November 27, 2007
Spong reports that the banning of Manhunt 2 in the U.K. may have represented an attempt by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to draw a "line in the sand" for video game violence.Andrew Caldecott, representing the BBFC at Rockstar's appeal of the ban, testified:
Games and technology develop incrementally... If you take the comparable argument to its extreme, you get a gradual creeping towards ever more graphic violence, but you never draw a line at any particular point.
If you're not careful you get into a peculiar game of Grandmother's Footsteps, where everybody's shuffling forward but Grandma's never allowed to turn round and say, 'Stop'... Is there never a point at which you can say, 'This is unacceptable'?
If there is a point, the question then becomes much more difficult: where do you draw it?"
Fred Hasson, a lobbyist for game developers, defended Manhunt 2 during the appeal:
I expected it to be a lot worse... I can't believe that this has been singled out as something that is worth banning.
I can only come to the conclusion that [Manhunt 2 was banned due to negative press]… Having seen the content of the game, I can't see any other reason why they've done that.
Comments
These are the questions I set forward on this topic.
@ Pandralisk.
How did you equate the BBFC with a "state" church? And kudos on what seems like quite a rant you are building up to.
The problem wit this game is that it is completely open to bias and playig favorites. Mother can give the person they want to win a high number of large steps. Anyone else she wants to lose can be given small steps or low number of steps.
This seems to be what is happening here. The Movie industry is given large strides to take when it comes to content, but the game industry must take baby steps in order to progress, but we are never given many of those steps. If the game industry tries to take larger steps then asked, they are forced to go back to start in a sense.
This is why I am glad that movies and games are reviewed and rated by seperate bodies in the US. Even though there is bias from the government, all they can do is yell at each industries "mother" to force their respective industry to take smaller steps. But the mother can ignore them.
But in the UK with the BBFC rating both games and movies, you see a lot of the bias that "Mother May I" produces. Currently it seems that the BBFC is favoring movies and allowing them to take larger steps than the game industry.
Sure the game industry is not taking as large of steps as they could be, but they are picking up pace.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
That said I am dissapointed in the BBFC over the incident, i didnt particularly want to play manhunt 2 beyond the curioustiy that comes with controversy, but it was their wording that got to me 'the bleakness and callousness of tone' really pissed me off, that the tone of a game, its themes and metaphors are enough to ban, not even direct content, the tone.
the question is why is the GOVERNMENT (or government-appointed agency) deciding for you what you find acceptable?
of course, it is Britain, so i don't know how farcical (or not) their current democracy (or not) may be.
but why only video games? why did Saw get a pass and not Manhunt? obviously their rating system (which rates all video entertainment, right?) is flawed in a way the ESRB isn't.
In a way, they bought it on themselves, 'Bleakness and Callousness of Tone....', 'Danger to the Public'. Sentences that imply a great deal and mean absolutely nothing. The BBFC created part of the reputation with probably the most poorly thought out ban-speech in history, so I suppose there's some poetic justice in them being ripped for that if nothing else.
But seriously, i agree that a line is needed so that they can stop jumping around, but its honestly not fair,with movies like Hannibal, Saw, Halloween, and numerous other movies that are just as, if not much, much more, graphic than Man Hunt 2 are being allowed, its just not right. Unfortunately for us gamers, we are going to be singled out as the group where the line is much shorter, and be left with little to work with in the way of violence while we watch people crack open peoples skulls and feed them a piece of their brain at the theater. Its a double-standard, and its probably gonna be one until we fight back. So, i emplore you to raise your pitchforks and torches to... to... ah screw it, lets just go do a lam party of Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4.
I know that some folks around here have criticized the notion that conservative thinkers have assumed the BBFC was right in effectively banning MH2 in england. While that point of view has some merit to it, after looking at the actual game last night - frankly, I'm not convinced that what they did was wrong. Setting aside any notions of the ethics of censorship, I don't see much harm in it, because simply, I don't think english gamers are missing out on much. It's just not a very good game.
Postal isn't a good game either, and is far more offensive. should we ban something offensive just because it isn't good? (hint: answer is no)
...am I the only one who has no fucking clue what he was going for with this metaphor? Is it a reference that only the British would pick up on or am I just stupid (or is he just stupid)?
Yes there is, YOU can say that and YOU can choose not to buy such a thing. However, when you decide what is unacceptable for others, then you are entering into a territory that is unacceptable for a government (or one of its overzealous agencies).
Looking at the MPs that I have surrounding me, I'll leave it to myself to determine what is best for me, thank you.
Take a look at this:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/bbfc/bbfc-admits-no-proven-link-between-games-a....
Those BBFC geriatrics are just high on power.
In the realm of fiction, such a line CANNOT be drawn. Consumers of fiction are the ONLY PEOPLE who can draw a PERSONAL line regarding unacceptable content.
Cheers for the link.
Wow. So there's no link, but MH2 is refused an age rating in case there is a link. But there's no link. But we need to ban MH2. But there's no link.................
Pandralisk is just ranting about his favorite subject. I'm sure he doesn't have any ideas if any member of the BBFC are christian or not.
You don't have to be christian to be extremist.
But I can understand the reason why they decided to ban it. After all the negative press this game got, if they didn't ban the game now, they'd be pressured to ban it later, be ruled as unthrustworthy and replaced by something else even less constitutional.
I've seen the content in MH2. It's no worse than Saw III.
As I said on another site, the BBFC has pretty much said, "You cannot create any type of game you want." They have shown that they do not respect artistic freedom when it comes to games. They feel that games need to be in a certain constraint.
As I said here, they don't feel the same about movies.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
I was unaware of any religious motivations in the BBFC....
Amen.
Just for the record, I really don't care for the game itself. What bothers me about banning any entertainment is that the government is telling the tax-paying adults, that are making a living, having a career, and able to make their own choices, that they are not mature enough to handle said entertainment.
If they were to ban postal, frankly, I wouldn't think that would be any great loss to the english either. It's not like these are works of any great merit. The dangerous part of that thinking though is, who gets decide what does and does not have merit? When I look at MH2 and see very little redeeming qualities, it's possible others may seem some great work of suspense/horror fiction.
Don't misunderstand me, censorship is an issue unto itself, I wasn't trying to gloss over that. A friend of mine said something interesting once, though I don't remember his exact choice of words, I'll try paraphrase as best I can. Something to the effect of, "It isn't that I want to play Manhunt2 unedited, so much as I just don't want people telling me I can't. Usually when people start crying and whining about protecting the kids, and making it so the kids can't play, what they really mean had nothing to do with kids and more about making protecting YOU - making sure YOU can't play." (I thought about that. He has a tendency to be a little ungrounded, but in this case I think he actually has a point.)
My thinking is this. Really only two possible outcomes. 1 = The english ban sticks. In this event I'm still inclined to think it's not really any great loss to their population. For one, the game still more or less sucks, so if they must do without, at least they're not deprived. For two, it's not like it won't get downloaded off the web anyway, banned or not. 2 = The ban gets overturned and the public will get the right to decide for themselves. Since there is a large cultural difference, maybe they'll decide they like it, who knows? In that event, I'll just have to admit I was wrong. (wouldn't be the first time) On the other hand, if they decide they don't like it, it'll probably generate marginal sales at best much like it has in this country; and very little will change.
One way or another Manhunt2 WILL be judged. If not by the BBFC, then english consumers will judge it for themselves at the register.
A few people in a middlin to small country is attempting to decide what is morally acceptable to the world? Even if it is just limited to the UK (and the letter from Clinton and her posse seem to imply otherwise) that is alot for a few to take upon themselves.
Are these elected moral judges? A govermental face to the C of E? Narrow minded bigots who are trying to "save the children" from the "evil" (as they see it) of games (which would have jack drolling) or just jerks with a bit to much power and no maturity?
The basic flaw in their reasoning seems to be based in their opening statement:
"Games and technology develop incrementally… If you take the comparable argument to its extreme"
Note the word extreme. Anything taken to an extreme can be twisted to represent pretty much anything at the whim at the twister. Keeping things in context would be more honest.. but they cannot have honest now can they?
It seems curious to me, that we criticize conservatives in this country for assuming what the british did was the right thing, and yet we're aping them in a strange way. We didn't ban the game, and because we didn't, we assume the english ban is somehow the wrong thing to do, for them.
People seem to think the english ban is either right or wrong based on their personal opinion of the situation, with minimal consideration for the cultural gap. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong; as I see it, the harm is minimal. If the ban sticks, at least they're not losing much. (Like I said, the game sucks.)
Curious how polarizing this issue is, but I can honestly say I'm quite content to let their legal process run its course.
rather, just because i hate onions doesn't mean i have the right to take them away from you.
the (para)phrase Twain used commonly was:
Censorship is banning steak for adults because a baby cannot chew it.
You know though, If they can do this stuff and sleep soundly at night then they know they are not in danger.
And yet the whole reason they do this stuff is because they say the people they are discriminating against are dangerous coldblooded mass murdering fuck heads.
See the problem here?
The job of the BBFC is to subjectively apply its standards for classification to each video work submitted, and that's exactly what it did with Manhunt 2. Whether or not you agree with the board's opinion about the game is ultimately nothing more than your own opinion. There is no objective "right" or "wrong" when you're talking about subjective opinions.
Whether or not the opinions of employees of a government agency should legally decide what people can or cannot say in the "free" market, however; that is another thing. In other words, the only relevant "cultural gap" I see concerns society's acceptance of governmental censorship.
Are you serious, that you really don't see any significant difference between: (1) the BBFC banning a game because they don't want the public exposed its narrative content, and (2) consumers not buying a game because its narrative content sucks?
I'm not sure how polarizing the issue is, except in terms of governmental restrictions of free expression -- censorship, that is -- which you've said you aren't really trying to talk about here.
In any case, As far as I know the legal process has already "run its course": the BBFC has refused to classify Manhunt 2 (twice!) and, because it has no classification, it cannot be legally be sold at retail.
As far as criticizing American conservatives for siding with the BBFC ruling: The UK is its own deal, and I think we both agree that's the way it should be, but each and every American who has ever even pretended to care about his "freedom" damn well should criticize ANY politician, conservative or liberal, who tries to circumvent the First Amendment.
Well, I guess it depends. Are you a ratings board, trying to inform the public about the contents of games, or are you the morality police, dictating what the public can and cannot be "allowed" to view?
If you're a ratings board, then if this has "creeped" past what you consider acceptable limits for late teens, then by all means create a new rating that makes it clear that this is for adults only. Oh wait, you have that... "18"...
If you're the morality police, then have the guts to stand up and say that you feel that British adults can't make decisions for themselves and need the thought police to intervene. Unbellygoodfeel!
Doesn't everything?
If you take the comparable argument to its extreme, you get a gradual creeping towards ever more graphic violence, but you never draw a line at any particular point.
People draws lines all the time. If the public thinks something is just too graphic (a video game for example), they don't buy it, the company doesn't make any money, and they make a game less graphic.
If you’re not careful you get into a peculiar game of Grandmother’s Footsteps, where everybody’s shuffling forward but Grandma’s never allowed to turn round and say, ‘Stop’…
That sounds like fun. :P
Is there never a point at which you can say, ‘This is unacceptable’?
Sure you can say that, but not everyone will agree. It's called being a part of mankind, not being mankind itself.
If there is a point, the question then becomes much more difficult: where do you draw it?”
Wherever you feel comfortable. Just don't expect everyone to stay behind that line. Again, part of mankind, not mankind itself.
So grandma is allowed to say stop, but once she does she will never say go?
"Are you serious, that you really don’t see any significant difference between: (1) the BBFC banning a game because they don’t want the public exposed its narrative content, and (2) consumers not buying a game because its narrative content sucks?"
More or less, but only in a very large macro-sense. To me they are both forms of evaluation. As I said, one way or another the game will be judged, if the BBFC does it because that is its purpose, that's one thing. However, the BBFC does not do it, it falls to the individual consumer to judge when it comes time to pay for it at the counter.
(Don't get too trapped in that logic. There is a difference in terms of intent. If the BBFC does it because it feels it's inappropriate for their society, that's one thing - If a consumer does it because he or she doesn't feel it's worth the price or just flat isn't interested. That's something else.) Like I said, they are only similar in a very large-macro sense. They are both different ways of evaluating the same product. To me, it's not entirely unlike travelling-salesman Rockstar knocked on the door, and BBFC answered and told them they weren't interested. Doesn't matter how many people are in the house; BBFC also had a right to say they weren't interested.
Here's the thing. If the only relevant cultural gap concerns the extent to which a society is willing to accept censorship, then perhaps the english do have a greater tolerance for censorship then we do. I admit that I know very little about english culture, but maybe that's one reason I'm not willing to assume the ban is somehow wrong. Our cultures were borne under different circumstances and embrace different values. It's possible you could walk down any street in london, manchester or wherever and just ask people what they think about the BBFC's decision. More then likely you'd get a huge variety of responses, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the average citizen wouldn't have a problem with it.
Why? The constitution is a US construction. Don't misunderstand me, if you're protesting a ban IN THIS COUNTRY, on the grounds of the first amendment, that's something else completely, and I would have no problem with your logic. However, I don't necessarily think we have a right to criticize english government for not following our laws. It's their house!
(At the risk of opening a separate barrell.) To me, globalism is a quirky concept. International business certainly has its highs and lows, but I'm inclined to think that any company (Rockstar included) has an ethical obligation to follow the laws and customs of the country they do business in. (In this case England.) So it only follows that England has a right to say, "Sorry we're not interested". Let me be clear, Rockstar has every right to protest and appeal that decision according to the laws of that country. (Which they are.) You could make a case that we should step in, in incidents of GROSS human rights violations. Banning one lousy quality video game hardly constitutes a gross violation.
In short - at the risk of being isolationist, I tend to dislike the idea that we are the moral police of the world. I'm far more inclined to think that England's quite capable of managing their own house, and if their legal system has decided not to allow the sale of a game to their public, I don't really have a problem with it.
campaign of censorship
absurd moral norms
Judeo-Christian hate
Bible thumping moralistic assholes
Only a one Bible Thumping kind of day for Pandralisk. He must be feeling more love and compassion for his fellow man today; at least more-so than normal.
*Thump!*
Didja know that back in the medevil era, Vlad the Impaler used extreamly violent means to punish those who he deamed wicked?
Didja also know that crime rates went down due to these brutal methods?
you mean drawing the line at AO games right??
just want to make sure im on the same page as you are.
I did know that, lol, it was said that they were able to have a golden chalice to use to drink at the village well because they were too terrified of him to steal it.
Really, if we were as dangerous as they say we are, then why dare they challange us? Wont we go crazy and slaughter them all. I mean how many gamers are out there.
If they ban our games, are they not afraid of reprocutions that we would enduse since i said earlier we are (according to them) Mass murdering fuck heads.
Oh wait, they aint afraid of us. They yell at us, tell us what to do, ban our stuff (or at least try) That could only mean that we really are not dangerous, and so they have no ground to stand against.
(Oh and if there was a flipside, and they become suddenly silent, then that means there is no problem. Woohooo! Jlogic for the win!)
Really, if we were as dangerous as they say we are, then why dare they challange us? Wont we go crazy and slaughter them all. I mean how many gamers are out there.
If they ban our games, are they not afraid of reprocutions that we would enduse since i said earlier we are (according to them) Mass murdering fuck heads.
Oh wait, they aint afraid of us. They yell at us, tell us what to do, ban our stuff (or at least try) That could only mean that we really are not dangerous, and so they have no ground to stand against.
(Oh and if there was a flipside, and they become suddenly silent, then that means there is no problem. Woohooo! Jlogic for the win!)
Nah. If I were to go nuts I'd go after outsourcing managers, and rest assured, that's coming from a place that has nothing to do with video games.