After Lengthy Legal Battle, Manhunt 2 Ban Lifted in U.K.
After Lengthy Legal Battle, Manhunt 2 Ban Lifted in U.K.
March 14, 2008
British gamers with an urge to play Manhunt 2 will now have their chance.As reported by The Guardian, a ban placed on Rockstar's gory sequel last summer has been lifted by the Video Appeals Committee (VAC). The game was originally refused classification - essentially, banned - by the British Board of Film and Literature Classification on June 19th of last year. At the same time, the ESRB slapped an Adults Only rating on Manhunt 2, negating its viability as a commercial product in the United States.
In October the BBFC also rejected a toned-down version of the game, although the edited edition was able to gain a M (17 and older) rating from the ESRB for the U.S. market.
In December, Rockstar won its appeal before the VAC, but the BBFC appealed that decision to England's High Court. The Court ruled that the VAC should reconsider the issue. That has now taken place and the VAC's decision means Manhunt 2 can be sold in the U.K. with an 18+ rating. Addressing the decision, a Rockstar statement read in part:
We are pleased that the VAC has reaffirmed its decision recognising that Manhunt 2 is well within the bounds established by other 18+ rated entertainment.
Lawrence Abramson, an attorney who represented Rockstar during the legal proceedings, added:
The [BBFC] system works in films, but the gameplaying experience is different.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
'Oh noes' is right. But I don't have time to debate you.
Just thought I would share my observations today.
Anglefire:
"I think the BBFC have learned their lesson now with this one, hopefully."
They claimed in many articles that if this appeal was successful that they would have to move the goalposts again to allow for this type of game to be classified as 18. If they practice what that preach, then yes I think they will take this decision into account in future.
Other examples include GP editorialising stories making it seem as if the UK government had nothing better to than wield an axe against games. I would be interested to know if anyone here can name any cause Keith Vaz has been involved in that doesn't involve gaming? . The problem as I see it is because the site is american-centric. The good old classic line I have always heard is "Well I'm glad I live in a country that doesn't XYZ," you folk know who you are. Its as if because something goes against the good 'ol american way of things its wrong.
"The question floating around the industry though, is why the BBFC feels the need to wander into the realm of morally questionable video games, when it feels quite content to stamp “18+” on morally questionable movies and the like. Clearly it feels that classification is the norm for movies (it’s even “un-banning” old movies it refused classification for in the past), yet it’s “grudgingly” allowing a classification for a video game, but only because it was spanked by two higher ups."
You're 100% right. There is a disconnect between the way the BBFC rates games and movies and that definitely needs to be fixed. They do need to apply their standards consistently.
That said, thier semi-legislative, semi-descriptive position is not a part of that problem. That system works just fine and this ordeal has only shown that they're not the overly powerful big brother entity so many of your cohorts have inferred them to be.
About that passports jibe: how you can expect to hold forth on topics regarding any other country in what you perceive as a worldly, informed manner when yo0've never even left your own - not even once - baffles me beyond belief. The fact that you might think such a thing isn't even important/relevant is of even greater ridiculousness.
I think the BBFC have learned their lesson now with this one, hopefully.
If there is an 18 rating for the game, then RATE IT!!!!
That is what the 18 rating is there for....
I am happy there is an independant body watching over the BBFC, but this could have been all cleared up with better judgement in BBFC's behalf and deicde to admit that they were too conserned about the history of the Manhunt games and the fear from their politicians instead of trying to rate a game in a mannor that was suitable for the games industry that tires its best to create games for the commerical 18 rated market in the UK,
As an Aussie gamer, I can't wait for an R18+ rating in Australia so hopefully games like these would be seen downunder so I would know for sure what was really in the game myself...
But it is so hard to form a good opinion without even playing it, as from what I have known from experience....
I still fail to see how a supposedly non-governmental entity can wield such force of law with their ratings. Do you feel comfortable with your government handing the deed to your rights to corporations?
If that adjustment happened along with this great news of the UK accepting Manhunt 2 then there will be a great chance of Manhunt 3.
/b
I might feel different if this was overturned immediately, but it wasn't. The BBFC still banned a game. How do they do they do that without the force of law to back them up? How can they flat refuse a rating?
What would of happened if they banned Bioshock, Mass Effect, or some other game?
@ LoopyChew
I've seen more than a few reviews that said Manhunt 2 was pure crap.
If is seen as important that the BBFC is independent of Govt, but also independent of the industry it regulates. The Govt set the standards which the BBFC should apply through statute, but the BBFC applies those standards independent of direct State interference. The Courts (including the VAC) ensure that it is applying the standards coreectly in individual cases.
The Govt oversees the BBFC's action but cannot influence individual decisions directly. It can hold the BBFC to account by amending the standards which the body is bound to apply. It's a pretty standard regulatory structure which operates in a lot of European states.
To be honest, with our current government Id feel happier if far more decisions reagarding our daily lives were taken out of their hands. At least corporations listen to the people, and know that if they don't it'll hit 'em in the pocket. The government consistently make our lives worse, then hammer it home with tax rises to pay for the privilege!
"To be honest, with our current government Id feel happier if far more decisions reagarding our daily lives were taken out of their hands."
And wouldn't you like those decisions to be placed in your own hands? Do you feel comfortable with non-elected officials in a (wink wink nudge nudge) non-governmental corporations making these decisions for you?
At the moment our electoral officials ignore the public wishes on everything anyway, at least the on-governmental coporations want money so are more likely to allow things than ban them. =p
"the original version was a bit over the top"
I am glad you have that opinion. In fact, I am happy that you held that opinion and didn't buy or otherwise play the game. That is your right and you exercised it the way it should be exercised - by not purchasing the game.
What this body attempted to do was to make that decision for you and everyone else.
I agree with you 100%. Last time a round of BBFC bashing came into effect here, I cited precident that the BBFC went throught the exact same process with some hardcore pornography material and it seems that the exact same results have came from it. The material is avaliable and the BBFC have adapted and changed how they review the material.
Look how far that slipery slope we have sliden down that an established process has taken its course.
You went from the phrase 'hardcore pornography' to 'slipper slope' just a bit faster than my male brain could handle....so many images I didn't want. >_>
The BBFC made a decision based upon their reading of the standards upheld in this country. Regardless of our liking or disliking that opinion, they did their job.
This was then appealed by the VAC, and the BBFC legally appealed that decision. (Countersuits and legal debates are above board here not some murky backhanded idea some of you seem to imagine)
The VAC appeal was upheld and the BBFC have conceeded that decision and will amend their reading of the standards appropriately.
Nothing odd has happened here other than it's gotten a bit more technical than usual. Many of you just like seeing Reds under the bed anywhere you can. The game's out (in August) and that's that. The BBFC has not been proven irrelevent or outdated, simply incorrect in this instance; for which it has been corrected.
Christ, can we all give it a break now.
Game Over.
Its important for the wii to have games like this, even if it is not the best game in the world.
That way I won't get lumped with "minigame" loving kids.
mwa ha ha ha
I don't have the time or energy to get into this right now, but allow me to make a brief counterpoint.
You're right in that there is a group of vocal, American posters here who will jump on a bandwagon to bash anything cast in a negative light in a GP article, to rally blindly like sheep to the "omg tehy're cenz0ring mai gamz!" battle cry.
There is also a group of more reasoned, American posters who actually put some logic behind their arguments when attacking or calling into question such things, like the BBFC in this case. Just because we have the former group agreeing with us for the wrong reasons, doesn't automatically make us wrong as well.
There's nothing so dangerous to a legitimate cause as a pack of fools agreeing with it.
If this had been a small, independent developer, would they have been able to afford to lawyer up for this whole appeals process? Doesn't really strike me as being free speech if only a large company can afford it.
And, for that matter, what about people who could never afford the BBFC submission fee in the first place?
"The BBFC has not been proven irrelevent or outdated, simply incorrect in this instance; for which it has been corrected."
The BBC is certainly questioning how relevant the BBFC is if systems like PEGI a) are more informative about game content, and b) don't cross the line between "label maker" and "censor".
If it takes both a committee, and a higher court, to remind the BBFC that it's job is to label things for public information, not to censor, then perhaps the BBFC needs to do some serious soul searching to figure out just what it's purpose really is. Is it to censor media to protect the public? Or is it to inform the public so they can make their own decisions? Right now it doesn't seem too sure what it's job is.
The thing is, I don't think there is one right or wrong answer. I am not so arrogant that I believe my word and opinions are gospel. I concede that there are some good points on both sides of the argument. I think the BBFC is a good thing. Does that mean I think its right for America? Possibly not because of how politicized media violence has become over there. I could argue that the Manhunt 2 fiasco is an example that the process works.
To be fair I only really jump in when I feel that facts are being distorted or misrepresented. I have gone into great lengths in prior stories trying to disprove myths about the BBFC and highlighting the process of classification not only of video games but other media too. A lot of comments are baseless innuendo which only seems to feed the more paranoid posters. It’s just funny that it seems to me like the flipside of attitudes of anti-gamers. You know, that they see conspiracy and malice at every step. I invite people to look back at the comments attached to prior articles on the BBFC's & VAC classification decisions to see what I mean now that we know how the entire thing has played out.
As an 'apologist' I'd just like to say that if you intend to publish obviously controversial material your business model will have to account for that commercial risk (which would go well beyond the cost in a potential BBFC submission and cover other insurable risks). Questions surrounding IP infringement are likely to be much larger, and more costly, potential risks.
The BBFC Fees of around £1,200 shouldn't be an enormous cost hurdle in comparison.
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9558&I...
It seems clear that the BBFC is assigning the rating rather reluctantly. They feel they are in the right, but since they can't reject the VAC's decision outright, they are forced.
I have a feeling that they are more than willing to try this again in the future.
Give me an example of a small time developer trying to push the bounderies in such a way that Rockstar has?
Are you aware how much it costs to develop a game for commercial release? Its a business venture at the end of the day and as such they should factor such things into a risk assessment.
You are looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Only two games, TWO GAMES, have been thru this process and each time the end result is the games have been cleared for release.
Are you aware that as part of process the BBFC refunds the cost of the appeals to Rockstar now?
"No jaberwock you are incorrect, their job is to classify media and if necessary refuse classification."
Are you sure?
From the BBFC website: (Why do we do what we do?)
Sounds to me like they think their job is to inform the public so they can make their own decisions, not to censor. And refusing to classify something, well, that falls under censoring it. Because without a BBFC classification, adults are denied their "freedom of choice"...
Oh noes.
Then your reading it wrong. The BBFC have on multiple occasions prevented classification of movie titles in the UK and have been doing so for years. Shall I offer up some examples?
"Then your reading it wrong. The BBFC have on multiple occasions prevented classification of movie titles in the UK and have been doing so for years. Shall I offer up some examples?"
You're missing the point. The BBFC is trying to give the impression that they respect adult choice (in their "mission statement"), but from their actions (MH2, and all the movies I'm sure you're going to list), it's clear that they don't believe that at all.
To me that is a conflict of purpose. And so the BBFC should step back and decide what it is their job ACTUALLY entails. And communicate this clearly to the public.
'In 1984 Parliament passed the Video Recordings Act. This act stated that, subject to certain exemptions, video recordings offered for sale or hire commercially in the UK must be classified by an authority designated by the Secretary of State. The President and Vice Presidents of the BBFC were so designated, and charged with applying the new test of 'suitability for viewing in the home'. At this point the Board's title was changed to British Board of Film Classification to reflect the fact that classification plays a far larger part in the Board's work than censorship.'
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/policy/policy-rejects.php
I look forward to it, another time on another thread perhaps :)
And all that'll happen is that we repat this lengthy process. As has been stated above, both times the BBFC tried to prevent a game from reaching store shelves (Carmageddon 2 and Manhunt 2) they've ultimately failed. If that's not legal precedent, I don't know what is.
@ Colonel Finn - [applause]
@ lumi - [applause]
@ Jabrwock, Erik, illspirit etc: I bet you don't even own passports.
Conclusion: The British legal system has been held up to be valid, credible and pretty bloody water-tight. Just like we've been saying all along. Shock, horror: the UK doesn't turn out to comprise a City17-esque society after all. Now go back to sleep and watch American Gladiators or something.
Again, you're missing the point. In fact, all you're doing is reinforcing mine, that the BBFC is not sure what it's job is. In my link, they state they are all for adults having "freedom of choice", and that their job is to "inform the public". But in your link, they state "unless the BBFC decides that adults shouldn't have freedom of choice".
So in other words, they're all for just being a classification system, unless they feel they know best, in which case they feel they should act as a censor as well.
Maybe they should put "unless we decided what's best for you" as part of their mission statement...
Cinema censorship was traditionally handled by local Govt but new legal powers had to be granted to allow for the growth of home video. It is these rules that now apply to digital media distributed in the UK.
The BBFC's role has always been driven by a censorship role (an political pressure focusing on 'harmful' material), but it also understood that the majority of material would be suitable for adults and therefore classification would be the norm.
Correct, now what does my not having a passport have to do with anything? Don't tell me you're going to pull a US-style "you're not from here so you're not allowed to judge". ;)
The legal system has indeed been held up to be valid. I'm questioning the motives of the organization that required Rockstar to invoke the legal system in the first place...
What do you call that line then?
A classification decision is refused if the material is found to breach UK law.
Thanks for the quick sum up.
Unfortunately, the BBFC has used that "classification is the norm" as their defense for censoring MH2. Essentially arguing "we've only censored two games, what's the big deal?"
The question floating around the industry though, is why the BBFC feels the need to wander into the realm of morally questionable video games, when it feels quite content to stamp "18+" on morally questionable movies and the like. Clearly it feels that classification is the norm for movies (it's even "un-banning" old movies it refused classification for in the past), yet it's "grudgingly" allowing a classification for a video game, but only because it was spanked by two higher ups.
You are so right about them releasing the full uncut version for PC since any kind of game is allowed for the PC. They should have all the exclusives from both the Wii and PS2 versions of Manhunt 2 for the PC version.
All of us gamers should pressure Rockstar Games to release the uncut version of Manhunt 2 for the PC to give them a better image for the fans.
Like it did with Murder Set Pieces?
"What do you call that line then?"
Clearly they don't apply that "rule" consistently across the board (see Saw movies fiasco), so they obviously believe that "inadvertent breaches of UK law" is subjective.
What "commercial risk" are you talking about?
@Buncha Kneejerks
Here's 3 examples: Doom, Postal, and Ethnic Cleansing. The latter of which doesn't just push the boundaries, it jumped off the cliff.
Yes, a mainstream costs ridiculous money to develop, but a small team of people could develop and publish a simple and/or crappy game for almost nothing aside from wasting spare time on it. In the case of Ethnic Cleansing (and other equally as despicable games), it's distributed in part via independent record labels to small shops which sell skinhead music and books without a rating. To the best of my knowledge, this would be quite illegal in the UK.
Likewise, if the developer of a homebrew like Super Columbine Massacre RPG wanted to press discs and could find shops that would sell it, he could do so without prior restraint from the government.
And, no, I did not realize the BBFC has to refund the cost of the appeal. I suppose that does change things slightly.
Ok, so now we have a movie example of the BBFC going against it's own "mission statement" (which as I've pointed out, is clearly in contradiction of it's "policies")...
Regarding supposed "UK hating" and "group think" I've seen some crying wolf in my time but this is ridiculous. These comments are obviously intended to insult the people you disagree with and for what? Because you got over excited in an argument (which ultimately was lost)?
For the record I was one of the people criticising the BBFC and I'm English so it's not all down to the US contributors having a go. Nor, incidentally, did I feel anyone said anything particularly out of line about the UK.
I tried at all times to explain my objections to the BBFC's position and was as reasonable as I thought anyone could be about it too. Indeed, if "group think" was an issue I'd like to point out that I felt pressure from fellow UK posters who seemed to think I should agree with them on the basis of my nationality; accusing people of following a crowd cuts both ways...
Last but not least the BBFC was found to be at fault, thus it deserved at least some criticism from anyone capable of sensible critical thought (sic). That being the case getting upset because people put the boot in seems rather silly.
Gift.
PS I am rather proud of our courts on this occasion through :D
"how you can expect to hold forth on topics regarding any other country in what you perceive as a worldly, informed manner when yo0?ve never even left your own - not even once"
I had no idea visiting Yarmouth in Norfolk for a vacation could empower me with such knowledge. :P
"That said, thier semi-legislative, semi-descriptive position is not a part of that problem. That system works just fine and this ordeal has only shown that they’re not the overly powerful big brother entity so many of your cohorts have inferred them to be."
Never said they were. I'm just questioning whether they know what their purpose is. Because on the one hand they're advertising themselves as an information source. But on the other hand they're acting like they know what's best, and apparently need the courts to remind them of this. So what do THEY think their purpose is?
Yarmouth totally counts - anywhere, even Mexico, counts. It's those people that only have the culture of their birth as their sole frame of reference to whom I hold objection.
Are the BBFC slightly schizophrenic? Absolutely - it comes with the territory. Are they perfect? Far from it (although I'm glad it;s not up to me to decide how to fix them). Have they come out of this smelling like roses? Absolutely not, they should never have appealed the VAC.
Do they know what's best? I've got to be honest, they're more informed than most and I do agree with 99% of their ratings. Comments on GP.com actually changed my mind from initially supporting the MH2 ban to being totally against it, however I don't think the BBFC need to be replaced. They just need to realise that they can't get away with drawing lines in the sand in a society as liberal and informed as the UK, even if they think they're doing the right thing.
Now whens it coming out?
Wait, wouldn't I just be exposed to like-minded tourists if I went to Mexico?
I think I'd much prefer to do what I am now, having discussion with people who actually live across the pond, rather than visit a tourist trap and pretend I've been "exposed" to the local ways of thinking... ;)
I don't believe the BBFC should be scrapped. I'm in total agreement with you that they need to realize they can't draw lines in the sand. What I'm saying is that the BBFC needs to realize this, and it's clear from their comments that they don't feel they should do any soul searching, that the only reason they've erased the current line in the sand was because the courts told them to.
I agree, from their statement it does seem like they feel they're still in the right and are being forced to play by the rules against their will. I would love for them to be interviewed now, to determine their position and se whether or not they have a point. Bear in mind this is all against the backdrop of the Byron report, with rumours that the BBFC might be replaced with either a pan-European or (worse yet) Governmental agency. They're probably feeling very threatened right now - not a good thing, as the BBFC remain the best system going, IMHO.
As for the travelling remark - there is no substitute for first-hand experience, watered down or not. In that particular example, it would allow you to witness first-hand the influence of American culture on foreign societies, if nothing else. Nothing broadens the mind like seeing the world, although I agree that the internet is a better substitute than none at all.
:)
Hehe, I get enough of that already. Ich bin Kanuk. ;)
I hope Rockstar take the BBFC to the cleaners in terms of lost revenue from the delay in release. What I don't understand is why Manhunt 2 was singled out for special treatment when Condemned 2, an infinitely more violent and disturbed game, was passed as an 18 without the slightest bit of fuss.
Lets be clear, the BBFC knows what its job is, I know what its job is, the British public know what their job is and most people here knows what its job is. You can interpret a small portion of their website and ignore the rest in anyway that gives you comfort that you’re right. You know, some people can read the Koran and see justification in it for strapping some C4 to their chest and going for a ride on a bus. Perhaps they too are being selective in their interpretation, ignoring other parts that contradict their belief. That does not mean they are right. I see no more point in arguing the semantics of a small paragraph of text.
The fact is the BBFC's job is to classify media. If the media in question contravenes the Video Recordings act they are to refuse classification. History and the facts on their website back up this statement. If you wish to take issue with their wording then email them. It’s that simple.
Gift.
"Ohh and I am unaware of any court order ruling against the BBFC with regards to Manhunt 2. Jabrwock and Gift have both made reference to this."
The court told the VAC to review it's decision, but it did not overturn the decision, which is what the BBFC wanted. I consider that a rule against the BBFC. A "you can indeed rule overrule the BBFC, just make sure you do it properly" ruling.
"Lets be clear, the BBFC knows what its job is, I know what its job is, the British public know what their job is and most people here knows what its job is. You can interpret a small portion of their website and ignore the rest in anyway that gives you comfort that you’re right."
If you don't get what I'm trying to say, then I've failed as a communicator. I'll try to sum it up one more time.
When the stated "overall goal" of an organization conflicts with it's stated "policies", it's time to reexamine just which exactly takes precedence, and why.
As to the BBFC's duties and purpose, the concept of them refusing to rate any media has long been a controversial but understood part of their actions.
It simply is the case that latterly fewer and fewer films have been refused a rating, as the general accepted standard of what is acceptable has changed over time. Manhunt 2 is extreme in both content and concept, Their wishing to refuse it a rating came as no surprise to me, even after the edits were made. This is standard practice for the BBFC, and as such I have to disagree with Jabrwock's reading of the BBFC's purpose and goals.
Also the concept of Rockstar taking the BBFC to the courts for loss of earnings is an interesting one, but I don't think it's legally sound, nor would it be a wise idea. They may an accountable independent body, but it's still not wise to make open enemies of a group you need to work with in the future.
"Also the concept of Rockstar taking the BBFC to the courts for loss of earnings is an interesting one, but I don’t think it’s legally sound, nor would it be a wise idea. They may an accountable independent body, but it’s still not wise to make open enemies of a group you need to work with in the future."
A little late for that, I think, based on how sulky the BBFC is allegedly being over this.
And I still feel like people aren't on the same page with this whole "what does the BBFC do" thing.
1. Their own mission statement and policies contain a non-trivial contradiction (rating vs. censorship).
2. Their historical record undeniably includes censorship, supporting the notion that it is part of their actual duty.
3. If we accept that censorship IS a part of their actual duty, it neutralizes claims that some people have made to the contrary; that they only rate and never ban.
Regardless of whether they are meant to do so, and it seems that they feel they are, the fact of the matter is that the BBFC DOES have the power to ban games via ratings denial... which I'm pretty sure was the dispute that started all this in the first place a couple weeks ago.
So the reviews seem to say. If I pick up a TT/R* title any time soon, it'll be Bully. I've a decent interest in that one.
"Don’t bother trying to talk to Eric. He doesn’t listen."
Actually I can multitask. I can listen to someone AND think they are totally full of crap AT THE SAME TIME.
As for the whole BBFC policies issue, looking at this from a debate perspective, Lumi, Jabrwock, and others have proved there points quet well compared to the rest of you guys. You can't simply ignore a point or evidence and deem it trival. In an offical debate, you would lose. No countries rating system is perfect and we must all understand that
As the nature of the media is so different it raises legitimate questions about the BBFC's role in justifying distinctions between decisions. The BBFC has long held that no acts are banned, per se, in media; in the sense that depictions will result in a non-classification. The key question is the 'tone' and the way that the depiction is handled.
In this way I think that one of the key issues for the future of the debate is the way in which games handle their storytelling and interactive elements. The less context which is given to the actions, including consequences for the choices made, the more likely they are to struggle when it comes to classification decisions.
i do totally see your point. However lets not forget that in this game you actually play from a 3rd person perspective, and the character you play as has his own name, backstory and identity.
Surely that somewhat detracts from the idea of 'you' doing the killings. When i play such games i dont see it as 'me' killing people, i see it as the character in the game doing it. And that the character in the game is a unique individual who is in no way related to myself.
Post new comment