Manhunt 2 Banned in Britain

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.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0

    […] As reported by The Guardian, a ban placed on Rockstar’s gory sequel last summer has been lifted by the Video Appeals Committee (VAC). The game was originally refused classification – essentially, banned – by the British Board of Film and Literature Classification on June 19th of last year. At the same duration, the ESRB slapped an Adults Only rating on Manhunt 2, negating its viability as a commercial product in the United States. […]

  2. 0
    Jamie says:

    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?

  3. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “You seem to think that everyone’s mental state is equivalent to yours”

    Actually I think that everyone is responsible for their own mental state. Not the government and not game developers.

    “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.”

    And I don’t believe that games are a catalyst. Able to be mimicked? Sure. But games? I’ve yet to see any valid proof of that.

  4. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    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.

  5. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “I don’t buy that argument when used as a defence against gun control,”

    So this is another case where you place the blame on inanimate objects rather than the person making the decision? I bet you also considered Supersize Me a thought provoking documentary rather than an extension of the pass the buck lack of self responsibility that exists.

    You are using the “The Devil made me do it.” I don’t buy that argument in any situation.

    “Manhunt rewards a player from being remorseless and violent, while not providing any other sidelines of gameplay or punishment for your actions.”

    So what? It shouldn’t have to if the developers don’t want to. Its a bit of FICTION. Yet still its the person who under their own free will commits these crimes, who CHOOSE to emulate what is presented to them.

  6. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    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.

  7. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Because still its the person and not the game thats at fault. Remember that a game can’t inhibit a person’s freewill? You are still shifting blame onto inanimate objects. They aren’t at risk because of a game they are at risk of a person who is unstable game or no game.

  8. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    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.

  9. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “As I have said I am yet to see any video game retailer provide a psychological test before selling a game, which means that we do have to look at the potential effects on the whole of society rather than just on it’s effects on the gamepolitics demographic.”

    I don’t think such a test or pondering its potential effects is necessary. I don’t believe in a world where the 99% has to suffer because of the batshit 1%.

  10. 0
    Rich Show says:

    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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    A game cannot inhibit someones free will, I have not made that claim anywhere. What I have put forward is that in a situation where someone is in a potentially dangerous state of mind the game may well be the trigger for that condition to worsen. I will point to the research by the FBI that Thomson so often misreferences in which video games were listed along with many other mediums as things which could provide the correct situation for a potential crime.

    Unfortunately I will have to disagree with your claim that “It can’t harm anyone, it’s an inanimate object” there is a great deal of psychological harm that can come from playing this game when your mental state is far from perfect. As I have said I am yet to see any video game retailer provide a psychological test before selling a game, which means that we do have to look at the potential effects on the whole of society rather than just on it’s effects on the gamepolitics demographic.

    Censorship is a touchy subject whatever the circumstances, this however does not make it wrong in every situation.

  12. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “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.

  13. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    The fact that a few anti-violent games protester is incompetent does not indicate that everyone who agrees with this ban is stuck in the same backward logic and clichéd ideas. Ironically this is exactly the same argument you use to counteract the brash generalisation of all gamers as potential killers. I belive the phrase “Tainting the many for the actions of the few” has been thrown around somewhat. Keep that in mind as you throw out Jack Thomson’s slogans as an easy way of mocking our points of view.

    The worst case scenario of this game being allowed passage into the public domain? Copycat murders, inspired by the game. Yes it takes a certain predisposition to induce a murderous state of mind, but I have yet to see one game retailer provide a psychological test before selling me a game, meaning those with this preset in them could quite easily purchase the game (Or are you living in a Britain where only under-18s commit crimes?) It is very possible that in playing the game someone with this disposition may derive pleasure from the way in which the killings take place. Were they then to take the approach of “It’s satisfying in game, it will be much more satisfying in real life” then the grounds are set for a copycat murder. If the game provides scope for relentless, violent deaths then the murders will also be relentless and violent.

    Yes this is an unlikely scenario, but I would like to see you justify your credibility as a licensing authority if you pass this game after bowing to pressure from gamers to later be proved wrong. Especially when the game is as meritless as Manhunt will undoubtebly be.

    Or justify defending the game to yourself if it is a relative or a friend who is killed.

    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.

  14. 0
    Michael O says:

    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).

  15. 0
    Oisin says:

    Erik Says:

    June 21st, 2007 at 11:27 am
    “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.

    waits for the “murder simulator” excuse to pop up

  16. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “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.

  17. 0
    Michael O says:

    Especially seeing as it is A GAME. This may be a gamepolitics site, but believe it or not, there is a real world and a real life with real relationships out there beyond the screen, which some people will lamentably not have experienced. The travesty that is ‘Second Life,’ for instance speaks volumes even by its title of just how far the gamesworld has spiralled out of control. Gaming can be an inspired source of escapism, I’m all for it. But living out your days through a pixellated avatar in a computer generated dystopia without getting up to relieve yourself is an unwholesome, frightening prospect, to say the least.

  18. 0
    Michael O says:

    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.

  19. 0
    Michael O says:

    ”It is YOUR responsibility, not the government’s to uphold an ethical code.”

    What exactly should the government uphold then? How can it possibly function or make decisions without having some sort of ethical agenda, however flawed? What’s the point of it’s continued existence if it paradoxically advocates anarchy? It must surely have some idea of moral responsibility or it could give, say, James Bulger’s murderers a pat on the back. Of course if you support the philosophy that morality is entirely subjective, you could too. At the same time I do agree that it is in the end ‘YOUR responsibility’. Free Will is a wonderful and terrible thing. In this case, though, perhaps Rockstar are chiefly to blame for making that bloody game.

    ”Amazing preaching and denial in the same paragraph…”

    GoodRobot you are quite correct (though I was being rather sarcastic). But even by ‘trying VERY HARD’, success was never guaranteed. Admiteddly I must learn to adopt a more diplomatic approach to argument. Thanks for the feedback.
    Have you considered that the BBFC may simply be right, and perhaps have finally decided to dust off their conscience? I thought the game’s encouragement of ‘sustained and cumulative casual sadism’ was quite a good reason for banning it. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

  20. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    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.

  21. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Oh, and for those of you saying that the BBFC is a not governement body, you are right, but it’s not the whole story is it? The ratings placed by the BBFC ARE enforced through the government, that’s the legally binding agreement that companies make with the BBFC, and they are enforced via Trading Standards, a government run body. So the BBFC may set the rating, but it’s the government who enforce it. They are seperate, but not quite as seperate as people like to think.

  22. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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’.

  23. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You ‘d all rather censor something because of what ‘might’ happen, like a murder and that it ‘might’ get blamed on video games, so it’s probably better not to release more risky ones? And you think you’re somehow defending the rights of computer games like this? You’re already assuming the likes of Thompson are right, that these games are being targetted at children.

    What next? Shall we ban music that involves sex, in case the next time there’s a sex scandal someone can blame the game.

    You’re supposed to be on our side, but the attitudes here suggest you already have gamers listed as guilty, hung, drawn and quartered. It makes me feel sick.

  24. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  25. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

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

    Then it REALLY has no business forcing subjective morality on others.

  26. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    “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.

  27. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “. I think the ban on Manhunt 2 is in one very small way encouraging, as it shows that an innate sense of moral decency has not been completely lost upon our ethically vaccous society.”

    It is YOUR responsibility, not the government’s to uphold an ethical code. This game might be a little to debased for me so I WON’T BUY IT! Its as simple as that. If something offends you turn the channel, don’t buy the product etc. Don’t make decisions for someone else based on your personal moral code.

  28. 0
    Jozxqyk says:


    ‘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.

  29. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    GoodRobot, please stop bringing up oblivion. The central difference between the content in oblivion and the content in manhunt (from what I have fread) is that in oblivion there are consequences for your actions. In resident evil the violence is used as a means of defense against enemies. In GTA the violence is tied to the story and comes with consequences. In almost every other game there is some deterrent to the killing of innocents.

    Manhunt, it would seem from the boards comments offers no such recourse. The game is about one thing, killing for the sake of killing.

    Consider the following hypothetical… The BBFC changes their minds and allows the game an 18 certificate, inevitably the game finds it’s way into the hands of children/young adults. Consider for a second a copycat murder (denying that this happens would be foolish, one need only to look at the recent resurrection of the James Bulger sittuation for evidence of this) takes place. The BBFC is shamed by the tabloids for changing their warnings, and of the gamers who demanded their chance to play this pointless and mediocre game? Nothing. They wash their hands of it, blame the parents they cry, we are respectable adults, we have a right to chose, let not the actions of the many be commanded by the few.

    Why risk this situation? Surely there are enough games that allow you to re-enact your sick twisted fantasies. The “slippery slope” argument holds no ground here, there has been censorship in Britain for years and we are yet to fall onto the “slippery slope”.

  30. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

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

    Amazing preaching and denial in the same paragraph…

  31. 0
    Michael O says:

    I’m a devout Roman Catholic. Boo. I think the ban on Manhunt 2 is in one very small way encouraging, as it shows that an innate sense of moral decency has not been completely lost upon our ethically vaccous society. Many of you relativists and lukewarm liberals will no doubt disagree, but don’t worry, i’m trying VERY HARD not to impose an ‘arrogant, blinkard, outmoded’ faith on y’all. I’m genuinly concerned for those poor souls who are enraged that the BBFC are denying them their right to indulge in their dark, twisted, solitary fantasies. I suppose it is your right in a way. Its your life.
    But what are you craving for when you play games like manhunt, or watch films like the saw trilogy? Some warped form of pleasure from witnessing or even partaking in graphic depictions of human suffering? Or is it a bit of light entertainment, a bit of harmless fun? You’ve been brutalised so slowly you haven’t noticed. Or maybe you have. I myself have just about avoided this in the virtual world. (I’m by no means perfect, so I suppose hypocrisy is an understatement).
    Quite frankly, it IS ultimately your choice (as long as you don’t hurt anybody). But you may get a nasty shock when you finally stand before your maker. you’re very welcome to change before then.
    Go ahead and mock. Here endeth the lesson.

  32. 0
    ukjyhyh says:

    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!

  33. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The simple reason I keep throwing lots of different films at you is to show you that extreme violence can be depicted in a number of ways, which way is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ do you know? You say the scenes last less time, yet, I could point you at the famous torture scene from Reservoir Dogs, there isn’t much in this game that hasn’t been depicted before, as for the detail level and length of the scenes, well, once again, I’ve not played the game, so I can’t say how long they last.

    As for the Oblivion comment, considering we are talking about the banning of a game here, not merely the removal of content, you need to bare in mind that you can choose whether you wish to buy Oblivion in the first place, as well as whether to take the Dark Brotherhood course. The choices begin before you even start playing it. By removing the first choice, you remove any chance of the second one. Anyone buying this game expecting it to be ‘My Little Pony’ will certainly be in for a shock, but then it’s not intended to be a kids game. Consider the choice to BUY Manhunt 2 as being like the decision to take the Dark Brotherhood course, it involves Stealth and killing, but it your choice to buy it, not someone elses to tell you whether you can or not. Those that do not wish to pursue that course may choose not to, in Oblivion by not taking the sub-quest, in Manhunt, by not buying the game.

    The argument I was given once was, consider a game where you have to stack dead bodies that have rigor-mortised into various positions into as small a space as possible, once a row is full, those bodies decompose. Now consider Tetris. There is actually no difference whatsoever in what part of the brain is being used to play those two games, despite the gruesome imagery of the first. I’ll fully agree that this is most certainly not a game for kids, but by banning it, they’ve effectively dictated to adults what is suitable, and additionally made a forbidden fruit from the game, which will make it more attractive to those not supposed to have access to it. I just hope to hell they are doing the right thing.

  34. 0
    Robin says:

    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.

  35. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Once again, whilst the storyline certainly sounds disturbing, can you be absolutely certain that this is worse the ‘Saw’ or ‘Hostel’ or any number of ‘Gorefest’ movies that come out. You can hardly describe ‘Kill Bill’ in any manner other than the heroine reeling from one violent scene to another, the story was simply there to give the scriptwriters something to do.

    You claim that the Oblivion reference is shorn of context. In what way exactly, you are employed by a band of people who use stealth and killing to complete their goals in order to use stealth and killing to complete your goals. I fail to see where you get the idea that this is somehow different from using stealth and killing to achieve your goals. IF (and I stress, yet again that if you read my letter, I already make allowances for the fact I have not played the game) these killings are bloody and violent than Hostel or other violent movies then they may have a point, else I have concerns about it, once again, as I stated in my letter to them, please ENSURE that you have made the right decision.

    It seems to me that I have leapt to a lot less conclusions in defending this game than you have in attacking it.

  36. 0
    Ross B says:

    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

  37. 0
    Robin says:

    @GoodRobotUs (and others):

    Please, don’t waste your time defending this game. It doesn’t achieve anything except reinforcing inaccurate gamer stereotypes, and giving more ammunition to critics who accuse publishers of exploitatively using ‘adult’ content to market games to children. Because that’s all the game is – glorified sadism designed to titillate pubescent idiots.

    I have no problem with violence in games, but it’s readily apparent in this instance that it’s a seedy, cowardly and lazy effort to flaunt ratings guidelines and cause offence for commercially-motivated rather than artistic reasons. Rockstar can do better than this.

    Manhunt 2 isn’t the same game as Manhunt. The BBFC’s decisions aren’t made on what is depicted alone, shorn of context. (Your -flawed- Oblivion comparison seems to suggest that context is irrelevant, which is absolutely the worst and most negligent position that a classification body can take – and which led to the Carmageddon fiasco.) The same scrutiny is given to films.

    When ELSPA (of which Rockstar/TakeTwo is presumably a member) publically distance themselves from the game and applaud the BBFC’s decision, this should be a clear indication that a line had been crossed, to the industry and gamers’ detriment, when Rockstar decided to create and market this grubby little game.

  38. 0
    Chekhov's Gun says:

    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.

  39. 0
    Chekhov's Gun says:

    @ sir.jamesgreen

    Thanks for clearing that up. Being 18 myself I’m probably overreacting since I want to work in the industry but in the end I suppose it’s up to whether parents will listen to the advice given to them on the front of the box and until then politicians will continue to lump games in with pornography. :(


    I’ve always been against the theory that you passively watch films or television programmes compared to actively playing a game or reading a book or painting a picture. The audience doesn’t just absorb what they see without questioning it because they can decide to walk away.

  40. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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 😉

  41. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    A quick reminder to those who are saying “I haven’t seen anything in the trailers that warrents more than an 18 rating”

    A brief look at the BBFC page points shows that the first trailer was given a “15” and the second an “18” It is the game as a whole that is rated, and each and every component part is viewed by the board of censors.

    In other words, they have seen the game, you’ve only seen the [relatively speaking] nice parts.

  42. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  43. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Letter Sent to BBFC.

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am writing to you with some concern over your decision recently to refuse rating for the Rockstar game ‘ManHunt 2’. The reason for my concern is not a personal one, I actually have no interest in owning this game, however, it is the tone of the decision that concerns me greatly with regards to future BBFC ratings when applied to Video Media.

    Whilst I am certain that your reviewers have seen more detail in the game than I have, I have seen nothing in this games previews that suggests a level of violence or ‘gore’ above the level of the recently 18-certified ‘Hostel 2’. As far as the storyline goes, it appears to be nothing more unsettling or ‘pointless’ than ‘Friday the 13th’ or ‘Nightmare on Elm Street’, both of which were, if I remember correctly, placed under similar scrutiny and attempts at Censorship at their release, and yet both of which are considered mainstream Horror movies nowadays. The ‘stalking’ aspect of the game is really a question of context, you use Stealth in several computer games, simply calling it ‘Stalking’ instead of ‘Stealth’ does not really change the definition of the action. In the Bethesda game, Oblivion, you are expected to use stealth in assassination missions, that is no different to the style used by Manhunt 2 as far as I can detect.

    This leads me to the question ‘Why was this game Refused?’, it is no more unsettling or violent than several horror movies, so the only other option left is that somehow the ‘interactivity’ has been taken into account in the rating. This concerns me, greatly. Is the BBFC intending to adopt a stance where it bases it’s entire rating on an assumed effect, which even it’s own reports have stated are unproved? Is there going to be some kind of intangible ‘variable’ that applies to computer games that only the BBFC understands?

    I refer to your OWN recent report on Video game rating.

    And I quote, in particular:

    “The element of interactivity in games carries some weight when we are considering a video game. We were particularly interested to see that this research suggests that, far from having a potentially negative impact on the reaction of the player, the very fact that they have to interact with the game seems to keep them more firmly rooted in reality. People who do not play games raise concerns about their engrossing nature, assuming that players are also emotionally engrossed. This research suggests the opposite; a range of factors seems to make them less emotionally involving than film or television. The adversaries which players have to eliminate have no personality and so are not real and their destruction is therefore not real, regardless of how violent that destruction might be.”

    As I am currently doing a degree in Computer Programming and Media, I am extremely concerned that this is a sign the BBFC are planning to treat computer games differently from films and other media, you only have to watch the first ten minutes of ‘The Shining’ or ‘Saving Private Ryan’ to realise that there is already a growing gap between how computer games are rated and how films are, all I ask is that the BBFC please ensure that this was the right decision and that you are not allowing that gap to widen even more.

    Yours Sincerely,


  44. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  45. 0
    Lichbane ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Regarding ratings ….

    People have long wondered the reasons for not having an R-rating for games in Australia as well. It’s been a thorn in a lot of adult gamers sides for a long time over here and there are people politicking to have it changed.

    Two things need to change in my view for this to work:

    1) Firstly, politicians need to stop viewing games as primarily “kids stuff” only. It’s ignorance on their part that leads to the lack of an R-rating in the first place for games. “Kids only play games so we need to restrict the nasty stuff from them”. Changing that perception is slow though as politicians are generally a) thick and/or b) want to protect themselves from controversy. Change could be generational.

    2) Secondly (and this is a bit of a generalisation), the public, parents especially, need to inform themselves more about the content of games before purchasing it for their child. They need to not get 13yo little Johnny a copy of Manhunt 2 because he wants it and then whine about it when they see the content and what he’s doing on the screen. All too often they want the government to perform some kind of protectionist role and governments would rather take the safe route. Once again … this change could be generational.

    We all grew up with movie ratings. Our parents grew up with movie ratings. Even our politicians grew up with movie ratings. It’s an understood what they mean. Video games however, especially once aimed at adults, have not been around for as long. A lot of people still view games as “kid stuff” and those games that are patently not “kids stuff” shock people.

    Personally, I’d hate to see a 13yo (and very impressionable mind at that) play Manhunt 2. To me it would be just wrong. But an adult … no problems. As much as I think the guy is a raving lunatic, perhaps Jack Thompson is right about enforcing a rating system on games. We have one in Australia … it’s just dysfunctional at the moment because it doesn’t allow for an R-rating.

  46. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It’s the banning that concerns me though, not just by itself, I probably wouldn’t even have noticed, and I certainly have no wish to own the game, most definately not my type, but the BBFC are supposed to rate the game according to the content, not to the hype surrounding it, and on this occasion, I think they’ve reviewed the hype more than the game, they’ve assumed that this was a ‘murder simulator’ and judged it as such.

    Id have been happier with an 18 or R and leaving people to make up their own minds. As far as the graphical content is concerned, it’s no worse than several movies, the storyline is no less unusual than those same movies, so this game MUST have been judged by something intangible and based on assumption, either on the effect of the Wii controller (though it’s been banned for the PS2 as well) or they have assumed that people who played this game would be ‘trained’ by it in some way.

    It’s not the decision so much that concerns me, as the undertones in the explanation.

  47. 0
    Lichbane ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  48. 0
    Matthew ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Oh, and sorry to post yet again, but their so-called “double standards” are exactly why this is an interesting decision.

    As others are fast to point out, they passed the original Manhunt. The passed GTA, Postal, the Carmageddon series, the Dooms, and old favourite Bully. They also passed the movies Crash, Irreversible, Ichi the Killer, A Clockwork Orange, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Lolita, Wolf Creek, The Exorcist, Straw Dogs, and so on.

    This police state mentality people are slipping into just isn’t happening. The BBFC don’t go around banning everything the Daily Mail tells them to. The list of things they have passed is a demonstration of that. So, why *have* they refused Manhunt 2 a rating? Is it because they want to censor all the bad things in the world? Or is it because of the content of Manhunt 2 specifically?

  49. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  50. 0
    Matthew ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  51. 0

    […] First, there was the report that our friends in the United Kingdom have refused to rate the game, effectively banning it altogether over there. While outright censorship in the UK is strongly discouraged and alternative methods are often taken, the British Board of Film Classification evidently decided that ‘Manhunt 2′, was way, way too scary and creepy for their tastes. […]

  52. 0
    Terminator44 says:


    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.

  53. 0
    jakethe8lf ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Pro-BBFC people

    You keep saying “they usually have a good idea on what to ban” or something. It’s the fact they do it at all that disgusts me.

  54. 0
    Sirikit says:

    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.

    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).

  55. 0
    Hellfire says:

    I think that refusing to rate this game does show a failure of their system to classify games properly. If they are unable to rate it on their current scale, then they need to add a higher ranking “Ultra Violent” or something.

    Those who are making the argument that child pornography is illegal are missing why it is so. Child pornography is illegal because it encourages pedophiles to harm children. There is a pretty strong link here, if you have child pornography you either actively exploited a child, or somebody else did and you are reaping the benefits. A strong link between violence and violent medium such as games is not so evident, as we see in many of the articles and discussions here on GamePolitics. The vast majority of people who play violent videogames are non-violent, and do not promote violence in any way. Child pornography either encourages a person to actively molest children or makes them a ‘accomplice’ in the crime if they got it from someone else.

    This game should not be censored. A persons freedoms should only be hindered by those of another person. That is where law comes in. The reason that mankind has laws is to protect ourselves from ourselves & each other. Whether it be protecting someones property, their wellbeing, their life, their freedoms, their reputation; all law is supposed to limit a persons freedoms only so far as to prevent them from encroaching on another’s. Fore example: I have freedom of speech, however not ABSOLUTE freedom of speech. I cannot run into a building and yell “FIRE!” because it threatens the wellbeing of the people inside. Now unless you make the argument that this game promotes violence, there is no reason to ban it — it does not encourage, promote, fund, or cause violence. There is no harmed party that I can think of.

  56. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  57. 0
    Quad9damage says:

    Oh, boy.

    I don’t care how ‘innovative’ or ‘interactive’ the Wiimote is. No matter how you look at it, the Wiimote is not a crowbar, a baseball bat, or a gun. It’s a fucking DVD remote with an analog stick attached to it. So what if you’re moving your body and arms around? To me, it’s the same as holding down R1 and tapping the X button. IT’S STILL A GAME. IT’S NOT REAL.

    Can it be argued that Final Fantasy III on the DS is teaching our kids to kill, because you can use the stylus to stab monsters on the battle screen?

    I won’t jump on this ‘conditioning our kids to kill!’ bandwagon until we start getting plugged into the games Matrix-style.

  58. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  59. 0
    Matthew ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Just to chime in with a reminder about the BBFC and laws and so forth: The BBFC are not a government body. They cannot say that product X is illegal, unless of course they find that it is actually illegal when they examine it. In ye olden times, the government said that media sold in the UK must be classified by someone, and that the BBFC is a valid classification authority. The law is that you can’t just sell any old thing: It has to have been approved by a classification board. If the BBFC reject it then it remains unclassified, and as such can’t be sold. It’s still legal to own and hasn’t technically been banned by the government; it just hasn’t been approved by a licenced authority.

  60. 0
    MountainMan says:

    @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.

  61. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    Before I head to sleep I have something to add to Tom’s last post.

    Not only did Movies fall fowl of the BBFC in the past, but some still do, those that are seen as too morally wrong for even an 18R rating.

    While these are almost never mainstream films the porn industry is constantly censored.

  62. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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 :)

  63. 0
    Tom (UK) says:

    Father Time,

    No, the BBFC has no power to make laws. They haven’t said it’s “unsuitable for the UK”. What they have done is refuse to classify it, presumably because in their opinion it doesn’t fit into any existing classification.

    There is no law against importing unclassified media as long as it doesn’t break other laws (for example, the Child Protection Act with regard to paedophilia).

    Movies have fallen foul of the BBFC in the past (we’re talking decades ago), and they didn’t seem to lead to a policed state.

    Also, I would add that it is not taken for granted in the UK and many other countries that censorship is unconditionally bad…

  64. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    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.

  65. 0
    lewis says:

    manhunt 2 shouldnt be banned, it can’t really be any worse than the first one can it? And i have heard from some of the companys that have played it, that the violence is not even as bad, and there has been no proof that games cause people to kill or even think of killing, anyway, wouldnt it also be a stress relief by taking your anger out on game charicters rather than people in the real world? If this game is not intended for children, than it should be impossible for them to get their hands on it, unless their parents buy them it and then its their fault, they cant say ‘we didnt know’ because there is a large ’18’ on the front of the case

  66. 0
    Father Time ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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).

  67. 0
    Chekhov's Gun says:

    @ sir.jamesgreen

    The problem with the BBFC, in my opinion, is that they never make up their minds. For one movie they can have a lot of adult content and the same descriptors as another, and they’d get different ratings.

    In the (theoretical?) case you describe, the parents are entirely at fault for letting their children witness the events of the game. A lack of disciplaine is exactly why these “feral” youths are on the loose.

    If you find your child playing a game or watching a video underage – pull out the plug!

  68. 0
    Father Time ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @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.

  69. 0
    Tom (UK) says:

    Yup, the day you have to legally import Manhunt 2 from outside the UK in order to get your fix of testicle chainsawing is the day the UK becomes a policed state.

    Anybody making a fuss about this should all go back to watching their X-Files boxed set DVDs.

  70. 0
    Father Time ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  71. 0
    sir.jamesgreen says:

    A list of films that the BBFC have banned in the past.

    Personally I trust the BBFC in thier job. The less kids I have to see pretending to be killers because mother bought them games they shouldn’t have seen the better. Having worked in a nursery [kindergarten] in a deprived area and seen three and four year old children yelling “Die Mothafu**er” while pointing guns at one another, or telling me with wide eyed excitement about Grand Theft Auto it becomes clear that high ratings have no effect on what kids can get a hold of. In some cases they watch their fathers playing, in others they are just sat in front of the game to shut them up. Yes this is a parenting issue, but as they get older becoming teenagers and eventually adults the emulative nature of their behaviour, copying violence in films and games this argument becomes weaker.

    The BBFC are doing their job, and I’m glad they are.

  72. 0
    Chekhov's Gun says:

    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.

  73. 0
    Father Time ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  74. 0
    jonwanker says:


    1) No, I’m not blaming you for pointing that out, you’ve missed my point. My point is that judging a work, be it a video game or a novel, based on contemporary social attitudes is neither fair nor smart because attitudes DO CHANGE, and such attitudes are often not rational or objective.

    For example, Shakespeare’s plays were reviled in their time for being vulgar, low brow, and generally immoral. Now, we appreaciate them for what they are, great works of literature. While it might seem like a stretch to compare Manhunt to Shakespeare, but I think the PRINCIPLE holds. Manhunt is no great work of gaming, but nevertheless, we shouldn’t judge it based on arbitrary social values, but objectively for its merit.

    The thing about majority-minority dynamics is this, the majority should never be so loud as to drown out the minority. The majority should always give the minority the chance to be heard. In today’s society, people often don’t even give minorities (not race) a chance. Most don’t even bother to understand alternative lifestyles; they see anything that’s different as a threat to their suburban-SUV lives. They choose not to understand anything and ban anything they don’t understand. They don’t give anything a chance anymore, it’s either their way or no way at all, and that’s dangerous.

    2) Right, but film, and the horror movie genera survived didn’t it? It wasn’t dealt a death blow. I don’t think we disagree here, I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about on this point. I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote, “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) Here I disagree completely with you. Just because it has no merit is not a reason for why it should be banned. Pornography is probably a good comparison here. Porno has no merit whatsoever, it is just gratuitous sexuality for the sake of sex. Yet, we don’t ban it. We restrict the hell out of it, making sure that you don’t have to see it if you don’t want to, making sure that children cannot see it, but we don’t ban it.

    The thing about free speech is that, people are allowed to say stupid things. People are allowed to be morons and assholes and express any idea they want to because ideas are inert. Ideas are harmless. Actions cause harm, and that’s why some actions are prohibited, but ideas can’t cause harm.

    When you say that “powerful and graphic violence can have an effect on people”, I think that you don’t give people enough credit. The human mind is extremely resiliant and not as fragile as you think. I sincerely doubt that people who play Manhunt walk away psychologically scarred. In fact, I challenge you to find a case of someone being scarred by purely images alone.

    The developers might’ve been out to cause a stink, and it might be an all out mindfuck, but that doesn’t mean it should be banned. In fact, I can’t think of one good reason for anything to be banned. The thing is, censorship is so repugnant to the idea of liberty that any society that actively enforces censorship of any kind for any reason is in danger of losing its freedom.

    I don’t care what’s in Manhunt, it could have an interactive version of the sickest The Aristocrats joke ever and I still wouldn’t ban it. It could be an immersive re-enactment of the Holocaust that is sympathetic to the Nazis for all I care. No matter how much I disagree with what someone says/makes into a game, I will fight to the death to protect their right to say it/make that game.

  75. 0
    Matthew ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You know what I think would make an interesting survey? How much people agree with the certification (or rather, lack thereof) based on their location. At a glance, most of the people saying that the BBFC are bringing about a police state seem to be American, while the “oh well, at least I can still play Kittenstomp III” group seem to be mainly British.

  76. 0
    Tom (UK) says:

    “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.

  77. 0
    BBFC_are_Wankers says:

    I really can’t believe the number of people on this site agreeing with this ruling. Ratings are one thing but outright bannings to everyone including adults is another. As many others have said the government shouldn’t ban Free Speech solely becuase it’s found to be offensive. If it’s proven to be truely harmful then yes, but there isn’t an ioda of evidence to suggest that this game will be harmful to the general U.K public. And until there is it shouldn’t be banned regardless of how gory or gruesome it is.

  78. 0
    Kodyack says:

    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.

  79. 0
    Tom (UK) says:

    You can argue all you like about lofty concepts like freedom of expression and how censorship is unconditionally bad, but that’s seeing a conspiracy where there is likely none. It’s pretty much irrelevant to Manhunt 2, unless you somehow believe that the BBFC’s action is the first step down the slippery slope to a policed state.

    With rights come responsibilities. Freedom of speech should not be abused for the purpose of causing offence or shock, but that seems to be exactly what Rockstar is trying to do with this game.

    The BBFC is not some oppressive tentacle of an evil government, and they are not “inherently morally superior” to the public. Their task is to reflect public opinion, not dictate to it. I’m pretty sure that the majority of people in the UK would consider Manhunt 2 to be vile and pornographic, and would support the BBFC’s action in this case.

    What it comes down to in the end is the BBFC doing its job: upholding the norms of decency in UK society. It doesn’t affect you, as an American, except indirectly if anti-violence videogame activists in the USA pick up on this story. That’s not the BBFC’s concern though.

  80. 0
    Bubicus says:

    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.

  81. 0
    Anon says:

    @ Luscan.

    Your arguement saying that movies are to scare and games are not suppose to scare you doesnt make sense at all. They let Saw and Hostel go out but not Manhunt 2? This IS a double standard. Forget about the whole interactive part, the game is made to be scary.

    Iv never played the first one, but im sure they made the game to be very very scary. Games are not just made so you can beat it. Most games like FEAR, Half Life 2, Quake 4 are made to SCARE the shit out of you. To say otherwise is foolish.

    They have no right to ban this game or make it AO. If the big problem is the whole wii mote thing, then that is retarded. You get the same game experince whether your using a joy stick or a wii mote. They way you do it changes, but the idea doesnt.

    If their arguement is, “using the wii mote with this game makes it too real!”, then WHAT about every other violent game out there, and violent movie? Its just one big double standard and its really annoying.

    The game is made for adults (Obviously). If a child gets their hands on this the one person to blame is the parents. As stated before me, the Wii has several parental controls built into it. IF the parent is smart enough, they will be able to prevent their child from playing. I do believe the PS3 also has parental controls, but im not sure to what extent. With or without parental controls, however, it is still the parents resposibility.

    As a last word, would the goverment please stop busting our chops and get over it? This happened a few decades ago too. Except it wasnt video games, it was heavy metal music. Remember that?

    “Metal music is the devil!!”

    People seemed to turn out ok regardless.

  82. 0
    Ace of Sevens ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  83. 0
    Matthew ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The general sense I get from the more coherent posts here is the following: “Who says the BBFC has the right to decide what I do?”

    Well, that’s society. The BBFC has analysed the game and determined that it is just not suitable for public consumption at present. They feel it would be detrimental to society for it to be released.

    Compare them to the food standards agency for a while, or to the body which regulates new drugs. If they declared that something were potentially unsuitable for the public, they’d ban it. You do have the right to drink fermented e-coli juice if you so wish, but some scienticians have said that you can’t mass produce it and sell it in the shops.

    The only real difference between these situations is that one is moral and the other physical. That may be a big difference, yes, but the core premise is the same: Society works to help each other. At the moment, British society has declared that Manhunt 2 is not good.

  84. 0
    Godmil says:

    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.

  85. 0
    nrad99 says:

    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, which are actually proven to be harmful to minors? They aren’t banned, maybe because they aren’t immediately labeled by the old and out of touch as being children’s toys.

    Furthermore, there have been no conclusive studies proving that video games are harmful to you’re average, sane person. I’m not saying that 10-year-olds should be able to walk into a Best Buy and purchase this game. But I have to give parents a little bit of credit and assume that from looking at the cover, game description and the big “M” on the front of the box that they won’t buy this game from their children. And if they do, it is no one else’s business, just like it wasn’t the U.S. government’s business to pass the prohibition law or come into people’s rooms and arrest them for wearing condoms.

  86. 0
    Matthew ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  87. 0
    Frosty says:

    Excellent news.

    The game is nothing but a waste of space, a total mindless fest in brutal murder.

    It’s about time such awful tripe be removed, not to mention the fact that the first one totally sucked anyway.

  88. 0
    -Jes- ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    What the BBFC has done is set a precedence, that their ratings board has defined Manhunt 2 as “wrong” on every level. That a type of Media can be 100% harmful to any being in this world to interact with it’s content, through and through.

    And what happens when GTA4 comes out? Will there be screaming, clawing, comparisons between it and Manhunt? Some part of our “society” WILL complain regardless of creative expression given in whatever material you can dig up.

    And if we, as free voices in this society, allow others to silence us because they feel “offended” by this material, heck even give them the precedence that this stiffling of our voices is OK, then we have truly lost any shred of “freedom” we could ever have hoped to have.

  89. 0
    Terminator44 says:

    @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:

    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.

  90. 0
    -Jes- ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ Chuma

    “1) Standards ARE set by society. If you look at history that has been the case since mankind began.”

    True, but banning a game, book or any other form of media on the grounds that it is ‘offensive’ to the majority of society IS stiffling artistic creation and freedom of expression, no matter how you try to spin it.

    As such, it is wrongdoing. Shall we perhaps ban Mein Kampfh? Or 1984? They all have merit, yet can be considered offensive. Saw, perhaps? Hostel??

    Believe it or not, but Manhunt 2 DOES qualify as having artistic merit. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it.

    But don’t support a government in destroying your own personal freedom of choice and expression, BBFC or not.

    It’s the EXACT same argument.

  91. 0
    AdamM says:

    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!

  92. 0

    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…

  93. 0
    MountainMan says:

    I’m not one for censorship for the sake of a popular media story. But the BBFC is one of the most leniant monitoring bodies in the world and would never ban something out of hand. If they have refused a rating then there would have to be a very good reason for it and i would agree to give them the benefit of the doubt until it was proven otherwise.

  94. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  95. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    I’m surprised as well, I just don’t side with the argument that it was a bad decision of ban it just because they don’t like censorship. However I will say this: If it becomes clear that the game is no worse than other such games and was refused a rating because of outside pressures, I would be whole heartedly against it. But right now, I’m happy to give the BBFC the benefit of the doubt, something that is obviously unpopular here :/

  96. 0
    Michael ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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

  97. 0
    DS1O9 says:

    The problem is if they ban it in one country many other countries would follow suit as well. the worst case scenario is it gets banned in Japan, Germany, and Austrailia and all other countries who carry it give it an AO rating.

  98. 0
    Godmil says:

    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.

  99. 0
    Pawsie says:

    I don’t see the problem.. it’s only banned in england. england isn’t the only english speaking country in Europe. If anything, people will try to buy it from other places. The demand for the game is enough that people will by pass the ban and do whatever they want.

  100. 0
    BmK ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  101. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Jon Kanders:

    But smoking in public places is banned because it can harm other people. If the game disturbed someone enough to cause harm to someone else then it would be justifiable by that logic.

    I’m not saying it is, but it is the counter-argument to your point.

  102. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  103. 0
    John Kanders ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Cigarettes are legal. So killing yourself slowly still remains a choice even though children might get access to them. But a video game? Ban it!

  104. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  105. 0
    BmK ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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

    I might work for awhile that is true but after doing it for some time it won’t work anymore. With that said though i don’t believe that violent media causes violent behavior in people. Desensitize them, maybe it depends on the person in question BUT Desensitization isn’t nessassarlity a bad thing. How you react to violence or violent images doesn’t mean you will be more likely to commit violence. Are Doctors, Police Officers, Military Personal not in battle and other people who are exposed to violence and gore all the time more likely to commit violence then lets say a janitor, a teacher or a politican. No.

  106. 0
    Michael ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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

  107. 0
    jonwanker says:


    Ok, here we go. I was hoping to avoid actually having to use my brain here, but you leave me with no choice.

    “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.”

    1) So what if images disturb people? What are these so called “limits of accepability” and who gets to define them? Again, even if these limits are breached, is that wrong? Your argument here is essentially one based on the idea that there are standards that are set by society, and as a society you are justified in condemning anything in violation of these social values.

    The problem is social values change, and more often than not, they are not based in reason. As well, social values tend to favour the majority, and seek to preserve the status quo. Therefore, if we truly take the ideal of social values seriously, we then open our society to a type of social ‘tyranny of the majority’. Which is bad for reasons that should be self-evident.

    The most fundamental principle of western societies has historically been the ideal of liberty. From the British Empericists to the French Philosophes to the American Revolutionaries to the Existentialists, liberty is a consistant theme in the western conciousness. Voltaire said it best, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. The idea of censorship is an anathema to the idea of liberty.

    2) Allowing for a second the assumption that Manhunt is a disgusting game, would its existence threaten gaming as a whole? Do people take literary works less seriously because of ‘pulp fiction’ novels and comic books? Is the Academia taken less seriously because some academic somewhere writes a work denying the Holocaust? Is film as a medium taken for granted because pornography exists? No.

    That you’re afraid what “the Jack Thompsons of the world” might say is a sad statement of the health of liberty in today’s society. Jack Thompson is wrong, period. The man does not argue rationally, and relies on the fears of an ignorant public to fuel his arguments. We shouldn’t be afraid of what Jacko might say, rather, we should be fighting him at every step.

    3) Sure, lots of films and literary works have been edited to suit the mainstream public, but for the same reason, they will never be great. Just as many films are designed to challenge standrads of decency as there are films that bow down to them. True great works of art STRIVE to be controversial, or at very least, refuse to bow to mainstream sensibilities.

    Again, decency laws are fundamentally repugnant to the idea of liberty. Screw decency. Decency is the means through which the mediocre masses subdues the great individual.

    Before you jump on your high horse and claim that laws against pedophilia and child pornography are in the catagory of “the laws of decency of countries”, think again. Child pornography (real photos + videos), as someone else pointed out, is child abuse. Viewing it is partaking indirectly in that abuse. This is different from fictional child pornography such as written works of fiction or illustrations because no abuse has taken place in these cases.

    There, are you happy now? You better read this.

  108. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.


    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.

  109. 0
    BmK ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

    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.

  110. 0
    Godmil says:

    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.

  111. 0
    Stinking Kevin says:

    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.

  112. 0
    Judith Iscariot says:

    …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?

  113. 0
    Michael ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I really like this gamepolitics site because people like chuma and godmil
    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.

  114. 0
    Godmil says:

    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.

  115. 0
    Stinking Kevin says:

    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?

  116. 0
    IanC says:

    Leicester MP Keith Vaz, who campaigned with the Pakeerahs against the original version of Manhunt, praised the decision to ban Manhunt 2.

    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

    The parents who blamed Manhunt for killing there son are also happy with this news.

  117. 0
    Joel Atkinson says:

    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.

  118. 0
    BmK ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Terrible Tom

    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.”

  119. 0
    Gameboy says:

    @ 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….

  120. 0
    squigs says:

    The BBFC is funded by the fees it charges to classify films.

    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.

  121. 0
    jakethe8lf ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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).

  122. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  123. 0
    jonwanker says:


    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.

  124. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    “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…

  125. 0
    Michael ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    People like godmil and chuma need to respect our rights living in a so
    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

  126. 0
    jonwanker says:


    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

  127. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  128. 0
    Andy G&T says:

    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.

  129. 0
    Darrel says:


    Seriously though, some of you need to get off your high horses.


    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.

  130. 0
    BmK ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  131. 0
    Terrible Tom ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    Anyone who is thinks censorship can or is a good idea is a enemy of mine. No matter if its online or offline, I know who threatens my freedom(you). I’m glad I don’t live in the UK though this is pretty rediculous.

  132. 0
    Godmil says:

    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.

  133. 0
    Gameboy says:

    Censorship is a unnecessary evil. Those that say otherwise are merely copping out. Letting others tell them what they want to hear. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. I had no intention to buy Manhunt 2. But, hell, maybe now I will. It may just sit in my library wrapped in plastic, but I might get it just to stick it to the censorcrats.

    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.

  134. 0
    Michael ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  135. 0
    Andy G&T says:

    Where can i get this ‘Gibbage’ that everyone is talking about?
    Apparently it features underage donkeys being buggered to death with prostitutes.

  136. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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)

  137. 0
    orangekrush ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ Chuma,

    “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.

  138. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  139. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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

  140. 0
    ffalcon says:

    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?

  141. 0
    jakethe8lf ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  142. 0
    jonwanker says:


    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.

  143. 0
    jakethe8lf ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I agree with GamerDad, here. It’s up to individuals and parents to govern what they and their family see, rather than the state itself.

  144. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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…

  145. 0
    Stinking Kevin says:


    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?

  146. 0
    GamerDad says:

    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.

  147. 0
    Darrel says:

    @Siftr “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.”

    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.

  148. 0
    jakethe8lf ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  149. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  150. 0
    Dustin1986 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  151. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  152. 0
    jakethe8lf ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  153. 0
    jonwanker says:


    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.

  154. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

    “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.

  155. 0
    BmK ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  156. 0
    Rammsoldat says:


    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.

  157. 0
    Darrel says:

    I love internet arguments


    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.

  158. 0
    orangekrush ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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?

  159. 0
    aniki21 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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 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.

  160. 0
    Luscan says:

    “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. “

    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 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.

  161. 0
    Rammsoldat says:


    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.

  162. 0
    Luscan says:

    “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.”

    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.’

  163. 0
    aniki21 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  164. 0
    squigs says:

    Kroulette – I totally agree.

    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.

  165. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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…

  166. 0
    Luscan says:

    “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.”

    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?

  167. 0
    kroulette ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  168. 0
    Luscan says:

    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.

  169. 0
    Chris S says:

    Now I’m really wondering what was in the game to get it banned, I don’t agree with the ban in principle, but if it was _that_ bad, I couldn’t argue. I’ll have to see what’s in it.

  170. 0
    aniki21 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  171. 0
    Darrel says:

    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.

  172. 0
    Ninchilla says:

    Oh, okay, my mistake. I read a while back they didn’t play them, though I suppose in certain cases they probably would do. I stand corrected.

  173. 0
    Luscan says:

    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.’

  174. 0
    Darrel says:

    I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

    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.

  175. 0
    Chris S says:

    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.

  176. 0
    Duncan says:

    Despite everyone emotionally attached to the case ignoring them, the police stated that the murder of the kid had absoultey nothing to do with Manhunt, and all to do with a drug deal that went wrong. So, if they have taken this into consideration, they’ve done a rubbish job.

    Anyway, bollocks. looks like i’ll have to ship it on from France now.

  177. 0
    JC says:

    I don’t know. I think the violence would be just the same as always. I honestly think the only reason they banned it was the fact that the owner of Manhunt one got killed by his best friend, which they blamed on the game.
    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.

  178. 0
    Luscan says:

    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.

  179. 0
    Ross B ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Chris S, it’s likely that Hostel or Saw received a rating (as it did over here in australia) that’s beyond that which games can achieve hence they refuse classification. It’s not that they don’t think Hostel of Saw contain those things, just that they don’t have an equivalent in Game classification in the UK which is the larger issue here.

  180. 0
    Luscan says:

    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.

  181. 0
    Chris S says:

    …and they let Saw and Hostel through without a murmur?

    As if those films don’t have ‘sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed’.

Leave a Reply