backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 63 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Jun 21 at 2:56 PM

Manhunt 2's gratuitous violence gets it banned in the UK
Rockstar's "Manhunt 2" banned in the UK for "sustained and cumulative casual sadism"

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), a body responsible for the rating and classification of video games and other media, said that it has rejected the PlayStation 2 and Wii versions of Rockstar Games’ Manhunt 2. The classification of Manhunt 2 means that the game may not be legally distributed or sold in the UK.

BBFC director David Cooke said in a statement, “Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly. Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the Board's published Guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2 this has not been possible.”

“Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game,” Cooke continued.

He adds, “Against this background, the Board's carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.”

The BBFC’s decision sets a precedent for all other ratings boards. Manhunt 2 may face the same decision in other territories.

An official response issued by Rockstar Games reads, “We are disappointed with the recent decision by the British Board of Film Classification to refuse classification of Manhunt 2. While we respect the authority of the classification board and will abide by the rules, we emphatically disagree with this particular decision.”

“We respect those who have different opinions about the horror genre and video games as a whole, but we hope they will also consider the opinions of the adult gamers for whom this product is intended. We believe all products should be rated to allow the public to make informed choices about the media and art they wish to consume. The stories in modern video games are as diverse as the stories in books, film and television. The adult consumers who would play this game fully understand that it is fictional interactive entertainment and nothing more,” said the Rockstar Games statement.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Violence in film vs. games
By borismkv on 6/19/2007 6:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
For me, watching a particularly graphic full motion movie (Pan's Labrinth for example) is very much more disturbing than, say, watching a graphic cartoon or playing a game. I lump the last two together because they are more similar. Violence in games is very obviously not real. As close as they try to make it, video game violence cannot yet match the detail found in many popular horror movies. I doubt it ever really will. I'm also very curious about how people can equate moving a mouse around and pushing keys on a keyboard can "train" someone to commit acts of violence. I don't find myself getting angry or imagining killing someone. I think the vast majority of gamers have that disconnect in their minds between game and reality.




RE: Violence in film vs. games
By EntreHoras on 6/19/2007 11:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
True story: I learned how to make donuts with my car playing GTA3. So maybe anyone can be trained to do something just playing video games.

I think that the total ban of a video game is not the best answer, but every country has the system that fits best it's needs.


RE: Violence in film vs. games
By Rockjock51 on 6/20/2007 3:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
You didn't know how to do the real life equivalent of holding down the right trigger and holding the stick to the left in real life till you did it in GTA? What could you have possibly learned in that experience? Push the gas pedal and turn.. this isn't common sense?


RE: Violence in film vs. games
By EntreHoras on 6/20/2007 10:34:59 AM , Rating: 5
This is not about the keys to push in the joystick; it's about timing, mechanics and the self assurance that you can do it.

Another true story: about a month ago, I saw a car chase in the news, and the runaway driver was driving like he was playing GTA. The chase ended when the guy, driving trough the walk side, hits a pole. I imagine he was expecting the pole only causes minor damages to a car as in the game.


RE: Violence in film vs. games
By oTAL (blog) on 6/21/2007 2:54:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think the vast majority of gamers have that disconnect in their minds between game and reality.


I believe the vast minority NOT included in your quote might be justification enough.


RE: Violence in film vs. games
By oTAL (blog) on 6/21/2007 2:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the vast majority of gamers have that disconnect in their minds between game and reality.


I believe the vast minority NOT included in your quote might be justification enough for the ban.


Just who are they protecting?
By Hakuryu on 6/19/2007 6:41:47 PM , Rating: 5
Would any mature (rating) customer pick up a copy of Manhunt 2 and think "Wow, this looks good. I bet I run around and pet bunnies!"? I bet anyone seeing the box and reading it could tell just what kind of game it is.

So are they protecting the adults that could buy this game? Do British people see extended violence and all of sudden desire an Empire built on the blood of it's victims again? Perhaps British adults are a bit unstable and violence like this game delivers could turn them into murdering monsters?

Maybe they are protecting their children? Do British stores sell Mature stuff to minors? Do British parents not care what their children are playing and buy any game without even looking at it?

They really act like they are doing a favor for the public, but I bet the only one that profits from this is the council members that decided on this.... must be close to election time.

Not knocking the British, I just find censorship to be a bad thing, no matter what the content. This is a bad precedent that might affect more games in the future, til the Sims 5 is banned because you can play-fight. Sure that's a bit preposterous, but who's to say what will be censored once the ball gets rolling?




By lemonadesoda on 6/19/2007 7:09:03 PM , Rating: 1
Censorship is a good thing. But it depends on where you draw the line.

If anyone here thinks that snuff videos, or reality-tv kiddie rape, or video footage of desperate people having their limbs chopped off for money, is a good thing, then please leave the room.


RE: Just who are they protecting?
By Munkles on 6/19/2007 7:15:33 PM , Rating: 3
Hakuryu,

I would agree that censorship is most deffinetley a bad thing, but I find your comments about British stores and parents quite alarming. As a born and raised American gamer, I find the lack of AMERICAN PARENTAL involvement to be wholey lacking. It should NOT be the job of the government to censor this because the parents should be.

Do I like the Manhunt game series... no not really, but I dont see any reason that the government should be the reason people in UK arent playing it. Parents should be.

Ive seen dozens of parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents buy GTA3/SA for their 6-10 y/o son or daughter because they just wanted to shut them up.

I understand WHY the council is trying to censor this game, but that doesnt mean they should be allowed to. The council is trying to do what parents all over are failing to do; sadly this little thing will ultimately mean nothing in terms of saving the minds of their youth. It will only hope to delay it slightly.

I sure wish more men would step up to teach thier kids right from wrong, and teach their boys how to be MEN not just... older boys.


By ChristopherO on 6/19/2007 10:55:09 PM , Rating: 4
I'm a fan of England, I've enjoyed my visits, but with the onset of advanced technology they have really gone off the deep end.

In London alone there is something like 2 people per state-run surveillance camera (Drudge had articles on that about a year ago I think). I just can't imagine living in a city where the police would litter the landscape with cameras and the populace would think that is a good thing.

Generally speaking, I think a government crosses the line when it protects people from themselves. It is fine to protect people from others, but never their own choices unless the individual is mentally ill (which by definition is rare, and not an affliction of an entire populace).

I think this is part of a larger problem faced by English society. I wonder when they'll wake up some day and wonder, "How the heck did this happen?"

Personally I think the real solution is to treat games/movies like tobacco. Stores that sell to minors can get into significant trouble, fines, and lose their license -- I think the current system here in the US is pretty much unenforceable. Also, if stores started carding everyone buying games, perhaps clueless adults might get it through their head that maybe the content is an unsuitable birthday gift for little Timmy. Or, if you really wanted to get tough, treat it like pseudoephedrine, force consumers to provide their names, addresses, and a copy of a valid state ID. I don’t support censorship, but I’m fine slowing down the purchasing process and making people think. There has really got to be a happy medium.


They came...
By UltimateDeath on 6/20/2007 4:04:54 AM , Rating: 3
First they came for the video games, and I said nothing for I did not play video games.
Then they came for the media, and I said nothing for I did not care for the media.
Then they came for the political activists, and I said nothing for I was not an activist.
Then they came for my words, and I said nothing for I had nothing left to say.




RE: They came...
By RogueSpear on 6/20/2007 1:08:26 PM , Rating: 1
Ripping off a quote from a WWII era Pastor regarding the wholesale slaughter of Jews and others, over video games, is IMO poor taste. To each his own, but I felt compelled to comment.


who cares
By atticu5 on 6/20/2007 4:50:30 AM , Rating: 2
well, we've got the first amendment but for any of you that dont really know anything about the law, or at least less than me, the 1st amendment comes with restrictions, those restrictions are in place to keep the government from banning just any old thing, but for this game i seriously couldn't care less.

games like that are the kind of stuff that i would never buy and i think give games the bad rep so many people give them and i dont think there would be a problem if they just banished. i am a gamer so when i say games like that i mean games where there is gratuitous violence and you get to "enjoy" killing things in a realistic environment in all the different ways your psychopathic mind has always dreamed of.

no taht im done with that rant, in principle i don't agree with the ban on this game but in practicality i understand. in governments like the US, and probably UK but im not sure, the only way to ban something is if it is deemed obscene, which means that a majority of people think it is inappropriate, such as child pornography. the mob mentality arguement against this doesnt work because all democracy really is is a fancy form of it, majority rules, its that simple. of course in the US there are laws to protect the minority view but thats a flame war for some other time




RE: who cares
By benjipwns on 6/20/2007 11:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Of course, those First Amendment restrictions were put in place by the state after the fact.

They are in effect the state overwriting the powers granted to it by the people and saying "actually, we prefer this to be our power." Nobody complained because it was protecting "the children" and now instead of the First Amendment stating explicitly that the state cannot abridge freedom of speech, everyone has been taught that it really means "the government cannot abridge freedom of speech, except when it wants to."


By Hoser McMoose on 6/19/2007 6:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if there is any evidence, accurate or otherwise, that depictions of very violent and brutal killing are somewhat worse than depictions of just casually mowing people down with a machine gun? I really don't know, honest question here.

In all I guess this comes down to a question of where you draw the line. I think everyone agrees that there need to be SOME lines need to be draw. I really hate to bring it up as an example because it's so extreme, but a game where the goal was to molest children would pretty universally be seen as being on the wrong side of the line. But where do others fall? At what point does the content of the game become so morally objectionable that it should be banned?

I've never been a big fan of censorship in any form, but if they are going to censor any game then this is probably the one to do it with. Certainly it makes MUCH more sense, to me at least, to censor based on extreme violence rather then bits of sex and nudity.




By dubldwn on 6/19/2007 6:42:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
At what point does the content of the game become so morally objectionable that it should be banned?

Never. If there are no children involved, then there should be no limit to what’s depicted in a game (including molested children breaks other laws). These products are for adults. Children are not part of the discussion. The "review boards" need to keep their morals to themselves.


goddamn new labour
By colonelclaw on 6/20/2007 1:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
just when i thought it wasn't possible to hate tony blair and new labour any more...

tell you what politicians, i think i will decide what to watch play read etc, not you.




By hellokeith on 6/19/2007 5:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at one of the Saw or Hostel movies, heck even Sin City, they are very violent with graphic depictions of bloody dismemberment and death.

So the only thing I can think of is that since video games require interactivity - the player must initiate these gruesome actvities - that society worries that initiation could translate into real-world behavior.

I wonder how strict is enforcement of selling mature games in the UK.

I also wonder, what if the game was an historical account of some Roman siege where the soldiers went in and massacared the whole village including women and children, would that also pass the boundary of worrisome interactive violence?




Zombies
By therealnickdanger on 6/19/2007 6:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Just change all the humans into zombies and turn the blood green. It worked for Carmageddon. While we're at it, let's give the UK this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gNqiSkd1M6k
(old, but still funny)




So....
By daftrok on 6/19/2007 7:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
So Grand Theft Auto, God of War, Condemned, Resistance, Halo, FEAR, etc. DON'T show that much violence? Fucking dumbasses...