BBFC Rejects Revised Version Of Manhunt 2
BBFC Rejects Revised Version Of Manhunt 2
October 9, 2007
Are you looking forward to playing Manhunt 2 when it launches at the end of the month?Don't hold your breath if you reside in the UK.
As has been widely reported, in June the British Board of Film Classification banned the original version of Manhunt 2 from UK shores.
Publisher Rockstar initially said it planned to appeal the ban, but instead submitted an edited version of the controversial game in hopes of obtaining clearance to sell Manhunt 2 to those 18 and older.
While the editing approach succeeded in North America, where Manhunt 2 was downgraded from a sales-killing AO (Adults Only) rating to a more marketable (M) Mature, such is not the case across the Atlantic. There the BBFC has once again rejected the game.
Said BBFC Director David Cooke:
We recognise that the distributor has made changes to the game, but we do not consider that these go far enough to address our concerns about the original version. The impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the gameplay, is clearly insufficient. There has been a reduction in the visual detail in some of the ‘execution kills’, but in others they retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature.
We did make suggestions for further changes to the game, but the distributor has chosen not to make them, and as a result we have rejected the game on both platforms. The decision on whether or not an appeal goes ahead lies with the distributor.
So what will Rockstar do now?
Editing the game further could make playing Manhunt 2 as pointless as watching the sanitized-for-television version of Friday the 13th.
Gamespot has Rockstar’s reaction:
We are continuing to appeal the BBFC's decision to deny the edited version of Manhunt 2 an 18 certificate and thereby ban its release in the United Kingdom.
The changes necessary in order to publish the game in Britain are unacceptable to us and represent a setback for video games. The BBFC allows adults the freedom to decide for themselves when it comes to horror in movies and we think adults should be similarly allowed to decide for themselves when it comes to horror in video games, such as Manhunt 2.
-Reporting from San Diego, GP Correspondent Andrew Eisen
Comments
Just so you know my post wasn't meant to bash the U.K. (i like Britain and British people, and i live in Canada which was a British colony at one time and still has Queen Elizabeth as the head of state), just what you said in your post about the BBFC being like a republic and the majority deciding what's media is o.k. or not o.k. for all it's citizens. I like Britain, but i loath censorship, no matter what country and no matter where it is.
Oh and if you're looking for a British anti-censorship site Melonfarmers.co.uk is pretty cool.
Bah, the UK is a terrible place for gaming at the moment.
There was a CVG article which I can't be arsed to find which made a point of noting that some gruesome killings seemed unnecessary and for the sake of progress, whereas in Manhunt 1 practically everything was justified because you're character was forced into these situations, and most of the enemies were after you first, something which has changed for Manhunt 2 judging from previews.
It is upsetting that it cannot be released.
On the BBFC thing: They are not a government agency. The ratings are backed by law which is where the confusion is coming from. They have the power to say that a game cannot be released. That is wrong.
No, it isn't. Censorship would be if they prhibited the game because it expressed a specific view, or opinion that might be just, but they don't like it and put a stop to it for the sake of control and repression. This is a game that has gone a bit too far in it's depictions of violence and such and has been found out of bounds of an 18 rating, which has been consulted multiple times with meetings and talks with the general public about the borders of the ratings themselves. This isn't reression or denial of expression, simply a game that has gone too far or not made itself clear enough in certain aspects.
I can't be arsed to argue with ignorant dicks anymore as I;m tired and a bit fecked off, goodbye.
What the fuck? How is that not censorship. How the fuck is that not the very bare basic definition of censorship? I don't know what else to say to you. Holy fuck, you don't even know what censorship is do you?
But for the sake of argument what do you call it when a group prohibits media from the general public?
@VenomandCarnage
I don't care what imaginary sky fairy you worship, I just don't want it effecting public policy. When a game is banned or made to be censored because the content doesn't exactly make the baby jesus feel all warm and fuzzy, then we've got a problem.
When it all comes down to it THE reason for the attack on manhunt and video games in general is because of the warped sense or morality the attackers have garnished from millenia old comic book stories about a super man that can walk on water and heal the blind.
I'm not saying ban religion and kill all christians. I'm saying that logic, not religion, should be the main governing force in reality when it comes to what is right and wrong.
If you think I sound nasty now, or maybe even a bit more like Pandralisk, you have yourselves to thank for people like us. We try to explain things to you in a civil manner at first, but all you hear is "Oh, he's against MY religion, so that means he's stupid and bigoted. I should stop listening alltogether and just call him names now." And that shit is annoying. We can only take so much of that before we start getting mad.
"Well that clears a lot of things up. So the UK has less freedom of expression. As long as you are happy with that, though I can’t see how you would be. Me? I’m happy to live in a country where even troglodytes like Thompson and Pandralisk can say their piece. "
Im very happy with that, thanks. Over here we have far less problems with racism than you do in the states, because people understand that they are not allowed to use hate speech and incite violence through public statements. It sends the message that racism is wrong and unacceptable, and we as a society will not tolerate it. I'll take that any day, over a society where your right to be an openly retarded bigot is protected by law.
Incidentally, there is nothing that either Thompson or Pandalisk have said (that ive seen) that would not be allowed over here however. There are no controls over people rights to free debate and differing opinion, the protections offered by law only come into play when people resort to open discrimination and hate speech against racial or religious groups or based on gender or disability. Maybe the total freedom you defend so strongly wouldnt seem quite as wonderful if you were a black man watching a klan rally go past, or the parent of a dead soldier watching some hatemonger disrupt your kids funeral.
Too much freedom can be an incredibly bad thing in my personal belief. Ah well, your economy currently sucks, you had the freedom to vote for an idiot to run your country and the people of the world that hate you are quite content with the knowledge that you have the total freedom to shoot each other...It all balances out in the end.
while that is true, the content allowed in horror movies is much more graphic than is allowed in video games.
A very sensible post that!
Indeed the BBFC have clearly stated it is not the level of violence that has caused it to be banned (hence why toning the violence down by R* hasn't worked), but rather it is the tone of unremitting casual sadism.
At least with films like Saw you are expected (or at least have the oppertunity) to empathise with the victims, rather than the psyco.
Good points from the both of you. However, people can empathize with the new Manhunt guy as well. This man may be a normal guy, however, he isn't killing by choice, he HAS no choice but to do so as he is backed into a corner and it is the only way for him to survive. In a way, since the guy is trapped by a snuff film director, this is no different then the SAW movies, where some sadist takes a person and puts them into a hopeless situation where they are literally forced into killing in order to survive.
Please. The BBFC wont let you have one sick title and now the countries going to the dogs? Meh..
@Bloodharp,
The Thomas Harris novels, and the films based on them, explore a series of complex themes, taking the reader on a moral trip between feeling sympathy for a protagonist who is led into his mental problems due to the sadistic death of his sibling, and horror at the acts he carries out. Not to mention of course the complex sexual undertones between Lector and Starling. In that kind of context, an act of gratuitious violence can have meaning and purpose.
Has ANYONE got the slightest shred of proof yet that Manhunt 2 offers any kind of depth, or indeed evidence that it is anything more than the twisted gore fest with new interactive slaughter controls(tm) that many of us presumed it was from the outset?
If not, then forgive me if I dont feel any desire to join a fight in the name of censorship thats actually about you guys getting to mash a characters brains in with a bat because its controversial and makes you feel cool and edgy.
True enough of the first Manhunt game, and I've no problem with that one at all. The second game though, positions the player as an ostensibly wrongly incarcerated asylum inmate given the opportunity to escape. There's no guiding influence forcing you to do things anymore.
So the entire gaming scene is terrible because a single game can't reach the market. No melodrama there then. The BBFC banned La Blue Girl in 1996 and I hear the anime industry in the UK hasnt been the same since.
Have you seen the UK sales charts for this week, it makes me sad!
Well, since he's in an asylum, I'm assuming meaning a mental hospital, that would mean that he would be among psychopaths, this would be killing in self defense.
No it isn't. Go back and actually read up on the game via previews and such - there are details that suggest these killings are not forced into or required, and one of the biggest things about BBFC is essentially context - if something can be justified beyond random killing, and portrayed in a way that doesn't encourage, "glamourise" or provide a totally one sided view (especially leaning towards unjust racism, homophobia etc.) then it's probably going to be passed.
I suppose the point is moot, but I'll chip in my two cents because I've got nothing better to do right this moment.
Even if you disagree with this particular title, the idea that a third party has the authority to go "No, you can't have this because we feel it might be hazardous to someone else" should be considered horrid in every sense of the word. The instant someone else removes the choice from the public's hands, there should be a cry of outrage.
The BBFC has (and not for the first time, apparently) basically told you that you don't have the mental capacity to decide whether this game is appropriate for you in provate use, or that you have the fortitude to play it without going on a rampage of some kind.
It is not the individual argument that you should be considering, it's censorship as a whole.
'The UK is a terrible place for gaming at the moment'
Oookay...so just because you can't get your fix of gore and death out of one solitary game you think everything's going to hell for the videogame industry. How about Singapore, where they banned the Darkness, or Germany, who have banned Jericho, or the multitude of games banned in Australia? Trust me, it's a lot worse elsewhere in the world.
And you seem to have blown the study that's just been announced out of context. The whole point of the study is to prove whether or not the whole 'Videogames are the root of all the violence in the world' is true or just one big fat lie conjured up by the media and the OAPs and bad parents who want to blame something else other than their ineptitude for why their children are complete bastards. The fact that a number of elements within the videogame industry are supporting it should help you bear that in mind.
No, they haven't.
There's a reason we split off to become the only free country in the world :)
But seriously, I do find the ability of a government organization to ban any speech quite disturbing. If they can ban Manhunt 2 because it is very violent and they disagree with it, what is to stop them from banning other games or other media they disagree with? Let's ban Spore, it supports evolution, a sinful, morally corrosive lie from the militant atheists! Let's ban Age of Empires 2, it shows the Arabs in a sympathetic light, and we can't have that while we are quagmired in Curious George's Iraqi Adventure! I think any form of censorship is a slippery slope, as there is nothing to prevent them from extending their twisted logic further to "protect the morals of the culture" and, as Mark Twain put it, preventing men from eating steak because babies cannot eat it.
The BBFC is not, repeat, NOT, a government organisation. It is not owned, organised or regulated by the house of commons, the house of lords, the home office, the royal family or any political organisation. It is in fact, as stated by their website www.bbfc.co.uk:
'an independent, non-governmental body, which has classified cinema films since it was set up in 1912, and videos since the passing of the Video Recordings Act in 1984.'
The only political matter behind the BBFC is that they were designated by the 1984 Video Recordings Act to be the authority to classify age ratings, 'charged with applying the new test of 'suitability for viewing in the home''.
This hasn't got anything to do with the government, as the BBFC are not associated with them. Please bear that in mind when talking about government censorship conspiracy theories...
You think these facist "moralistic" pigs would realize that the goverment cannot decide the morality of a paticular peice of media. Firstly, their bullshit divine-command "values" amount to little more than a pile of shit shoveled into a great pile of differing opinion. Censoring the game denies individuals to make up their own minds on the subject, robbing people of the very right to govern their own actions. If these bible thumping idiots would shut their mouths long enough, they might realize that other factors are responsible for violence: poverty, religious fanatacism, cut-throat capitalism, racism.
“Bah, the UK is a terrible place for gaming at the moment.”
And yeah, the entire gaming scene sucks when developers must cower before a government censorship board; regulating their content in ways that make content that is EXPLICITLY FOR ADULTS, "safe for children."
Statutory powers on film remain with the local councils, which may overrule any of the Board's decisions, passing films we reject, banning films we have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction.
So in essence, the point about 'oh films like Saw go through and Manhunt doesn't' doesn't exist when concerning the BBFC, as they don't have ultimate authority on what gets shown or not.
You going a bit overboard here. These are not extremists that censor games.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't really... The BBFC doesn't BAN anything. They have refused it classification which means that it can't be SOLD.
Not being able to sell something is not the same as not being able to say it.
Censorship can be described as the explicit editing of content by a goverment (or private) entity, or a forceable, goverment-sanctioned, act of coercion used to dramatically change the origional content of media.
Do not try to wiggle around the minor technicalities of the term: this is an example of hardcore censorship, utilized by a group of people who are trying to shove their religious, superstitious, values down your throat.
You obviously know fuck all about the BBFC and how it works, and are making links that aren't there at all.
Out of curiosity what planet are you living on?
At what point did anyone in the BBFC state that Manhunt 2 violates their Judeo-Christianic values. Not only have you grabbed the wrong end of the stick, but you seem to have fully grasped a totally different stick, in a different country.
Not to mention that Britain is just about the most secular place on the plant, "bible thumping idiots" I think not!
18' – Suitable only for adults
No-one younger than 18 may see an ‘18’ film in a cinema. No-one younger than 18 may rent or buy an ‘18’ rated video.
In line with the consistent findings of the BBFC's public consultations, at '18' the BBFC's guideline concerns will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the law. Exceptions are most likely in the following areas:
* where material or treatment appears to the Board to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour, to society – e.g. any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts, or of illegal drug use, which is likely to promote the activity. The Board may also intervene with portrayals of sexual violence which might, e.g. eroticise or endorse sexual assault.
* the more explicit images of sexual activity – unless they can be exceptionally justified by context and the work is not a 'sex work' as defined below.
In the case of videos and DVDs, which may be more accessible to younger viewers, intervention may be more frequent. For the same reason, and because of the different way in which they are experienced, the Board may take a more precautionary approach in the case of those digital games which are covered by the Video Recordings Act.
Sex Education at ‘18’
Where sex material genuinely seeks to inform and educate in matters such as human sexuality, safe sex and health, exceptions to the normal constraints on explicit images may be made in the public interest. Such explicit detail must be kept to the minimum necessary to illustrate the educational or instructional points being made.
Sex Works at ‘18’
Sex works are works, normally on video or DVD, whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation. Sex works containing material which may be simulated are generally passed ‘18’, while sex works containing clear images of real sex are confined to the ‘R18’ category.
In those games the multiplayer aspect boils down to, you have people and guns in an arena, and the people use the guns to kill each other for no reason at all. Wanton violence simply for the sake of violence.
Another question is, if they block this, what comes next? Do they simply start blocking every game that portrays a world view they don't agree with? Does the next Final Fantasy gets blocked, not for violence or anything like that, but because there's "magic" in it and "magic" is of the devil?
Not being a government agency is a little odd to claim given their position due to the 1984 Video Recordings Act. Now we have a private organization with government level control over media and no "checks and balances" in place. I know the UK works differently than the USA, but doesn't the government still have limits on its power that the people can call upon? Limits that can't be used against a private organization?
The UK might not be a "terrible place for gaming at the moment", but if a stand is not taken against this now it could very well become a terrible place for gaming.
Note: I dislike Manhunt and SAW and those types of things, but I feel that anyone of age who wants to see or play them should be able to, and that no outside party should be able to govern entertainment in this way (rate it AO yes, ban it no). I don't think this is some censorship conspiracy whatnot as some people above seem to conclude, I just don't think such a private organization should have such power because private organizations in the past have shown they can't handle power properly.
Continuing your ongoing education into the BBFC, you might also llike to know that the Guidelines they follow are arrived at by public consultation, therefore the only people "trying to shove their religious, superstitious, values down your throat" are the people themselves. Also of interest is the fact that any local authority can override any rating assigned to a work following public pressure. If you want to buy Manhunt 2, try writing to your yours.
I guess I stand corrected, it looks like there are checks and balances in place for use on the BBFC I was not aware of.
Still can't say I agree with them being able to ban something. I think the system should be set up so that the highest is AO (and not banned), with the pressure from the public used to change a current rating (higher or lower), based on what the population thinks is the right rating for the game after seeing it and playing it themselves.
FPS's generally dont run into problems because the killing is usually clearly intended as fantasy. Its a big step from blasting your way through a crowd of mates on Halo, and acting out acts of horrendous, brutal violence in a lifelike setting. Theres a reason that the blood effects on most games still have a cartoony look to them, and that reason has very little, or nothing to do with technological constraints.
@Scottland89,
You also cant watch a film glorifying rape. We have certain standards in place, and while I dont particularly buy into the argument about violent media leading to people carrying out those acts, I do believe that they have a general effect on society and what we consider acceptable. Most people dont believe its ok for someone to hack a persons head in half with a rusty saw, even if that is just on a video game. I think it says something worrying about us if we think that it is not only ok, but something we should be fighting for.
Alright. I've had enough. With all the inflammatory, vitriolic bile your spewing at every religious person here, you're only a half-step short of being as blind and arrogant as Jack Thompson. Morality is not the monopoly of religion, nor are bigoted, reactionary responses like yours.
Take my advice and shut your mouth unless you can constructively and objectively convey your point. This is a website about video games and politics. Neither one of which is grounds for this unadulterated hate speech you've got going against the various religions.
And while I'm at it, here's a thought I picked up from my world religions professor: Anyone trying to attack religion is being foolish. It's been around for over 2000 years, and it will happily survive after you're dead and buried.
Find another forum for your filth. The religious and non-religious alike on this site are fed up with your BULLSHIT.
Actually lets consider the facts, equivalent costs for consoles in the UK when converted to dollars; PS3 $1000, 360 $500, Wii $360.
Then lets throw in the fact, that major titles like say, Kingdom Hearts 2, are taking almost a year to make it over here when they are already in english.
Its not just one game, its a series of things that extends beyond just one game, like did you know EU Pal PS3's only actually had 2/3's the operating power of the NTSC systems?
The fact is, the UK is constantly being dumped on, in terms of prices, hardware statistics, release dates and feature sets. The fact is, its the culmination of all theses things, especially when digital distribution and e-stores are on the verge of wiping out physical game stores in the UK, I say the state of gaming here is so bad.
Regarding film, the final authority on what gets shown on film isn't actually from the BBFC, it is actually from the local councils themselves who have Statutory powers, able to ban films that have been accepted, or allow films that have been rejected, or organise other cuts and edits that BBFC hadn't done before.
In essence, the BBFC is really just an advisory board, albeit one whose decisions are marked as legal entities if they are accepted.
For some reason the shooting of people in media in general seems not to be classified as very violent for some reason. For example shooting is common in films that are only 12 rated.
I suspect because it is so impersonal and detached from the actual killing.
It's not like FPS's never run into trouble, but when they do it is often for the opertunity to maim bodies, or otherwise desicrate them.
*Everything* costs more in the UK, its a factor of cost of living, economy and many other factors far beyond the ken of a mere gamer like me.
Regarding localisation, you realise of course that EU releases require translations into many different languages before release? You can't just release a game into the EU solely in English, or (I think) into to just the UK. I think there are actually EU regulations regarding this. Games like Kingdom Hearts have a massive quantity of text and dialogue requiring sophisticated translation (note how much longer FF12 took to translate compared to FF7).
As for "EU Pal PS3’s only actually had 2/3’s the operating power of the NTSC systems", please could you elaborate or cite a source for this?
The issues of console pricing, release dates and the like are a very different issue, and one where not just the UK but Europe in general get screwed on a regular basis and have done for many years. You want to talk about that, and you'd probably find im right there fighting on your side. Linking that to a decision by the BBFC to not rate Manhunt 2 though, is just too much of a stretch.
Incidentally, the part you said about the game already being in English isnt necessarily true. Many games now have 2 localizations, an English and an American version. The differences are pretty subtle, but are there all the same.
Congratulations you corrupt, morally-bankrupt crook, you've successfully turned Britain into a nanny-state and the laughing stock of the free world. I hope you're happy, you stupid cunt.
He's nothing to do with this issue. Now would you stop spouting blatant swear words for no reason in particular?
Oh, and it's Tony Blair that turned the UK into a Nanny state, not Keith Vaz...
I know that most FPS games lack the graphic level of violence that Manhunt has, but what happens when one does? When some gun, for example called "the manripper", shoots out saw blades that realistically eviscerate your target?
Should the game be banned because it's graphically violent and the killing is senseless violence for the sake of violence? After all playing the game with your buds shooting each other isn't part of the story, you're not out there saving the world from destruction, just taking big virtual guns and pointing them at each others virtual avatar and shooting them till they stop moving.
Would it matter that it's a social thing and that the violence doesn't really matter cause you're all friends? Why would it then be so different from killing an AI controlled creature in the game?
Since I personally find it more relaxing to go around killing off AI controlled things than duel with friends, and since it sounds like the main reason for the ban is because there's no reason for your character to be killing these people, I fail to see how even it being very graphical makes it much, if any, worse than sitting around with your buds shooting each other in a FPS.
Now would you stop spouting blatant ignorance for no reason in particular?
with thunderous applause
It shouldn't matter what the game is or its content. That is not the issue. The fact that a government (and hold the crap about the BBFC not being 'government' as any body that is funded by a government and has the power to enforce legislation IS government) takes ANY amount of rights away from the population should be bothersome to everyone.
As they say - it is the start of a slippery slope
a) The goverment has no direct control over the BBFC.
b) No-one listens to Keith Vas... ever!
The BBFC has NOTHING to do with the government. Whatever Vaz may have said, will have ZERO effect on the BBFCs decision. Stop it with the Governmental conspiracy theories.
If you had a neighbour who got up every sunday morning and set up a row of mannequins in his garden full of mince and cow blood, and then spent all day hacking those to peices in the most interesting ways he could devise, im guessing you'd find that a little worrying. As news about games spread, and cases like Manhunt become so widely reported on, thats pretty much the same kind of reaction that a lot of people are going to start having towards gamers if we start defending things like Manhunt too strongly.
Of course graphic nature makes a difference. Having non realistic visuals makes a game much more discernible from real life, and makes the distinction between real and fake more obvious. It's why films like Lord of the Rings can show a head being lopped off from an orc can get a 12, and a human head would probably get a 15/18 - it's more obvious the creatures are fake and entirely made up, therefore non-realistic, and easier for an individual to tell fantasy from real (especially when you go to extremes like "snuff" films that might look incredibly realistic and sickening to watch despite being fake, and induce similar reactions as if it were real).
Now, I'm sure the above argument will be used as the graphics aren't photo realistic, but they don't have to be. They're aiming for a realistic depiction, often with plenty of gore and blood. There's also a lot to be said for audio qualities, with the games sound effects being particularly gruesome, along with the sadistic nature of the kills themselves, far above any FPS game.
In regards to a multiplayer aspect, it could often be justified as an extension of mechanics in the single player game, except being able to play against friends. Chances are if you're playing with mates it's already well realised it's fake.
The BBFC has nothing to do with the government? That's good. So Rockstar can tell them, "fuck you we're releasing it in your country anyways."
Of course, this would be true with any other game, but with a game surrounded by this much controversy, if the BBFC decided to greenlight it, it could've risked calls for a review by the government, which is exactly what is happening in the States in regards to the ESRB and it is something the BBFC does not want on its plate. I'm not saying its a conspiracy; I'm just saying the BBFC has only done this to save its own skin, not because Manhunt is too violent for Britain.
The BBFC is funded by the organisations that submit their media for classification. They do not have the power to enforce legislation and they can't stop you watching a film or playing a game that isn't otherwise illegal.
Your problem is apparently with the Video Recordings Act - take *that* up with the government.
You've got it completely wrong. BBFC never banned the original and stod by their original rating, supporting the game and it's decision. It was stores that refused to sell it after it was unjustly linked to a murder.
BBCF does not and I don't think has just about never caved in to political or public pressure. They rated the game according to the same standards (maybe even more lax than when the first game was rated), the difference as discussed before, judging from previews, reviews and the BBFC statements is the context and justification of the violence itself. You are basing you're opinions knowing fuck all about the content of the game, it's context, and relying on absolutely no knowledge or history of the BBFC and how it works.
'The BBFC has nothing to do with the government? That’s good. So Rockstar can tell them, “fuck you we’re releasing it in your country anyways.”
They could try, but without a legal age rating, then it would be unlikely that stores would stock it without fear of repercussion, and Rockstar would lose a huge sum of money and profit.
That's ultimately the goal of a business after all...to make profit.
I'm really sick of people saying that as an adult ONLY they have the right to decide what they can and can't watch. There HAS TO BE a socially acceptable level of what people can, and can not do. Otherwise there would be nothing stopping you going to a shop and buying Child-Porn, or Snuff Film. In the same way as society stop you going out and murdering people, or beating the crap out of people.
Whatever some of the posters think about Manhunt the simple truth is that the vast majority of people in this DEMOCRACY do not want this sort of thing to accept. The BBFC is in place to uphold the general concencus of what is and is not acceptable.
FFS people realise that we have what we do and don't do regulated our ENTIRE lives, grow up and move on!
"The BBFC has nothing to do with the government? That’s good. So Rockstar can tell them, “fuck you we’re releasing it in your country anyways.”
Yup - I couldn't have said it better myself. An agency does not need to have the name 'Ministry of" in front of it to be considered an arm of government.
Hey - its not my country - if Britons feel the need to have the government tell them what they can and cannot watch, then so be it. Canada is not that bad... yet...
The neighbor thing would be worrying, since it would represent a disconnect on some mental level, and also the actions he or she is doing would be viewable as preparing to do the same thing to living people. Now there could be some connection made to the Wii-mote that taking swings with it can be preparing to do the same thing, but it's quite different to swing a Wii-mote around and actually hack something to pieces with a meat-cleaver.
9 out of 10 times I sit down to play a game it's something without any serious level of violence, things like Ragnarok Online, EVE, Armored Core, etc. But sometimes I like to play something with a more visceral appeal, so into the PS2 goes God of War or some other similar game and I spend the next few hours painting virtual walls red and any other color my enemies bleed. Maybe it's just cause I only casually play really violent games, but I don't see the translation from killing things made of 1's and 0's into killing things made of real flesh and blood; and unless you've already got problems upstairs, I think it would be hard to take an experience like Manhunt any differently than any other violent game that's been rated and released.
The Board is an independent, non-governmental organisation. Its business affairs are controlled by a council of management selected from leading figures in the manufacturing and servicing sectors of the film industry. This council appoints the President, who has statutory responsibility for the classification of videos and the Director who has executive responsibility and formulates policy. The Board, which is based in Soho Square, Soho, London, is financed from the fees it charges for classifying films and videos and is run on a not-for-profit basis.
In the case of films shown in cinemas, local authorities have the final legal say about who can watch a particular film. The majority of the time, local authorities accept the Board's recommendation for a certificate for a film. There have been some notable exceptions - particularly in the 1970s when the Board allowed films such as Last Tango in Paris and The Exorcist to be released with an X certificate (essentially the same as today's "18") - but many local authorities chose to ban the films regardless.
I love playing violent games too, but whereas im happy to shoot someone in counter strike and release a bit of tension, i'd find it worrying if I was sawing off someones legs in cinematic slow mo to get the same release.
Now read what was said earlier before spewing your 'The BBFC is obviously governmental' bullshite...
I'm sorry you willfully refuse to take the opportunity to educate yourself when its presented to you.
You say Canada isn't as bad? Indeed, Canada has a seperate classification board for each territory or province, all apparently confusing the hell out of everyone with their own ratings system. So much so apparently that negotiations are underway for a unified board to replace them (any of this sounding familiar?). A number of these territories already require any work on sale to have a classification, but their highest rating applies only to works that are "considerd tolerable to the community". So you tell me, because unlike you I'm willing to learn, what difference is there between Canada and the UK?
Where else have I seen a knee jerk reaction like this before...oh yeah, that psychotic preacher who said I was going to hell because I gave the movies "Dogma" and "The Covenant" positive reviews. In case you haven't noticed, the UK is less religious than the US. You may be intelligent, but you're facts are ill-informed, so go back to /b/, cause not even the atheists here like you, cause you make them look bad.
As far as I am aware, there is no interest in either provincial (territorial) or federal governments in a 'government' enforced ratings system. The only things the government cares about around here is a health care system and how to pay for it.
That being said there is the ESRB system that is used here.
I suppose the only difference is that a game can be distributed without a rating but some stores will refuse to sell 'unrated' games.
Apologies, hostility wasn't intended; I was just beginning to feel brick wall indentations on my forehead =)
But, all in all, not a great lot of difference then.
Yeah, sawing might be worrying if it gives you the same release as CS. I don't really play violent games to release tension, anger though bleeds away faster than my opponents after a good God of War session.
Also one can step back from the game and consider things like, "I might not be the best person in this world, but I sure wouldn't do that to anyone", which is something that actually helps me relax while playing these games. Might be a little silly using God of War for the example but it feels good to be able to say, "I might be angry right now but I'd never jam blades in someone's mouth then rip their head off".
Perhaps the problem isn't game content, but how the game is played? If someone's playing manhunt as some sort of preparation then they're sick and need help, but if they're playing it as just a game with the knowledge that it's twisted, and also knowing they'd never do something like that in the real world then I feel the content and graphics aren't much of an issue.
In the end I think that what people do in the real world matters most, and I think that even upstanding people can still play and enjoy this type of game so long as they're mature enough to know it's just a game, and not go out after playing it and beat up the homeless guy at the end of the street with a tire iron.
I do wish you would stop trying to shove your twisted, hate filled, bigoted values down our throats.
Sorry bout the delay in this reply, kinda missed your reply to me the first time going over new posts.
Graphic nature does make a difference, but that difference should be changing a 12 and up rating to 18 and up, not an outright ban. I also agree that there are limits that the law should impose on some things like Snuff films, but with what I've seen of Manhunt 2 and the other games I've played that are on the market; I can't agree that Manhunt 2 is on such a different level to deserve being banned.
"Chances are if you’re playing with mates it’s already well realised it’s fake."
Fair enough, but I think if someone's mature enough to be an adult then they already know it's fake when they put the disk in, even if they're all alone when they do it. Even stuff based on true stories is just based on it and shouldn't be considered true in total if it's been made into a game.
Is the idea that not all gamers and developers are sheep who must blindly follow the common line, quite such a bad one? You've just seen a lot of people above giving interesting and diverse reasons for agreeing with the BBFC's decision, and in several cases if not agreeing, then at least understanding the reasons why its an issue. Personally, I find that a lot more encouraging that a hundred posts of 'Fuck the BBFC, how dare they not let me play what I want'.
I don't see why. I mean if the government can't say anything about it the stores should still sell it.
"Oookay…so just because you can’t get your fix of gore and death out of one solitary game you think everything’s going to hell for the videogame industry. How about Singapore, where they banned the Darkness, or Germany, who have banned Jericho, or the multitude of games banned in Australia? Trust me, it’s a lot worse elsewhere in the world."
That's like saying you don't have to clean your dirty house because your neighbor's house is dirtier.
The government CAN say something about it. They, and local councils, still have the final word on what gets released or not, and what they base their decision on is what the BBFC advises them. What we've been talking about is that the BBFC themselves aren't the legal regulatory governmental force. They're merely the ones that give the classifications that they feel are correct, but they're not the ones who state which games and films are banned. That's what seperates them from the government. They're advisors, not actual censors.
It's also not just about whether the government says anything or not, it's about stores getting hit by media speculation and angry parents going ballistic at them and spreading the word that the stores will sell 'evil' to children without legal interference. Video game stores just won't deal with that because it will hit their profits (GAME for example banned selling Manhunt 1 after the Daily Mail 'Ban these evil games' fiasco, despite the BBFC still sticking to certifying it for sale, because they were worried about the media comeback. In the end, they lifted the ban and sold it again because it was selling like mad because of the media frenzy), and at the end of the day, profit is more important than art and censorship.
So the British government gets to have their cake and eat it to. It must be awesome to have the BBFC on the end of a leash, but when the claims of censorship hit the fan the government can just play dumb and say, "Hey, the BBFC isn't part of us".
So you end up with idiotic backroom politics.
In the US, I thought that Rockstar totally did the right thing by blurring execution cut scenes and removing the castration. Essentially, they "toned it down" a little, which is kind of what the AO rating was suggesting that they do... seemed like the contoversy died down after that...
The BBFC is being unreasonable.
(David Cooke:) "the bleaknes and callousness of tone... nature of the gameplay"
Here, the BBFC is is rejecting the concept or idea behind the game.
It doesn't make sense. By this standard, if the game was done with cartoon stick figures it would also be banned.
To me, banning an idea is not too far from Hitler's book burning.
But the point is it isn't just graphical nature - it's the storyline and themes, along with context - are those killings justified in some way by story and situation, and if so, is it represented in a more well rounded manner, and in a way that doesn't encourage said violence as normal and OK, which is what the BBFC essentially does in it's ratings. The thing is, We don't know everything that's in the game, and as I've stated in some of my other retorts, it appears even jsut reading previews etc. there are moments where the rather extreme violence and other adult content aren't justified or represented properly. That's essentially the detrimental effect most rating boards talk about. Not neccesarily you'll believe the game is real and you'll go out killing, but it'll affect your views, influence you (obviously you're an adult and most of your views are well ingrained, but it doesn't make you invulnerable to influence, even if just on a minor level, and could effect younger children in how they see violence ad other themes represented in the game, one reason why boards age rate to begin with). It's important to note after that last bit I said, that isn't repression of a view or opinion or in this case a game, but making sure said view, idea, story/characters etc are well rounded, and any actions and such are put in proper context to help understand, and also minimize any glamorisation, making something bad/irrepsonsible and stupid look "cool" and other such stuff.
@ Erik
You're an idiot and obviously won't listen to sense or a proper informed view.
@ BmK
BBFC doesn't do fuck all in violating rights and freedoms of any sort, try reading up a bit.
They are not banning an idea. Again, context, justification and along with other factors.
Maybe you should try making a proper informed point of view for once to see.
But it comes down to the fact that if Rockstar does find their testicles and release the game without the consent of the BBFC, then if the BBFC isn't a governmental branch/lapdog then the British Government shouldn't do and won't be able to do jack shit.
And if they do. Hey look governmental censorship.
"BBFC doesn’t do fuck all in violating rights and freedoms of any sort, try reading up a bit."
Except, you know, in getting a governmental ban on Manhunt 2.
Seriously, who gives a damn about the BBFC's justification?
1... Context and justification are ideas. If Manhunt 2 were a written novel, then context and justification would seem more like ideas.
2... this is my personal opinion:
In other games, like maybe Medal of Honor or something... there are the "good guys" and the "bad guys."
My view is that, this kind of thinking leads to the perception that maybe it's ok to kill the bad guys (like Sunnis in Iraq - or people in the US on death row - or "terrorists" in Guantanimo Bay) -and that violence has a moral justification... this is not a viewpoint that *Christ probably held (as he was once a 'bad guy' himself)
*using 'Christ' as an example becuase people like Jack Thompson seem to be into him...
I'm saying that one game that portrays violence and killing as having a proper context and justification is not morally better or worse than one with an "improper" conext or justification. This is just my POV.
Perhaps a game without the right context isn't appropriate for children.... but people over 18?
3... and i said that by this standard, something like cartoon stick figures would also be banned...
maybe they should ban the looney tunes because of Buggs Bunny's sadistic treatment of Daffy or Elmer Fudd...
I can't say that'd bother me, since I already order games from eBay vendors in China--as much as 50% off and I don't mind the wait.
"On the BBFC thing: They are not a government agency. The ratings are backed by law which is where the confusion is coming from. They have the power to say that a game cannot be released. That is wrong."
Exactly. There is a difference between a literal ban and a de facto one. The latter being what the BBFC does, just the way the ESRB and the Big Three have done in the US.
You do in some way as you're here arguing, unless you've stumbled into the wrong argument.
I wouldn't be calling people idiots if I hadn't already provided and fully explained my points 10 times over, and didn't feel like I was banging my head against a brick wall with lots of people who have no idea of what censorship means, don't understand the concept that the BBFC is an independent body no matter what way you try and spin it, and generally weren't fecking tired of arguing with people who are absolutely clueless about the ratings system and aren't that informed on these matters as they perhaps think they are.
Pandralisk you stupid bootlick. Where the hell do you racist bastards come from? Jack's arse? Where, in that article, did it make the faintest mention of religion you stupid fuck?
Look in the mirror, and I guarantee you'll see an old wanker with white hair and legions of enemies staring back at you. That's right, you're JT's biggest fan without realising it. Fuck off to some other corner of the internet you arsewipe.
I think you're the one who is struggling with the definition of censorship. Is the BBFC allowing the game to be released? If the answer is no then it is censorship.
You seem to believe that this form of censorship is kosher because A: its not "really" the government. and B: The context is bad.
Let me tell you about the context. At this point I think that Rockstar should double the violence from the original version and turn the targets of the unjustified killings into children, THEN release it in the UK without the consent of the BBFC.
I never mentioned the BBFC. What i said was that the 1984 (sounds like Orwell) Video Recording Act should be eliminated. That way if the BBFC decides to not rate a film or movie it could still be sold in the U.K. Content based censorship unless we're talking about actual harm like real child porn or snuff films are downright wrong and disgusting. It is an indirect form of government mind and thought control against the citizens of the state as the nanny-state is restricting the dissemination of media that allow citizens to form their own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to ideas, information, messages and opinions. This is very dangerous. The government should have no right to ban media on the basis or content solely because they fin d it offensive to their puritanical morals or beliefs. PERIOD!
Once again you've missed the whole point and purpose of those laws in the first place, and indirectly the BBFC. The UK is pretty liberal, including the BBFC, and are all up for expression of ideas, information, mess