that allowed you to genuinely (not in Jack Thompsons world) design a terrorist incident, or had such extreme acts of depravity and violence that the censors couldnt bear to look at them, it shouldn't be banned?
Censorship has to be there. It is an necessery evil to keep the most extreme in line. It should NOT be abused however, and the BBFC as a rule are pretty damned good with their assessments. Without having access to the footage that they witnessed, I cannot say if I agree with their decision or not, but I'm certainly not jumping on the bandwagon calling for it to be repealed just because it is a computer game.
A game that features a child getting molested IS NOT the same as Manhunt. The 'slippery slope' argument is a POS and you, as a seemingly intelligent individual, should know that.
I don't know/care what legally 'the freedom of speech' means in Britain, but it seems to me that banning something just because it's 'offensive' is repugnant to the ideal of liberty. Oh wait, Luscan doesn't believe in the ideal of liberty.
"I mean, fantasy games like Fabel are obviously fantasy. Elves, magic and XP. I’d love to poke at this to see how far your liberal sensibilities go but I’m afraid I’d be banned for posting obscenities."
Right, "liberal sensibilities". You know what, I agree. Somethings just should not be said; and some people are better off just keeping their mouths shut. To hell with liberty, all that means is that people are free to be immoral. Screw that. I VOTE we censor Luscan first, cause he gives me a headache.
Oops, I forgot, without liberty, you can't have democracy.
You know what else is repugnant to the ideal of liberty? Neo-Conservatism. Not the Reagan/Thatcher kind, but the Pat Robertson/George W Bush kind.
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 is all versions. The Wii version is addressed seperately on their website to point out the distinction, but Manhunt 2 and Manhunt 2 - Wii were both Refused.
So what about films that use CGI? Would that be okay? What about when the graphical levels of gaming are so realistic you cannot distinguish? Is that still okay? And what if the acts themselves are disturbing rather than if those portrayed are real?
Sorry but I find your argument to be flawed.
people who truly want to game are still going to go it.
It's because of blowhards like you that I have moved to the left concerning my political views.
people who truly want to game are still going to go it."
I think that's the point. They're restricting the game so that only the ones who really want it can go get it themselves, and the mainstreme public won't be the wiser.
THe ones who want the game can still have their game, and the general public won't be outrage. Everybody wins. There's more to it than meets the eye.
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.
I can be naked in the privacy of my own home, or in the privacy of someone else's home with their permission. I can also shout as loud as I want and engage in consensual fist fights. Distribution of media is a private transaction. It takes place between the individual retailers and the individual consumer.
No ideas should be banned, ever. There are many activities should be banned. It is wrong to harm innocent people or abuse children, but I believe making it illegal to tell a story about terrorism or child abuse could be more dangerous to society than any particular example of such crimes.
It sounds like you think BBFC censorship is fine as long as it's in line with your own personal sensibilities. Isn't it at least possible that your own personal sensibilities are affected, even just a little bit, by which kinds of entertainment media the BBCF tells you are or are not allowed to view?
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...
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.
Sure, it's fine to have a 'standard of decency', but that should always apply to an individual and no one else. You shouldn't have Government telling you what you can say or depict when transferring your thoughts to medium for fiction. If this violates your self-righteous 'standard of decency', walk away from it and don't turn back.
No one thing, no state, no person, no nothing should be able to take away someone's right to express themself. I'd put that on par to murder, because you're taking away part of that person, and violating that person's freedom.
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
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.
"In 1985 the Board became the statutory authority for classifying videos under the Video Recordings Act".
Independant? Are you serious? Who pays their salaries? Where do they get their funding? My argument falls? An agent of the government, sponsored by the government and acting through legislation is still government. Yes, you can call it 'independant' but get real, it's not.
What does censorship have to do with criminal acts such as fighthing? You are comparing two completely different legal ideas. I welcome an opinion but so long as it is an educated one.
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)
I could respond but I'll just give you a link instead as people seem to think here that having an opposing argument makes you the antichrist...
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about/index.php
and on the subject of law enforcement of the BBFC...
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/law/index.php
Apparently it features underage donkeys being buggered to death with prostitutes.
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.
Well, at least Rock-star can appeal this decision. I'd rather they not cut anything out of the game for the same reason I don't like edited movies or music. It's not true to the artist's original intention and treats the audience like children.
@ Luscan
I don't really have any problem with someone making a game in which you can molest children or animals. I'm sure if you look on the Internet you can find that already anyway. I wouldn't play it. And I can guarantee that none of my friends would either. Also, I can guarantee that not even Take Two (parent company of Rock-star) would create something like that. They are in it for profits and I doubt such a game would be profitable.
Here's a question for you. A character in a game is raped or violently murdered, be it as a child or an adult, in a non-interactive cut-scene. This serves as the hero's motivation to commit to whatever action the game revolves around. Would you object to this? Why? Plenty of movies use similar plots to move the story along. Look at Boys Don't Cry, the Accused, or Kill Bill. They use a similar tactic to push the story along.
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.
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.
Seriously though, some of you need to get off your high horses.
"ZOMG CENSORSHIP I'M MOVING OUT" or "LOL FUCK YOUR COUNTRY I'M GLAD I DON'T LIVE THERE"
That what this whole comments section has boiled down into. Baseless hate. For all you know the person you've made enemies with on the internet so happens to be your dearest friend in real life who'd never hurt a fly.
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.
It wasn't 1 single act that caused the ban, it was the single mindedness of constant killings and murders and grimness of the game as a whole (view the BBFC website and their press release for details).
I am basically of the opinion that the BBFC has refused release to this game because they think it presents a risk of harm. I DO believe that images can disturb people, be they real, or recreated. When you get older your ability to handle such images improves, but clearly there are limits of acceptability as far as a nation is concerned, even if they vary massively between person to person.
I'm not setting myself up as a Mary Whitehouse figure here; I have an extensive collection of B Movies and Horror films, my sense of humour is indeed dubious at time (dubious NOT racist/sexist I should add) and I have more games than you've had breakfasts. I do however think that allowing ANYTHING to be released would leave gaming as a media wide open to the Jack Thompson's of the world. I do not want to see my hobby dragged through the mud because of some sick and twisted game - singular.
There have been a TON of films that have been banned or cut to suit and I bet not one of you have flinched at the news, so at best it is a double standard. If gaming is going to be treated on an equal footing as films and other media with regards to being art and free speech, they are ALSO subject to the same laws of decency in countries.
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
I haven't seen so many slippery slopes in use since the last time I went to Raging Waters.
called free country. There are way worse issues like child abuse that need
to be handled. If you guys have the right answer than do you believe that
taking our right to just simply play a video game definitely is against our
constitutional rights for a free society. SERIOUSLY
The scary thing is that in their time, the people who screamed INDECENCY always made some kind of sense.
Even kittens cannot save this debate.
"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...
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.
I have said everything I need to. You are the one resorting to ad hominem arguments and implying that I am in some way agreeing with the ban on the basis of "decency".
Look up my reply to gameboy, read it, absorb it and then come back to me with a better response and I will address your points.
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).
But it's important to note that we have a lot of independent public bodies in the UK where the government has very little control over them. We've had a lot of practice devloping our system and any politician who got too involved with the internals of any public body without good reason would not be popular.
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....
I agree with you fully. Censorship is the purest form of Facism and government control over our lives and is therefore IMHO one of the greatest evils in this world.
Censorship is an indirect form of government mind and thought control as they are restricting your ability to form your own viewpoints based on materials that express ideas, information, messages and opinions. One cannot be truely free when the government has the ability to control your ability to express ideas and information or receive ideas and information solely because the state finds them offensive or unsuitable for the population.
As Thomas Jefferson once said:
"It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."
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.
He said: "This is an excellent decision by the British Board of Film Classification showing that game publishers cannot expect to get interactive games where players take the part of killers engaged in 'casual sadism' and murder
from a BBC news report on this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6767623.stm
The parents who blamed Manhunt for killing there son are also happy with this news.
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 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.
come on and cannot say anything that makes sense when it comes to our
freedom to play whatever we want. I feel good knowing that these kind
of people cannot reply to my correct views. You people need to face it,
it is totally wrong to violate our amendment rights to not allow us to just
simply play a video game by which using the new wii remote will make
a person that is mad feel alot better then to just simply press buttons. This new feature might stop alot of violence from happening if someone
who is mad would grab the wii remote and start swinging and lounging to
let out stress.
Or are those the equivalent of the ESRB's AO rating here in the United States?
Who is enforcing the ban? "Not the government?"
Seriously: ALL content ratings are subjective. I don't really care so much about how or why the BBFC makes its particular "independent" subjective decisions, what matters is that the government is enforcing them.
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.
That's exactly it. If the BBFC didn't have the power on law behind it and was only a voluntary ratings board like the ESRB in the U.S. i wouldn't care but the fact of the matter is the BBFC decisions are the FORCE OF LAW in Britian therefore even if the BBFC isn't a government entity, it still is censorship and government regulation because the government has the power to ENFORCE their decisions on the public. Such things shouldn't be allowable these days, esspecially when it comes to outright bans. It downright sickening.
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