Why do so many people assume that free speech is something that must be justified or earned? Why can't it just be there, so that people can make their own decisions on unpopular speech? When did morals become the matter of the state? Is it so afraid that a DVD will make the world think that Britons are immoral bastards? Has nobody thought of the precedent this decison, coupled with its vauge justifications, may set for all video games?

These are the questions I set forward on this topic.

I thnk a better analogy for this situation would be a game I played as a child. It was called "Mother May I" In this game you have one "mother" and every one else lines up accross the room/yard. Mother then asks each person in turn to take a certain number of certain steps. Before taking the steps, the person must ask, "Mother may I?" to which mother then says "Yes you may." Then the person takes the steps given to them. If the person fails to ask "Mother May I?" and procedes to take the steps, they are sent back to the starting line. If the person fails to take the appropriate steps, they are sent back to start.

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.

the question isn't whether or not people should find Manhunt 2 unacceptable.
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.

This is going to come out bad for the BBFC either way, they are either going to be made to look like censors or made to look like they are allowing 'This Filth' onto the market...

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.

Truth be told, I can't blame them. I felt compelled, if for no other reason then curiousity, to look at MH2 just the other night. Got a rental copy. It's probably going back to to the rental service pretty quickly too. Simply, it's not very good. The story's not much, it's obvious that they're trying to be as offensive as possible. The enemy AI's pretty bad, basically allowing you to "hide in the shadows" 2 feet away from somebody without being seen. The whitewashing/gfx over the kills which somehow supposedly makes it M material over AO doesn't make allot of sense. Frankly, it smells of hypocrisy. The one thing MH2 does somewhat succeed at, is it does manage to create something of a palpable sense of tension, I haven't felt that since Bioshock, but it's safe to say Bioshock was a superior game in just about every way.

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.

Whatever. This is the same government that wants to get rid of fat Santa Clause because he encourages children to be obese.

from what ive seen manhunt 2 is no worse than films like the saw or hostel series, like many others here have said. the only reason its even selling at this point is because of this kind of attention it got, banning it is just made people want it more and it ended up increasing their curiosity in it. if what they did was in fact "draw a line" or whatever, it was drawn quite low because ive seen far worse than what is shown and ive never seen anyone make so much noise over it like they did with this game.

It's a very old party game, worked kind of like the Ghosts in Mario Bros iirc.

Too much emphasis on video games as a seperate entity. Its just another form of media, just one that Joe Average thinks is only meant for kids. Cinema is another media, and look at the Hollywood snuff films we have had over the recent years. Nobody bats an eyelid. MH2 is no different to the blood and gore films that get released. And its easier for kids to get a film too. No struggle to download it and circumvent the age restriction or get a copy from a stall in your local market town. The pirates don't need proof of age

@fellow GP posters
Take a look at this:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/bbfc/bbfc-admits-no-proven-link-between-games-a....

The BBFC moral facists -- infected with members of a State Church -- has enacted a campaign of censorship that seeks to enforce absurd moral norms derived from Judeo-Christian hate. This event is INCREDIBLY damaging to the artistic freedom and progression of this industry. Developers, knowing that the Bible thumping moralistic assholes on the BBFC censorship boards, will be more likly now to police their own content so their products can reach a broad foriegn market.

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.

Black Manta summed it up right in the second post. The BBFC wanted to prove a point, and Manhunt 2 was the title they chose to do it with.

Did the BBFC draw a line in the sand? I don't know for certain, but it certainly looks that way.

I've seen the content in MH2. It's no worse than Saw III.

@ Pandralisk

I was unaware of any religious motivations in the BBFC....

@Conejo

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.

The UK has these lines drawn in other places. The line has been drawn for hate speech, for instance. Britain doesn't have total freedom of speech. Phelps wouldn't be able to have his fun in England, Brits aren't allowed to protest in certain areas, and so forth. The BBFC are saying that games like Manhunt go too far and should be restricted, just like they have done in the past with movies. Like it or not, protest it in the streets or not, but banning extreme media (for a while) isn't something new to the UK.

ah yes, but it should be the right of the Consumer to decide whether a game is worth merit or not.

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.

Well, Matthew, people say the BBFC has a double standard when it comes to movies in comparison to video games. I don't really know much about it, though (sounds like the only movies they ban are ultraviolent indie films as opposed to your average mainstream ultraviolent film).

If there is a point, the question then becomes much more difficult: where do you draw it?

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!

wait a min.. with his grandma's footsteps game...

So grandma is allowed to say stop, but once she does she will never say go?

@stinking kevin

"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.

How about you let customers decide where they should draw a line, instead of drawing it for them?

Heres something intresting...

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?

@ Vladmire

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.

Yeah, and unlike then, these guys are not afraid of the gamers.

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!)

From the BBFC's statement at the VAC appeal hearing:

"The research certainly achieves the objective of establishing that research does not demonstrate that there is a causal link[between violent video games and violent behavior]. But what it certainly does not establish is that there isn't."

You're guilty until proven innocent in the U.K.

"Or kill people of a certain ethnicity? Would you like to see games like that released?"

Has been. And I intend to play it, simply becuase of the fact that I can. I say this when I'm black.

That game is called Ethnic Clensing.








It has a sequal.

I see. Still. If it were realeased, I would have no problem with it.

Or kill people of a certain ethnicity? Would you like to see games like that released?

I thought that was covered by Resident Evil 5. ;)

@ Baramos

unitled is right.

“The research certainly achieves the objective of establishing that research does not demonstrate that there is a causal link[between violent video games and violent behavior]. But what it certainly does not establish is that there isn’t."

This isn't meant to be simply a diatribe, but if the BBFC really said that, its members are considerably more ignorant than most of us assume. NOTHING can establish that there IS NOT a link between any one thing and any other thing. It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE, and to continue to blame videogames for violence simply because there is no evidence that they ARE NOT responsible for that would be insane on the part of the BBFC.

NO scientific research can EVER prove a negative. It can conceivably prove a link; it can fail to prove a link; and after it fails to prove a link enough times, common sense assumes there is no link, as opposed to assuming the opposite as they presumably do.

This is simply the limitation of anything that bases its assumptions upon what we observe; no matter how many times we DO NOT see a videogame/violence link, we can NEVER use that evidence as proof there IS no link, only that we haven't SEEN one. Hence, those who argue we must disprove the videogame/violence link are simply asserting their own ignorance of scientific fact and simple logic.

For every observation that shows NO positive correlational link (or, one might say, DOES NOT show a positive correlational link), this in itself should disprove causation: because without correlation that makes one rise when the other rises, the two factors CANNOT possibly possess a causal link such that one increasing makes the other increase.

For those who ignore that trusim, even merely looking at the many studies which DO NOT show a causal link can result in a scientific theory in regards to videogames and violence. First, the studies which were deemed to show that videogames contribute to violence have been consistently and repeatedly debunked--mainly on the grounds that they are unscientific, use subjective or irrelevant variables as tests for violence, or simply imply correlation.

Second, in light of that, the numerous studies which DO NOT show a causation between violence and videogames can be compiled into a theory that videogames do not cause violence. This can never be proven, of course, but there's a reason scientific "no-brainers" like the theory of relativity, gravity (which doesn't actually exist save as a description for effects of other factors, but that's beside the point), and such are still called THEORIES: science posits explanations which are believed due to repeated testing failing to show them untrue, but never proven.

In particular, a negative such as videogames NOT causing violence cannot be proven, but only supported with evidence of this causal link not existing: in science, we can never be certain that our NOT observing such a phenomenon means that it does not exist, only that we have not observed its existence; so we must instead accept consistent failure to observe a phenomenon (such as videogames causing violence) as evidence of the likelihood that this phenomenon does not exist (that videogames do not cause violence).

@ jadedcritic

The issue isn't that we're trying to "police" the British review/classification board, but rather that we're objecting to unsupportable discrimination in their methodology; if they truly represent the needs/opinions of their people, then they are failing those people (assuming those people are intelligent enough to recognize the banned violence and gore in videogames as tamer than that found in movies which are allowed by the same ratings board, which you'll forgive me if I do assume).

Either the BBFC people are NOT banning movies that public opinion considers inappropriate, or they ARE banning videogames that the general public would consider acceptable. No matter how you look at it, the blatant and admittedly ill-informed (never played a videogame, in this day and age? Seriously?) disparities in the judgment of these two media prove the BBFC out of touch with the people they are supposed to serve.