Manhunt 2 Banned in Britain

June 19, 2007 -
Rockstar's upcoming Manhunt 2 won't be sold in the U.K., according to a report in MCV.

Citing "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying," the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has refused to rate the ultra-violent sequel, effectively banning it from U.K. shores. Said BBFC exec David Cooke:
Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly... Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing.

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

Against this background, the Board’s carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.

MCV notes that the only other game to be refused classification was 1997's Carmageddon. That decision, however, was overturned on appeal.

Digg!

Comments

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.

@Chuma

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

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

@Chuma

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.

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

Stinking Kevin:

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

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

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

I also think that a lot of you are being very two-faced; I

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.

@ 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.

janwanker:

An appropriate name.

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

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

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

orangekrush:

I could respond but I'll just give you a link instead as people seem to think here that having an opposing argument makes you the antichrist...

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about/index.php

and on the subject of law enforcement of the BBFC...

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/law/index.php

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

INTERNET and GAMING: SERIOUS BUSINESS

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

"ZOMG CENSORSHIP I'M MOVING OUT" or "LOL FUCK YOUR COUNTRY I'M GLAD I DON'T LIVE THERE"

That what this whole comments section has boiled down into. Baseless hate. For all you know the person you've made enemies with on the internet so happens to be your dearest friend in real life who'd never hurt a fly.

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.

gameboy:

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.

@Chuma

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

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

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

Decency is

=9_9=

I haven't seen so many slippery slopes in use since the last time I went to Raging Waters.

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

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

PS

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

Yep. As I predicted, the debate has gone downhill.

Even kittens cannot save this debate.

jonwanker:

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

Except that we are talking about the UK...

Trully bang out of orderof the BBFC, I hope rockstar games and the industry as a whole stands up to this decision.

@Chuma

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

Way to not respond to anything else I wrote.

jonwanker:

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.

@Chuma

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

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

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

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

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.

@ 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....

@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."

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.

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 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6767623.stm

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

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?

sorry, my immediately previous comment intended as response @Chuma

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.

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.

...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?

There is an R18, which allows sales in licenced Sex shops... I dont think it's given out for violent content though.

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

@gibbage:
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.

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.

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.

Stinking Kevin:

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

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

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

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

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



Michael:

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

@Chuma

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.

CHUMA

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

And by the way godmil it has been said many times by a
professional that doing something to pretend that the object is the bad
person to relieve stress reduces the urge to attack someone at the bad
moment.


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.

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.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonthe 3ds already swaps os's with the original ds. plus I dont think people expect miverse interaction when playing a gba game.07/29/2014 - 6:06pm
MaskedPixelanteBut that's not the issue, the 3DS is perfectly capable of emulating GBA games. The problem is that it doesn't have enough available system resources to run it alongside the 3DS OS, and thus it doesn't have access to stuff like Miiverse and save states.07/29/2014 - 5:45pm
Matthew WilsonI am well aware that it requires more power, but if a GBA emulator could run well on a original psp, than it should work on a 3ds.07/29/2014 - 5:36pm
ZenThe reason the SNES could run Gameboy, or the Gamecube could run GBA was because their adapters included all of the necessary hardware to do it in the respective add-ons. The systems were just conduits for control inputs and video/sound/power.07/29/2014 - 4:51pm
ZenMatthew: Emulation takes more power than people realize to run a game properly. You can make something run on less, but Nintendo...as slow as they are at releasing them..makes them run as close to 100% as possible. Each game has its own emulator for it.07/29/2014 - 4:47pm
Matthew Wilsonkind of hard to believe since the 3ds is atleast as powerful as the gamecube hardware wise.07/29/2014 - 4:27pm
MaskedPixelanteYes, the 3DS has enough power to run 16-bit emulators, but not at the same time it's running the 3DS systems themselves. You could run the games, but you wouldn't get save states or Miiverse.07/29/2014 - 4:04pm
InfophileRunning GBA on 3DS shouldn't be hard. The DS had flashcarts sold for it that added just enough power to emulate GBA and SNES games, so the 3DS should have more than enough natively.07/29/2014 - 3:37pm
MaskedPixelanteIt's a bunch of people whining about boycotting/pirating Trails in the Sky FC because XSEED didn't license the Japanese dub track, which consists of about 10 lines per character.07/29/2014 - 11:27am
Sleaker@MP - devolver Digital issued a twitter statement saying they would replace the NISA pledge.07/29/2014 - 10:57am
E. Zachary KnightIs that a discussion about RIAA member music labels?07/29/2014 - 10:48am
MaskedPixelantehttp://steamcommunity.com/app/251150/discussions/0/43099722329318860/ In this thread: Idiots who don't understand how licensing works.07/29/2014 - 9:20am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/07/28/gaymerx-in-dire-straits-after-nis-america-allegedly-backs-out-of/ NISA backs out of GaymerX support, but it seems like the only people crying foul are GaymerX.07/29/2014 - 6:30am
Papa MidnightIt's not bad so far, but I am honestly not sure what to make of it (or where it's going for that matter)07/28/2014 - 9:44pm
Matthew Wilsonis it any good?07/28/2014 - 9:36pm
Papa Midnight"Love Child" on HBO -- anyone else watching this?07/28/2014 - 9:27pm
MaskedPixelanteNah, I'm fine purple monkey dishwasher.07/28/2014 - 4:05pm
Sleaker@MP - I hope you didn't suffer a loss of your mental faculties attempting that.07/28/2014 - 3:48pm
MaskedPixelanteOK, so my brief research looking at GameFAQs forums (protip, don't do that if you wish to keep your sanity intact.), the 3DS doesn't have the power to run anything more powerful than the NES/GBC/GG AND run the 3DS system in the background.07/28/2014 - 11:01am
ZenMatthew, the 3DS already has GBA games in the form of the ambassador tittles. And I an just as curious about them not releasing them on there like they did the NES ones. I do like them on the Wii U as well, but seems weird. And where are the N64 games?07/28/2014 - 10:40am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician