October 12, 2007 -
MCV reports today that the revised Manhunt 2, from which the British Board of Film Classification has refused to lift a nationwide ban, is the same version that earned an M (17 and older) rating from America's ESRB.And, as if this story needed any additional controversy, the BBFC's Sue Clark took exception to Rockstar's assertion that the organization has different standards for horror movies and horror games. Said Clark:
We don’t differentiate how harsh we are on DVD or video games – we have a duty to both under the Video Recordings Act. If we were more tough on games than any other medium, don’t you think we’d be banning far more titles? Manhunt 2 is the second game we have rejected in 23 years. I’d hardly call that draconian.
DVD companies don’t complain when we reject their products. The creator of the Struggle In Bondage didn’t get up in arms. Manhunt 2 went beyond our guidelines when it came to gross violence and we had a public duty to reject it.
An appeal on the BBFC ruling is pending.
Comments
Actually, you'll probably find less argument than you think you would, personally, I would have preferred the game to be released and then bombed, as it is, unfortunately, the BBFC have simply given it more weight, more popularity, and pushed it into the Pirate market where it will be far far harder to control in any way, which is actually going to encourage this kind of market. A simple release and bomb situation would have discouraged it.
Hot Coffee would be my guess.
(That's not counting JT)
Well, it's just that the ERSB is so tight with sex it's not real. How God of War I & II got through is beyond me.
What's it like to live in a country ruled by conservatives? I mean, it must be comparable to.. I dunno.. Nazi Germany?
Funny I am a American and think the ESRB and BBFC are doing a “ok” job,the trouble is they are not trying to perfect what they are doing, the BBFC could easily setup a blacklist setup where games/movies are not “banned” but removed from the sight minors while imperfect itself Germany’s “see no evil here no evil” setup is not that bad, the ESRB could also make inroads to change however out of the 2 the ESRB is has its hands tied,while the BBFC could actually do something to prevent bans of all kinds and protect children, BTW dose the UK already have a no display for R+ dvd/game rule?.
"I still don’t think you can assume the graphics quality doesn’t directly and intensely effect the impact the content has on the audience..."
I do. More realistic violence is likely to have a stronger effect on people. What I disagree with is the one-dimensional threshold test often thrown around here in defence: "This game does not look as realistic as Hostel therefore it is no 'worse' than Hostel."
""
Total agreement. Many violent games use violence as the theme to carry the game. The Gravity Gun lets you tear a radiator from the wall and launch it into the face of a zombie, severing his head for a quick kill. Dead Rising had a similar style of encouraging you to think outside the box and use your surroundings as weapons. Devil May Cry is all about maintaining style throughout the slaughter. Bioshock rewards you for mixing plasmids to exploit the AI.
We giggle at creative deaths and play further to see what else we can come up with.
The same sort of reasoning makes us want to watch Saw, or Cube. We want to see what the writers come up with. We see the teaser for Saw IV plastered on the side of a bus and wonder just why that guy is in a headbrace and what else it is attached to. The roles are slightly different though, and that difference is worth noting. When we watch a movie it's like someone else (the writers) playing a violent game. The Saw team designed those sick traps, honed them, rehearsed them, tweaked them... they did the sort of thing a *player* of Manhunt would.
An audience member watching Saw might be encouraged to think about what will happen next, or what they would do in that situation, or even how they would make the trap *more* violent, but a gamer is asked to think about it and then put it into action.
I don't think he believes that games program people, he's just saying that the issues between Video Games and Movies is a complex one, it reminds me of a proverb I heard once..
I hear and I forget.
I see and I remember.
I do and I understand.
That can be a good and a bad thing, I personally don't believe that games will teach someone who would never be violent to be violent, however, I am prepared to accept that someone who wants to commit violence in real life will use the ability to do it in a game as an excuse for doing so to real person. That, however, is not the games fault, like Charles Manson blaming the Beatles for the Polanski killings, it is not the Media's fault that Manson was a murderer, Manson already had that in him, he just wanted an excuse, and had it not been the White Album, it would have been something else.
The Magna-Carta is not as powerful a document as the Constitution, however, it does grant a fair degree of rights to the People. There are 3 main clauses still active...
* I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
* IX. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, and all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
* XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.[1]
In short the right to Liberty, Freedom of Expression and Due Process.
if so, the BBFC is full of lyinig liars who lie.
It should be: The ERSB has rejected the same Manhunt 2 version that the BBFC accepted. That at least would be plausible.
She basically admits that they ban games. That's the problem right there. They have the power and authority to ban anything. There is never a reason to straight ban anything from society. If the public does not desire it, they will shun it themselves. I say, allow the people to decide for themselves.
She refers to "public duty", but who asked her to perform these duties and gave her the authority to ban material? I'm all for rating material to assist the consumer, but telling them they are not allowed to view certain content is completely against the ideals of freedom and democracy.
The BBFC doesn't have the right to ban anything. Sony, Nintendo and Miscrosoft have however given them that right by refusing to allow AO games on their consoles.
Since people are forgetting, the reason why it was banned was for the tone, not the content.
The BBFC is doing some serious knee-jerking.
"Manhunt 2 is the second game we have rejected in 23 years. I’d hardly call that draconian."
I would, whether it was 2 titles, or 200. It's censorship, pure and simple. You are denying adults the right to choose, based on your moral principles. That completely defeats the purpose of a rating system. Ratings are supposed to inform so the consumer makes an informed decision. By denying it a rating, you are assuming the customer is too damn stupid to make their own decision.
Yeah, you can. Double standard much?
No, the BBFC does have the right to ban games, you're confusing the BBFC and ESRB
Stupid ****ing government..
That's another reason why Governmental enforcement isn't as good an idea as it sounds. Industries have little choice but to keep enforcing, else the government can point fingers, but once the Government is in control of the situation, you can be pretty certain of a short span of heavy enforcement followed by several decades of relative nonchalance, and probably an increase in the underground exchanging of Media.
Perhaps the BBFC would be more inclined to allow content like this through if it weren't for the fact that it's frequently easier in the UK for a 15 year-old to get an 18-rated game or movie in the UK than an 'M' rated one in the US.
Amen, let the consumer decide what they want.
Whether or not the tone of the game offended them or not, it is still up to the consumer whether they choose to purchase it or not. The "we refuse to rate it because we feel it is harmful to the consumer" bit just doesn't go over well with me.
Don't get me wrong I have no desire to play this game, however everyone who is old enough to purchase it has a right to make their own decision, it is not up to some board of old foogies to decide.
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure no retailer can stock an unrated game (unrated movies are just fine though). The reason the BBFC refuses a rating on games is so that they can not be sold. The ESRB has to submit a rating. The BBFC doesn't. If we were talking about the ESRB, you'd be right. But we're not.
@ George Pribul
I don't give two shits why it was banned. My problem is the fact that it was banned. I'm ok with companies refusing AO titles on their systems (that's their prerogative whether or not I agree with it), but I do not accept that anyone can straight ban things.
I'm sorry, I thought humans had brains and free-will. Apparently not?
We've all been over this about a million times already, the BBFC cant ban anything, all it can do it give a rating, which is then accepted or not by local authorities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the the BBFC had REFUSED a rating on Manhunt 2. That's not giving a rating in my mind.
Sorry, I won't be able to respond (have to leave for work where I have no PC access), but I'll check back later.
Well I am gald that we don't have that problem in the US. Granted we do have our problems, but at least not government can say that a game is banned.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
They can choose to not give it a rating at all, which prevents it from being sold, so yeah they can ban games that way.
At least our government cannot say that a game is banned.
I do think that that the BBFC refusing a rating based on theme is totla BS. The ESRB at least respects the theme and for the most part leaves that out of the rating. They go completely on content.
Being able to refuse a rating based on the game's idea is the most draconian thing you can do. It is just as bad as Australia refusing to import that grafiti game because it taught kids to rebel against the man.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
You're right, they can ban- but Kentonio is right in saying that the local authorities are allowed to overturn their ratings, although that only applies to Cinema releases, and not Home Video- presumably that would include games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Board_of_Film_Classification#Histor...
/b
"Gameboy, and there was me thinking the world had “laws”. Apparently not?"
Sure the world (or more to the point, the UK) has laws. Doesn't mean all those laws are sensible. And in a democracy, one doesn't have to agree with the law, as long as one follows it.
Before everyone gives me a lecture on how the game "glorifies" violent acts, please, define "glorification." I don't know what it means to you, but to me, it means "portraying something in a positive light." If MH2 is so negative in tone, how will it portray anything in such a manner? Unless you buy into the "displaying the act=glorifing it," which could be used against almost any violent movie or game, I don't go for that argument.
Second, I'd like to point out that this situation is different from the government banning a certain chemical or drug. THOSE ARE PHYSICAL SUBSTANCES. They have been demonstrated to cause physical harm. However, this game, appealing to the mind rather than bodily functions, could only cause "psychological harm," which has proven to be very hard to determine and demonstrate. Yes, the game probably will provoke some reaction, that is the purpose of stimuli. However, I am skeptical that the public harm would be so great that the BBFC sees fit to prevent its public consumption, which Sue Clark has just admitted to doing.
Essentially, while I'm sure there are good intentions behind the BBFC's decision, it is still a bit overreaching. Thanks but no thanks, Clark, I am confident that adult Britons are smart enough to intake even the most offensive entertainment. They might need you to explain the content, of course. That IS the purpose of a ratings board: To inform the public so they can make their own decisions. There is no need to take the decisons away.
Saw 4 just got an 18.
Going by reviews, i still havent heard proof that MAnhunt 2 is a that much worse than the Saw films.
*sigh*
At least its coming out in other EU countries. Hopefully it will have English language options.....
if manhunt 2 doesn't fit in the 18 or 18r categories, then the bbfc cant give it a rating of 18, or 18r. end of story.
so, the problem now is that shops wont stock unrated games. the bbfc has done its job, its looked at manhunt 2, checked to see what category its in, and found that it cant put it in a category.
shops have decided that they wont stock unrated games, thats their decision, its their business.
the people involved here are just doing their jobs, just doing the best they can. in order for this whole situation to get fixed, there needs to be either * a new classification
* stores that will sell unclassified games
* a method whereby we can legally purchase unclassified games, say over the interweb.
For smegs sake, GROW UP! Stop acting like a spoilt child. There are far more important things affecting the freedom of choice than one smegging sick game that's probably a load of shite anyway. You're like those stupid hippies and punk anarchists that kept calling police 'Fascist nazis' just for doing their jobs.
Christ, no wonder the world's likely to die within a few years if all your concerned is freedom to feck everything up...
You know, apart from the fact you over generalised I was almost inclined to agree with you until I read that line. It just screams 'Daily Mirror Reader'.
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Never, ever believe anything in the papers. Not even the date.
Well done! Way to completely miss the point AND use totally juvenile hyperbole to do it!
The vast majority of the people posting here, myself included, have no interest in MH2. I don't think I'd find it entertaining, and I have no plans to buy or play it. What matters is the precedent that banning it sets, and behavior on the part of government, ratings boards, console manufacturers, and retailers that it condones.
Today it's MH2. What is it tomorrow? Someone decides the newest Zelda has slightly too realistic swordplay? Or that Final Fantasy 15 promotes witchcraft and is therefore unsuitable? Allowing them to ban one game, no matter how abhorrant that game may be, is allowing them to potentially ban ANY game. And that is a violation of free speech.
I repeat, I will never play MH2, nor care about the game in the slightest. But I care very much about it being banned, because of the ramifications of that action for ALL games.
Heh, exactly, I, from a personal viewpoint, am totally unaffected by this ban, I wasn't planning to buy the game unless it would sufficiently annoy those who wanted to ban it, but I think there's a lot of over-generalisation in the post by Elonex.
Yes, the game is about satiating a violent urge that is present in all of us, we can't pretend that Violent Video Games aren't Violent, however, I think calling it a 'Blood Death and Gore'-lust is pretty much pampering to the Daily Mirror school of thought, that all gamers do all day is look for more violent games, not only is it a pretty sick stereotype, it also 100% wrong. I have Doom 3 in my collection, I also have Children of the Nile, The Sims 2, Caeser 4 and RollerCoaster Tycoon, does this mean I have a sick lust for running Theme Parks or that I get a kick out of hoping the Inundation doesn't fail?
Yes, there are violent games and there are non-violent games, they cater for the fact that man is an incredibly complicated creature, the same applies for TV Shows, Sports, Books etc, I suppose it's like saying that anyone who enjoys H.P.Lovecraft is obviously a Satanist with a sick and twisted interest in Violence and Gore, it takes one aspect of that person, and one aspect only and magnifies it up to be their whole personality.
Nice! I like that.
Re: BBFC "banning" things - it's a de facto ban, not a literal ban. If the BBFC can choose not to rate something, and unrated media can't/won't be sold anywhere, then they have the power to effectively ban something even if that isn't strictly what they're doing in the illegal sense.
It's the same as in the US. The ESRB can give a game the kiss of death with the AO rating, even though there is nothing that says "AO games are banned" in any law. But since the Big Three won't allow those games to be played on their consoles, and the major retailers refuse to carry them, they may as well be banned.
It's a vicious cycle...the public sheep think poorly on AO games, so the retailers and manufacturers pander to their misinformed notion that "all games are for kids" by being "family friendly and socially conscious" and refusing to stock the game, or refusing to allow such games to run on the consoles. As a result, developers can't afford to cover production costs if the game gets AO'ed and barely sells, discouraging them from accepting an AO rating and instead editing the game down to get the M.
Summary: games are being effectively censored by the AO rating, it just isn't the ESRB's fault.
Claiming that they apply the same standards to games and movies would be laughable if it weren't so outright pathetic...
We're talking about videogames here. Even if the game sucks, it's still freedom of speach and choice.
Care to enlighten us as to your reasons?
'Or that Final Fantasy promotes witchcraft'
Considering we have: a) An active druidic society (Stonehenge, anyone?), b) Several religions promoting witchcraft that are perfectly accepted in the UK, that's kind of stretching things a bit too far. We're not as religiously zealous in the UK as they are in the US and we have a fairly lenient society in terms of allowing people to practise religions, uncommon acts and superstitious beliefs, but in all honesty, there is a rather large difference between people practising spells and potions and people slicing heads off with a Bowie knife...