@BlackIce, Leftie

Hot Coffee would be my guess.

Mass Effect has a sex scene. America HATES sex and nudity. Europe is more open minded. So America gets the sex free version. While Europe gets it with sex. Sadly thats how it is here in the US.

I'll post what I posted else where

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 think that what Michael is saying is don't rely too heavily on comparing the content of movies to the content of Video Games, opinions differ on the effect of the Interactivity, I'll admit, but the interactivity does exist and places them in a slightly different category.

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.

As far as the BBFC is concerned, no they didn't, the laws regard the Government, the BBFC is the public deciding for the public. I don't neccesarily agree that they made the right decision or anything, but it is for that particular reason that Gordon Brown didn't get involved with original Manhunt 2 rating, because it would have meant the Government interfering in a public decision.

The world has certainly taken a turn for the surreal.

It should be: The ERSB has rejected the same Manhunt 2 version that the BBFC accepted. That at least would be plausible.

@Gameboy

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.

And cue the cries of "THE ESRB IS TEH BROKEN!"

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.

@ BlackIce, Leftie

No, the BBFC does have the right to ban games, you're confusing the BBFC and ESRB

Looks like I can put my extra copy I got up on Ebay and have people in Ireland and the UK bid on it.

@Jabrwock

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.

@Raum,

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.

@ Kentonio

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.

Man I wish ther was an edit. What I said was terribly incoherent. I meant:

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.

@George Pribul:

"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.

All of the Saw series is fine in both the normal and "unrated" versions.

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.....

Christ...you lot are just a bunch of spoilt numpties, crying like a little child whose parents won't give him sweeties, just because a country has one game where you can satisfy your sick and disturbed blood, death and gore-lust that isn't being made available, and you start acting as if we're fecking Zimbabwe or China or something.

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...

Australia is still stuck with the games are for children thought. The highest rating they have is 15. There are rumors of an 18 and up rating some time in the future but I don't see that happening there.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
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.

@ Elonex

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.

@ Conejo

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.

What about looking at it as analogous to the first amendment? The first amendment isn't there to protect the speech you like. It's there to protect what you don't like. No one every claims first amendment for culturally popular messages. If you support the ESRB you have to take a look at the unpopular choices they make and why they make them.

I know this is going to be unpopular, but as far as I'm concerned Rockstar's getting what they had coming to them.

@Werrick

Care to enlighten us as to your reasons?

While we're on the subject of the UK ratings system, can someone tell me what the deal is with the Mass Effect rating? From what I understand, The UK version is uncensored, and is rated 12+. While the US version IS censored, and rated 17+. Could someone clarify that for me? Is the US version censored or not?

@Blackice, Leftie;

Well, I see them as kind of sleazy. The whole Black Coffee thing was a start, but their business practices have a lot to do with my opinion as well. People describe R* as the "Bad Boy" of the gaming industry, but my own opinion is that they're more of a dirty operator.

But it's not just that, it's also the fact that they shine as a beacon for anyone who wants to criticize the industry. I consider them irresponsible. They have an obligation to represent their industry and gamers in general in a positive light, and they don't.

All things being equal, assuming this instance is held in a vacuum, is it possible that the reworked Manhunt was deserving of an 'M' rating and perhaps this decision on the part of the BBFC is unfair? Very possibly... I'd say, without being privvy to the internal workings of the organization, very probably even.

Am I surprised? Not even a little... Because the truth is that we don't live in a vacuum and what you do today will affect the way people see you tommorrow. That can be good and bad... and I think for R* it's bad, but it's also probably deserving.

That's just my take on it, though. I also refuse to buy R* games on principle, even though I'd love nothing better than to play Bully... I never will. Or, at least, I won't until I'm satisfied with the way they do business.

@Sean

See, that's the paradox. The BBFC is the most permissive in the world, but they won't let Manhunt 2 in while the ERSB, a conservative board, will.

@Werrick

You mean Hot Coffee right?

While you make a very valid point, I don't buy games that put Post 1945 America in good light (with the exception of SOCOM) because I personally think that the US government should fuck off and die... Uh.

Sorry, went off topic, My point is that (not) buying products based on the company that makes them isn't always a good thing. Look at Microsoft. They are possibly the largest bunch of Capitalist Shitheads in the world, yet millions of people use Windows because it is a fairly useful system. It's up to you what you buy, but I would reccomend you look at all aspects of something before you make any choices.

Black Ice;

Yah, Hot Coffee... I happen to be [i]drinking[/i] black coffee at the moment, so... y'know.

You're right about Microsoft, and they have some nasty history as well, but not the same kind of thing. I see your point about MS, but nobody's trying to shut OS and Office applications down... so, their business practices speak for themselves as a business.

I see a difference because when people criticize R* they're doing so by way to criticize the gaming industry as a whole, as well as gamers themselves.

That's the way I feel about it.

@Werrick

Again, valid points. That's a perfectly acceptable position to take. One which a certain "lawyer" would do well to take on.

I swear i've seen you before somewhere. You're not a regular poster here are you?

I'm terrible with acronyms, what exactly is AoC?

Speaking of Conan, doesn't THAT game have breast nudity and is being released in the US as 17+ uncut? These double-standards are making me confused.

@Sean;

Yes, there will be bewbs and it will be 'M' rated. AoC will be the first 'M' rated game to hit a major market, in fact, touted as the Flagship online game for Windows Vista.

There's actually quite the controversy about it on the boards. A lot of people think it's inappropriate. As a Conan afficianado I consider it to be a good move, it's in-line with lore and makes sense. What's strange is that these same people seem to be all over the idea of blood, gore and grit that goes with a dark and dangerous world like Hyborea.

Like I said before I belive that 1984 will become a reality(atleast in the UK) They are already showing signs of hatred for what is considered taboo.

@Werrick

Nothing wrong with Bewbs. If used in love scenes and not in public.

@Shaesyco

It's inevitable. Cameron and Brown both share a love of controlling the public.

@ BlackIce

It does seem to be an inevtiable end. A slippery rope leading only to doom and desolation.

@GoodRobotUs

Well in the US it seems that politicians are willfully distancing themselves from an entire generation of voters. The only one who has a legitimate reason for not likeing video games is Obama( Thinks they are a waste of time)

@GoodRobotUs

If you have to vote, go for the Lib Dems. We might get the freedom we deserve.

I can't believe I just said that.

Yeah. We really need to get Menzies to the table on it though.

(Inside Head)

Yes, music sounds good.
But what?
I dunno, you're the one with the laptop.
Blind Guardian?
Again?
Again.

Think i'll do some Power Metal..

Dennis, our differences aside, you understand what a firestorm this is going to ignite at the ESRB's expense, right? Jack Thompson

GP: Actually, I wasn't seeing it that way. I think the BBFC has just made up their mind that this game isn't getting published in the UK for political reasons. See my Joystiq column of today...

Oh well seeing as how im a 360 nut right now i'll wait until i finish bully on the 360 (when it comes out) and then i'll prolly pick up a ps2 and check it out...(wish it would come out on 360 though....the achievements would prolly be awesome)

Thompson,

The ESRB examined the game and rated it Mature citing "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs."

The BBFC examined the game and refused to rate it.

How on Earth, even by your warped logic, does that eviscerate the ESRB’s credibility?


Andrew Eisen

@Andrew

How on Earth, even by your warped logic, does that eviscerate the ESRB’s credibility?

Because they didn't ban it, sue the developers, and have the staff of Take Two shot on sight for squirting their man-juice into the sub-sized cerebral cavities of immature human worm-babies.

Duh. :D

Was that a fake-o Thompson? Dennis doesn't usually delete the real one, unless he was overly rude, posting press releases, or completely off topic...

Okay. Makes sense. Just caught me off guard. :)

i didnt notice any thompson post but what did moron boy say this time

Dennis can just turn around and say, ‘Well, I’m doing it for the Children, so you can’t complain’. I wonder how long he would put up with a taste of his own medicine?

Thompson would just claim that the 1st Amendment protects his right to post (which it doesn't). He's very hypocritical that way. He gets 1st Amendment rights, but nobody else does. You can't criticize him, can't parody him, can't say what anything without it being examined first by his morality-o-meter to make sure it conforms to his moral compass (not yours), etc.

Dang, what a slap in he face for Limeys. Is this in effect in Eireann and Alba too?

they ban porn thus games is easily added to the "list" I am sure graphic videos are regulated heavily too, any sane goverment that enforces this kind of regulation is setting them selfs up for a authoritarian setup.

And thus the misinformation continues.

GoodRobotUs
it works if you see the diffrance in sex and violence, ,the UK puritan value system hates violence more than sex, here its the opposite, what both acquainted value systems need to understand that adults need not to be coddled and to do so only starts decaying reason and logic.

Why can't we have a system like Germany(don't laugh let me finish) things rated R+ must not be in public view, retailers can freely sale to who they want,however if they want the family friendly image they can run ID check setup, thus this whole ngithmare would go away.

of coarse the retail industry would never do this and this can not be regulated thus the nightmare will never end.

@ Conejo

nice, reminded me a lot of Emigre by Anti-Flag.

And how can they say anythings in the "public's interest"? Seeing as how the public has very different views on topics.

Banning for the tone is worse than content. As bleak as the tone can be for games like Manhunt, GTA and Bully there is still some value to it. Personally I'd prevent my kids from playing something like that just because I they might get freaked out by the piles of blood or replicate the language (language replication is a much bigger concern for me than the violence replication).

But that aside, banning a game is just idiotic. Rating systems exist so such a thing doesn't have to happen. By refusing to rate a game you're not doing your public duty, you're ignoring it.

"THIS COMPLETELY EVISCERATES THE ESRB’S CREDIBILITY!"


Oh does it now? Because from where I'm standing its the BBFC's credibility which is being called into question.

And the last time you made an all caps, childish declaration of this variety its when data was stolen from Rockstar for the unauthorized and unfinished beta versions of Manhunt 2. When you claimed "ROCKSTAR DESTROYS ITSELF!!!!"

You were wrong then weren't you?

I love Jack's Bipolar personality, those two posts could have been made by two different people.

Am I the only person not seeing JT's posts? I looked earlier when his post was first referenced, and I didn't see it then either.

I TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE A DOUCHEBAG!!!

@smeagol,

Jacks' posts go in for moderation as they often contain deliberately inflammatory or insulting material, so his input needs babysitting. The first person to reply was the GP equivalent of a Moderator and was able to see the post before it was cleared, but now they are visible to everyone :)

Re Jack Thompson
"what a firestorm this is going to ignite at the ESRB’s expense"
You mean none what so ever?

Like people have pointed out and people like JT will keep ignoring, why is it NOT ok for the game companies to re-do their games for a lower rating, but the it is ok for movie companies to do so to get a lower rating from the MPAA?

So Rockstar removed the material the ESRB had problems with just to get a lower rating, just like with movie producers and the MPAA. And lets not forget how under enforced those ratings are, and how they get away with UN-CUT & UN-RATED DVD releases...

Only "firestorm" I see is from people who want such games outright banned, and who are being very hypocritical about it(i.e. OK for MPAA, bad for ERSB. Gory movies are ok, but the interactive equivalent isn't. Etc).

@ GoodRobotUs

Thanks, I'm seeing his posts now... Still not sure if that's really a good thing. I was considering the possibility my work's internet bullshit filters were starting to cut him off. :)

Uh, Jack. THERE WILL BE NO FIRESTORM. The game is banned in BRITAN. Which is, in case you haven't realized it, IS NOT PART OF THE UNITED STATES. If they want to ban games in Britan, fine then, they can. But we don't do that here in America, cause we have a little thing called the first amendment.

@mybad4990

You're talking to a "man" who stood in front of a bunch of politicians, held up a copy of GTA Vice city and very seriousyl said "Not speech." SO in his world video games are not protected speech.

why do you people insist on responding to him? he's like a child, he craves attention, that's why he's so erratic, if we ignore him he'll lose interest. the reason he stays is we keep feeding his addiction.

@jack thompson, attorney

Of course you know the movie industry never gets away with trying to edit their movies to get a lower rating, the unedited SAW movies never made it out in Britain. Oh, wait....

And for someone who acts so appalled at being able to do it in games, you seem to like the idea of evisceration.

I'm sick of this comparison. Manhunt 2 is not a film. The level of graphical (as in, pixels not "graphical violence") realism isn't really an issue at all.

Hostel is a film. It is designed to be watched. If you have the DVD, you might then watch some deleted scenes. You'll probably watch the feature again another day.

Manhunt 2 is a game. It is designed to be played for hours on end, over the course of a week or more. It is designed to make you replay sections over and over (if you fail) and rewards you for experimenting to find more violent and gruesome ways of killing. It encourages you to think about how you can use the various methods of death to get through the game.

I'm not saying it's training or any of that other Thompson rubbish, but Hostel and Manhunt 2 are very very different things. Hostel makes you feel for the victims as you watch the killers, and wonder what is going to happen next. Manhunt 2 makes you think like a killer and plan what is going to happen next. That's quite a different mental process.

Conejo's quote is from a Holocaust survivor....

@Matthew

...You haven't read the reviews yet, have you? Weeks on end...? Are you just parroting some party line? And do you spend ANY time around children?

Obviously I would never let any over whom I had any authority watch the movies or play the games mentioned--I wouldn't, myself--but you do realize that children whose parents let them watch this type of film watch them repreatedly?

As in, hour after hour after hour, five times per day at a minimum, day after day, so they're actually exposed to far MORE than if they played the actually less-violent game, which they'll give up if it bores them?

Not to mention that that movie's content reviews, and many others rated by the BBFC, suggest they are way worse, in their briefer time, than what I've read about the ENTIRE game's content, replay value accounted for, from people who've played the game.

So you can claim that the game is worse because it doesn't make the bad actions look bad enough, but I'd contend that:

A) anyone mature enough to infer from a film's context that such movies don't support their dark and vicious actions is mature enough to recognize the game's star as a "bad guy" whose actions are also abhorrent;

B) anyone NOT that mature who goes for that type of movie/game is generally actually ROOTING for the bad guys and HAPPY to see their dark deeds and ever darker throughout the game/movie.

There's no more threat from the game than from movies the BBFC has passed; there's actually LESS violent content and less-violent content than what is found in many of those movies.

Suggesting that it's somehow morally more acceptable to watch a movie that has worse content of bad people doing bad things because you inherently KNOW it's bad than to play a game that gives you no choice but to do bad things to survive but in which you inherently know these aren't good things to do IS a double standard.

@Coravin:

"You can claim that the game is worse because it doesn’t make the bad actions look bad enough."

That wasn't my claim at all. The entire point of my post was to say that there are inherent differences between playing a game and watching a film. Comparing a violent game and a violent film by the realism of the screenshots or descriptions of cutscenes alone is an apples/oranges thing.

There's actually two schools of thought on that Matthew, there are reports that suggest that interacting has a more profound impact, but there are also reports that sitting watching, and not being able to influence the action in any way actually creates a reservoir of emotion within the person viewing it.

It will never properly be resolved because everyone reacts to media in a different way, I, for example, cannot stand horror movies, I find them dull, pointless and a waste of time, however, something like Doom 3 was quite fun, not because it made me more violent after playing the game, but because I could get to unload a double-barrelled shotgun into a Demon, which is never a bad thing, I actually found it very therapeutic after a hard day at work.

The specific words used by the BBFC were 'Bleakness of Tone', like Dennis, I have no real idea of what that means, so I can't really comment on it, but I think that the interactivity gets blown up out of proportion. When I was a child, we used to play Star Wars, where we just ran around like idiots pretending to shoot at each other, so whilst the Movie itself was not interactive, that does not mean it has less effect on interaction with those who watch it. A good book will make you believe you are there, in fact, one judge has already ruled that the interactivity is what makes games art, because truly good literature and films draw you in and make you feel like you are involved.

What about those choose your own adventure DVDs?

@GoodRobotUs:

I have to wonder if they're obliged to be vague. The BBFC by design reviews and rates things that are not yet available to the public. They may be under some sort of NDA preventing them from saying exactly why they come the decisions they do.

Alternatively, it could be to prevent workarounds. If people could find out detailed information about how they make their decisions, people could play the system and get around loopholes.

Possibly. A bit more transparency would be nice.

But who are we kidding? It's Rockstar. Their marketing strategy is not letting people know exactly how badly they're behaving.

[...] The UK battle over “Manhunt 2” continues. (Gamepolitics) [...]

@j thompson, pundit...

the only "firestorm" is the one spewing from your anus lips...

it doesn't damage the credibility of either the ESRB or BBFC -just shows the differences in how each operates... one body can 'ban' the sale of the game, and one decides what sticker should should be put on the game to inform consumers...

my take is that after Rockstar made some changes and toned down the content, and then just barely got an M rating from the ESRB, it's a fair situation and there shouldn't be anything to complain about... the BBFC thinks it's pope benedict or something

Somehow I think Jack assumes that the British have the same cultural tastes as Americans.

@Matthew

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, regardless of that content. There's a reason people are more frightened of horror movies with better CG or that look like they could happen in the real world. If the movies don't evoke that sense, they become comedies.

Considering how many horror movies have the victim with whom the audience is supposed to empathize turn the same vicious techniques back on the bad guy, I don't think there really IS much of a contextual difference, to begin with. Again, most audiences watching horror movies urge the victims to run, to kill the bad guy, or to fall victim to him, while others root for the bad guy; either way, they put themselves in the situation and think about ways to get out or else to use violence to win.

Even more so than those movie watchers, game players use the violence of games like this as a tool--they would never want a real person to do the things they advocate in the movie or play in the game, but for the story context, they know the violence they encourage or perform is necessary for progression. So logic suggests it's more likely somebody will internalize the film due to its realism and the fact that there is no real-world (outside the movie) reason for what occurs on screen, as there is in games which require those actions for progression, making the movie violence inherently more gratuitous.

I certainly can't speak from scientific certainty, but the people I know who play these types of games insist they find such actions as the game requires a more entertaining problem-solving exercise than block-pushing, the meta-game context that continually maintains awareness of this being fiction stripping the murder of any real-world guilt or violence because it isn't as reasonless and cruel, intended merely to provoke horror and glorify viciousness, as similar movie violence.

So if the people who play these types of games think the violence they control is just another creative thinking exercise, a simple but more interesting and violent and (for them) fun problem-solving exercise, I, for one, don't have the experience to tell them they're wrong. And I certainly trust them over the BBFC's incoherent sputterings that this game's "tone" is somehow vastly more negative and unsettling than SAWIII.

I'm with Erik here, I fail to see how pressing a button on a controller or even swinging a Wiimote can somehow translate into some sort fo violence training. After all, a friend of mine and I have played Dead Rising for hours on end, we don't run arms flailing into a shopping mall, grab a guitar and start beating people with it, because not o common common sense tells us that if we do that, we get arrested.

my point being studies are iffy at best and society has a tendantcy to burn the books of the many because the elite do not understand them...

@Erik, kurisu7885:

I'm not saying it acts as training. The very idea is shaky at best. As I've pointed out numerous times already, I'm simply noting that having to perform an act (playing a game) is not identical to being invited to think about performing it (watching a movie) so the idea that a game with unrealistic graphics should necessarily be considered 'better' than a SFX-laden live action movie.

"And what of the movie writers that come up with the movies? As they actually do have to think creatively about the violence do we have to worry about movie script writers going on a killing spree?"

Bingo! Got it! Gamers are invited to play the part of the writer of a violent movie. Therefore if gamers are being trained to become psychos by the things they play, it must follow that movie writers are a potential menace to society as well. Yet nobody thinks that Tarantino is going to start shooting cops now, do they?

@Erik:

Apologies for having to reword your sentence to make my answer fit, but: There is no harm in committing crimes on fictional people.

If you think there are two sides to the issue, "ours" and "Thompson/Yee", then you're really not paying enough attention to the issue. There is no global agreement among GP readers, and Thompson and Yee could disagree with each other until the cows came home. For that matter, "this issue" isn't even a single issue.

Picking a side on this issue is like trying to pick a side on a sphere. We all have our own tangential planes.

"If you think there are two sides to the issue, “ours” and “Thompson/Yee”, then you’re really not paying enough attention to the issue. There is no global agreement among GP readers, and Thompson and Yee could disagree with each other until the cows came home. For that matter, “this issue” isn’t even a single issue."

This is really rather simple.

Are you pro-censorship or are you anti-censorship? Try not to overcomplicate this.


"Can games provide positive reinforcement for their actions, though? Possibly. If a game rewards you for something that you’re planning on doing, then it could give you that push you need."

I really don't want a society, any society to have to neuter itself in order to appease psychos. Yeah the game might push him over the edge, or green shoes might push him over the edge.

Yeah, shit happens. But why punish the 99% stable people for the 1% crazy shits?

"I opt for the latter."

I see.

Well I instead must opt for freedom.

@Hadradi:

It's not an extreme viewpoint at all. It's the current state of things in the UK. By and large, I agree with the BBFC system.

@Hadradi:

I realise where the division lies. I'm defending (for the most part) a system that doesn't exist in America and would not go down too well if it were introduced. But then, I'm not suggesting it should be. I'm trying to defend it from the Americans who insist that our system is wrong because it's not the same as theirs.

If anyone else is still following this increasingly bloated thread, I have a thought. The BBFC is a scary prospect to Americans because it's not pessimistic enough. No, hear me out.

The two countries have very different mindsets. Much of American politics is based on pessimism. It revolves around contractual obligation. There is a bit of paper explicitly stating that the government can't restrict speech. There is another stating that the government can't take away the public's weapons. All sorts of bad events are *impossible* because they are explicitly denied; those in power cannot abuse it. The UK has a more positive approach, revolving around trusting that those in power will not abuse that power even though they could.

So, the BBFC has the power to ban anything if they so wish. The American mindset detests this, as it means that they could ban anything if they so wished. The British mindset doesn't so much, because it simply trusts that the BBFC will do no evil and not start throwing around the red stamp. The US couldn't stand a monarchy - technically absolute power and no public control - but the UK accepts it because it trusts that the monarchy will act for the good of the people.

Before I'm jumped on, I'm not saying one system is better than the other. It just potentially explains why political differences arise so often. The Brits say that the BBFC is generally OK because it won't act in bad faith, while Americans say that the BBFC is generally bad because it could.

"The UK has a more positive approach, revolving around trusting that those in power will not abuse that power even though they could."


...Holy shit! Pick up a history book. Of course those in power are going to abuse that power. That is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment in the United States. Not to go huntin' and fishin'. But to riddle our governmental officials with bullets if they try to become a dictatorship.

Though the BBFC kind of kicked the freedom of expression thing in the balls with Manhunt 2 haven't they?

The trouble with most if not all ratings systems is its closer to the goverment than the people in terms of what it perseveres limits are, with the "help" of retail who seems to do not what its doing and the console makers claiming godwin when they say consoles are not toys yet restrict it to children over adults the system itself is damaged the ratings systems merely mirror the greater issues.

Nothing will change until gaming is not limited to a "artistic" child's toy.

This proves that though the ESRB in many senses is broken, it's not the worst system in the developed world. I hope Britain doesn't become like anouther Germany in the way they essentially censor games.

@F***ed Up

Hold on there mate, I don't want that wanker in my country.

That was @Eric, btw

Also, it should be noted that the BBFC's word is NOT final, local authorities have the final say, and they ARE members of the public who are voted in, but I wouldn't hold my breath on a change of heart from them.

"so who should be doing it?"

People should be able to decide for themselves what media is okay for them.

@F***ed up...

Well Jack Thompson if u like Britain so much Why dont u move there? Or how about to Germany? Cuz u seem to want America to be like them.

There's a reason Jack wouldn't be able to move to the UK...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20071010/co_po/uklawwouldbanantigayhatespeech

@GoodRobotUs

Yep, that'll do it nicely.. As long as the Tories stay out of power.

@GoodRobotUs (Again..)

I'd completely forgotten about the Magna Carta. I'll put that up to the Met next time they want to have a go at me.

GoodRobotUs
if they moderate what the final decision is then great they are further along than I thought however its a double edge sword they can rate a game thats NC17 via movie standards to M17 and then in final judgment override it or vice versa but I guess again it works for 80-90% of media so its not bad it justs need some refinement.

BTW new rant in the forums check it out!LOL

Erik
the ball scene was removed and most kills are done in black and white.

The consiuos is media must be be rated, if not it will be censored, there is a slight difference one censors the extrema the other censors all.

Erik
ah but they are rated before the get to DVDs, and unrated tends to be either G or beloew or 17+ question are you in the US or the UK? I was not aware there was unrated dvds LOL

also government tends to censor this is a better way to do it than all out goverment regulation,becuse the goverment can do alot worse job, and before you say goverment shouldn't tell that ti the elitist and moralists that want to protect the populace from real life.

He meant R.

And yes, most Unrated movies are just R movies with ten minutes of some cruddy scenes they took out and they slap the Unrated label on there to make sales. Only a few movies like maybe say Saw and Wolf Creek will acutally have something that was "too brutal for theaters"--but in fact it probably almost WASN'T too brutal for theaters, because they only manage to add ten minutes to the original run-time. Not much at all was cut-out half the time with these films.

This is why Ultraviolet that premiered at PG-13 could release an "Unrated" DVD when in fact it is impossible since they didn't even film cut-out scenes that could garner an "Unrated" rating (and said DVD didn't have anything beyond PG-13, sadly. Well not sadly because the movie sucked anyway but I digress...)

But anyway. I somehow wonder if the ESRB wouldn't have rated Manhunt 2 an M unedited if the BBFC hadn't originally gone as far as banning the thing, as if maybe the pressure made them be more harsh on Manhunt 2 than they would have originally been (seeing as how at this point the original is probably more gory than this sequel).

In any case the BBFCs current ban is now ridiculous and I was right all along--IT WAS A POLITICAL PLOY THE ENTIRE TIME. Manhunt 2 could be edited down to two hours and they won't pass it because of public disapproval. Therefore it is infringing on freedom of speech.

Nice site keep it up!

--------------------------------------
http://www.dasofte.com