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
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...