BBFC says no to Manhunt 2 again

By Games Industry.biz Published 8 October, 2007

New version still not passable.

The BBFC has again rejected Rockstar's Manhunt 2 despite the developer making cuts to the game after it was initially banned last June, GamesIndustry.biz reports.

The ESRB in the US has recently granted the game an M rating, clearing it for release in North America, but UK censors have decided that the content is still unsuitable for sale in the region.

"We recognise that the distributor has made changes to the game, but we do not consider that these go far enough to address our concerns about the original version," offered David Cooke, director of the BBFC.

"The impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the gameplay, is clearly insufficient.

"There has been a reduction in the visual detail in some of the 'execution kills', but in others they retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature," he said.

The BBFC said that any attempt to appeal the decision was now in the hands of Rockstar publisher Take 2.

GamesIndustry.biz always says no to fiction, before pounding it mercilessly into hard fact.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (138) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • zuljin #1 4 years ago

    I think (unless I misread it somewhere), this has been passed in the Netherlands, so I'll be making a quick stop over at some point!

    I probably wouldn't have if it wasn't in the news so much...

  • Paukl #2 4 years ago

    Import ftw :)

  • Darkedge #3 4 years ago

    who cares.

  • krudster #4 4 years ago

    It's not even that good.

  • DonnieDarko333 #5 4 years ago

    I'm importing it then! I'm 20 years old, i want to play it. It's my life.

  • Moz #6 4 years ago

    As far as I was aware the BBFC rating only stop the sale of the product in the UK but you are still entitaled to buy from abroad including online. So as long as there is a PAL region that has the game you can just import if you really want the game that badly.

    Though I might be wrong can anyone confirm?
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 11:56

  • SeesThroughAll #7 4 years ago

    I'll just go and buy the dutch version then.

  • decibel #8 4 years ago

    This is .. good news.

    Manhunt 2 is exactly the sort of drivel that gives our industry a bad name. Woo I say!

  • Darren #9 4 years ago

    Well personally I couldn't less that it's banned especially after reading the less than impressive reviews of the game.

    The original was tedium on a disc which sold because it was extremely violent and nasty and it's a game I feel didn't deserve a sequel in the first place. It was definitely the low point of Rockstar's controversial games catalogue. And, yes, I was one of the unfortunates that bought the game and enjoyed it for all of... oooooo... an hour before I realised how mind-numbingly shallow, repetitive and dull it was.

  • killyourtv #10 4 years ago

    whether the game is good or not is irrelevant. it isn't up to the bbfc to tell adults what is suitable for them and decide what they can and can't play

  • The_Inquisitor #11 4 years ago

    Obvioiusly our mature brains are not mature enough to decide for ourselves.

  • Moz #12 4 years ago

    As long as the BBFC don't go the way of germany and start baning stuff left right and centre i'm fine with them blocking the odd game that just pushes the boundries that bit too far.

    Though with "next gen" graphics we could see more stuff being band on the basis that it looks that bit more real.

  • el_pollo_diablo #13 4 years ago

    It's like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre all over again.

    And here was I thinking that the days of James Ferman had passed...

  • Fitzmogwai #14 4 years ago

    Er, actually, it is.

    Also, I've got great respect for the BBFC and the decisions they make. These days, they aren't the Mary Whitehouse types, and are quite happy to pass a game or film as an 18 when its contents are on the whole pretty grotesque, without asking for cuts to be made. If they aren't prepared to certificate something, I'll accept their judgement.

  • X201 #15 4 years ago

    The BBFC have got things the correct way around.
    Strong on violence and laxer on sex. I would hate this country to be like the US where violence passes without a batted eyelid but the merest flash of a nipple causes a national crisis

  • huxathon #16 4 years ago

    Now all the other countries will take the piss out of us and rob our lunch money. Why did you make us wear plymsoles to school BBFC? Why?

  • Mr_Bogus #17 4 years ago

    Replace all the weapons with walkie talkies!

  • jebus #18 4 years ago

    @ The_Inquisitor "Obvioiusly our mature brains are not mature enough to decide for ourselves"

    Whilst I tend to agree generally in letting people make up there own minds (although recognise that we obviously do need censorship to a certain extent) I applaud the BBFCs desicion. It's more a point of stoping irresponsible developers who think they can do what they want to make money. Personally I think Rockstar are totally out of line releasing crap like Manhunt and Manhunt 2 and hope they lose huge amounts of money. Hitting them in the pocket is the only way they will listen.

    The BBFC are not draconian - they are sensible for teh most part and I think that the tone of the game must have been pretty bleak for them to resort to an outright ban. Plus if it's anything like the original a steaming pile of toss as a game.

  • rhinoxious #19 4 years ago

    @Darren

    I haven't played the original admittedly, but it did make Edge's top 100 games ever, so I'm guessing there must be something to it beyond tedium and violence.

    Must get myself a copt of the original and find out.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #20 4 years ago

    'whether the game is good or not is irrelevant. it isn't up to the bbfc to tell adults what is suitable for them and decide what they can and can't play'

    Perhaps it is time that someone did step up and tell adults what the hell is suitable for them and moreover, society in general.

    With so many people growing up without good parental role models, and I include myself in that statement, we find ourselves with a generation or two of adults who have no idea what being adults is.

    Just because somebody is aged 18 or more, does not automatically mean that they are fully compus mentis and that they have the wherewithal to decide for themselves what is right or wrong.

    You and I may be of sound mind and have the ability to determine that a game like manhunt is just another form of entertainment, others may not be so logical.

    I am quite happy with this decision and hope it helps reduce the number of pointlessly naff murder sim type games available on home consoles.

  • SEVQA #21 4 years ago

    I have played it and finished it on PS2!

    It’s a very good game, scary and atmospheric. The fashion in which I got hold of it I will not condone and would have happily have purchased it legit as I intended! as I feel Rockstar deserve it for making a decent product (FOR ADULTS).

    I’m over 18 years old and do not or have ever suffered from any mental illness or feel that by completing this game has changed that in any way.

    The terms “bleakness and callousness of tone” needs serious clarification as I find it astonishing that games are being rejected on emotional words rather than content!

    Bleakness from the dictionary refers to - a bleak and desolate atmosphere; "the nakedness of the landscape" & callousness - devoid of passion or feeling; hardheartedness.

    All sounds fine to me!

    To use those terms as the failure (if it was!) sounds like the sort of language a high court judge would use to reason the passing of a sentence and impose their god like status over us the human beings.

    BBFC give a clear fucking list to Rockstar and tell what to remove to pass the bloody thing rather than talk high & mighty shit to do with what you think the atmosphere is.

    PEACE i guess!!!

  • Triggerhappytel #22 4 years ago

    @ Moz - you are correct, this decision by the BBFC means it cannot be sold anywhere in the UK, but you can still legally import it and own it.


    In the article where it says "after it was initially banned last June" makes it sound like June 2006.

  • Hunam #23 4 years ago

    For christ sake BBFC, you have been fantastic for a good decade, now suddenly yielding to pressure, i mean its M in the US and they are more sensitive than us.

  • Fitzmogwai #24 4 years ago

    "they are more sensitive than us"

    ... on the subject of sex. Stick an exposed female nipple into Manhunt and watch that M rating disappear.

  • CallousB #25 4 years ago

    Why don't Rockstar simply open an online store based in a region it isn't banned?...and then promote the crap out of it on UK/other European gaming sites.

    It's sales will obvious be limited..but it's better than nothing..and at least then it would be easily available for those who want it.

  • prolific8 #26 4 years ago

    Now I see why this country is going downhill so quickly...too many sheeple accepting whatever controls are forced upon them "for the public good". To those of you applauding the BBFC, grow up. This is the thin end of the wedge and as soon as they start realising people like you are happy to accept censorship because you can't make your own minds up or think these benevolent public institutions are infallible, it will only get worse. Nanny statism at it's worst.

  • GiarcYekrub #27 4 years ago

    Yeah well done BBFC, for making yourselves irrelevent.

  • afghan_jones #28 4 years ago

    oh joy, this old chestnut, cue 200 posts of,

    "ooh you BBFC, stop telling me what to do, youre not my real dad anyway! I hate you! Its a conspiracy to make us all into clones, quick hand my tinfoil hat."

    vs.

    "Rockstar are sick and wrong and they are probably all pedos and you have to draw the line otherwise people will all go bonkers and start smashing grannies in the face with dualshock pads and going around with their nuts hanging out"

  • Fitzmogwai #29 4 years ago

    @Prolific8

    Bollocks. The BBFC are one of the (very) few "public institutions" in this country that I do have any respect for. If parliament had as light a touch on its remit as the BBFC does we'd all be able to buy heroin over the counter at Boots.

    Seperate the bodies doing good work from bad and you'll be able to turn your ire on far more deserving targets.

  • zuljin #30 4 years ago

    @prolific8
    Now I see why this country is going downhill so quickly... People like you who are so damn paranoid everything limits their freedom and is seen as "nannying".

    For gods sake, you want to live in a society without rules, go live on a desert island. If you want to have some boundaries, it really could be an awful lot worse (eg Singapore, where people get paid to sift through magazines manually to censor magazines like FHM).

    Two video game bans in about 10 years, one of which was eventually passed. Grow up yourself.

  • Fitzmogwai #31 4 years ago

    @ GiarcYekrub


    Surely they'd be only be irrelevant if they didn't actually bother to make an informed decision about the material in front of them in the first place?

    Something along the lines of "well, it's still casually sadistic and without any merit or redeeming features whatsoever, but let's slap an 18 on it anyway and go back to sleep."

  • El_MUERkO #32 4 years ago

    I didnt agree with the BBFCs original judgement but I'm not suprised by their refusal to change it, blurring out the finishing moves does not change the tone of the game.

    Still thou, why they refuse manhunt but allow movies like Saw to be released is beyond me.

  • X201 #33 4 years ago

    @prolific8
    The BBFC actually went to court to defend it's right to be more lax with porn ratings. and it won!.


  • Freek #34 4 years ago

    The original uncensored version did indeed pass in the Netherlands, that doesn't mean however that we will get that version. Since it's still Pal territory and making a special version of the game for such a small market is never going to happen.
    We'll get the same version as the rest of Europe.

  • prolific8 #35 4 years ago

    Okay then, give me one good reason for banning this game, beyond "it's violent". If you're going to give that answer, at least back it up with some good reasoning, lest you start sounding like Jack Thompson.

    All the BBFC have done is show themselves to be utter hypocrites, by allowing films like Hostel and games like the original Manhunt to pass and then banning the this game because it's "a step too far". Well, we should all be glad that these grey old men sitting in a room in London can decide this for us. Here I was thinking that as an adult I should be able to decide that for myself. Silly me.

    @zuljin - allowing adults to buy a computer game is not "living in a society without rules". It's called freedom of choice, and this decision is yet another indication that the concept is dying a death in the UK.

  • SEVQA #36 4 years ago

    @Fitzmogwai & Zuljin

    I know this is an old story but both sides of my family who’ve managed to get through wars that involved leaving countries that always seemed to start with a slow loss of civil rights with eventual lock down and then persecution, appears to be happening again, with people like Fitzmogwai & Zuljin defending long standing intuition that up until *now* have obviously stepped out off line!

    We must not stand by and watch our ideals of freedom be disolved!!!

    That has fuck all to do with paranoia!

    I think guy Fawkes had the right idea and selling heroin in Boots would solve a lot of problems!

  • RexRunti #37 4 years ago

    For a star the BBFC is independent from the government so any can't technically be part of a "nanny state" or any other type of "state" for that matter.

    Secondly the BBFC has had a great reputation until now. They haven't changed their rules for Manhunt 2 they've judged it in exactly the same way they would judge any other piece of media.

    Thirdly the BBFC, unlike most classification/censorship bodies do not just tick a box every time there is a bit of blood/nudity on the screen. Context is taken more seriously than content. Sex is OK. Rape is looked at very closly to ensure it is in no way shown to be unconsequential or glorified.

    Finally anyone can look at the BBFC guides it's not like R* didn't know their game would fall foul of the guidlines and the BBFC made it clear in their original judgement that it was not the content of the game but the context it was set in.

  • Bigglesworth #38 4 years ago

    I remember the good old days, when it was optional to submit a game for a BBFC classification, and the only reason to do it was to get a 'cool' official ratings tag on the cover, like in the grownup world of films.

  • fightman #39 4 years ago

    hate your guts slut....'kirrr'...hate your fucking guts.

    rrrrrhate u......rrrrrhate u.

    if you dont like it, call the fucking police - i'll tell them about that note you put on my fucking car. call them, let's sort this out

    now go lick out your lesbian bitch and carry on pretending to be straight you ugly whore.

  • prolific8 #40 4 years ago

    @RexRunti

    "For a star the BBFC is independent from the government so any can't technically be part of a "nanny state" or any other type of "state" for that matter. "

    However, the Video Recordings Act 1984 makes it compulsory for certain types of releases to be submitted to the BBFC, so independent or not it absolutely can be considered part of a "nanny state".

  • malteaserhead #41 4 years ago

    "Statutory powers on film remain with the local councils, which may overrule any of the Board's decisions, passing films we reject, banning films we have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction".

    Lobby. The BBFC don't have real powers

  • malteaserhead #42 4 years ago

    Thirdly the BBFC, unlike most classification/censorship bodies do not just tick a box every time there is a bit of blood/nudity on the screen. Context is taken more seriously than content. Sex is OK. Rape is looked at very closly to ensure it is in no way shown to be unconsequential or glorified.


    Hills have eyes remake says "Bollocks". ;)

  • X201 #43 4 years ago

    BBFC video game stats.

    In 2006 and 2007 to date. 3 of the 496 games submitted required cuts (and they were games that wanted a 15 or PG rating)

  • smoison #44 4 years ago

    Another reason the UK sucks. That and the thousand of CCTV's everywhere.

    So much for games being ART
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 13:45

  • fightman #45 4 years ago

    hate your guts slut....'kirrr'...hate your fucking guts.

    rrrrrhate u......rrrrrhate u.

    if you dont like it, call the fucking police - i'll tell them about that note you put on my fucking car. call them, let's sort this out

    now go lick out your lesbian bitch and carry on pretending to be straight you ugly whore



    hate your guts slut....'kirrr'...hate your fucking guts.

    rrrrrhate u......rrrrrhate u.

    if you dont like it, call the fucking police - i'll tell them about that note you put on my fucking car. call them, let's sort this out

    now go lick out your lesbian bitch and carry on pretending to be straight you ugly whore




    hate your guts slut....'kirrr'...hate your fucking guts.

    rrrrrhate u......rrrrrhate u.

    if you dont like it, call the fucking police - i'll tell them about that note you put on my fucking car. call them, let's sort this out

    now go lick out your lesbian bitch and carry on pretending to be straight you ugly whore

  • MBar #46 4 years ago

    Don't care.

    Next news item please.

  • Daymare #47 4 years ago

    @malteaserhead

    Hills remake did not "glorified and unconsequentialized" an act of rape.

  • monkie_king #48 4 years ago

    Wombat, I thought the same thing -- the Manhunt series seems a close parallel to the glut of gore-nography sluicing through cinemas these days.

    I respect the BBFC's decision, but it's hard to see where the element of interactivity really separates Manhunt from the likes of Hostel, Saw, Devil's Rejects etc. Smacks a bit of "you can show whatever you like, so long as it's not triggered by pressing X".
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 13:53

  • Fitzmogwai #49 4 years ago

    @ SEVQU

    I absolutely appreciate that the loss of civil rights is an extremely important subject. On that note, I think that the restrictive legislation passed in the last several years by the government which restricts the right to public protest, and the concurrent increase in police powers under the terrorism and serious organised crime acts are significant threats to the freedoms of our society, the security of which wars have been fought to defend.

    However, I don't agree that it is right or reasonable to equate the non-certification of a game by a body who are, by any standard, extremely liberal in their guidelines, to the concerted effort by an elected government to restrict the freedoms of its citizens.

  • peterfll #50 4 years ago

    Shame it's not better, then I could brag about how I would import it to plan on my US Wii.

    \brags anyway

  • monkie_king #51 4 years ago

    how about an import review, EG?

  • DanWhitehead #52 4 years ago

    Comparisons with films that have been passed as 18 aren't really accurate, since you have to consider context and not just content. Hostel may contain graphic scenes of torture and violence, but in horror films the story is almost always told from the perspective of the victims. That's what makes them scary. Even in the rare cases where the protagonist is the killer (such as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, or Man Bites Dog) there's intelligent commentary on the relationship between camera and killer.

    In Manhunt 2, it's not only that the story is told from the perspective of the killer, but that you're the one inflicting the torture and violence and that this shift in perspective is purely for visceral reasons rather than to make a point. That's a vast and absolutely vital difference.

  • prolific8 #53 4 years ago

    @fitzmogwai

    Whether or not the BBFC are lax or strict is really fairly irrelevant to the actual topic. Not banning other violent games/films in the past actually damns them more now that they've taken this line with Manhunt, rather than giving them a free pass for it.

    Being liberal in the past is not an excuse for censorship in the present, and this whole thing smacks of hypocrisy. Furthermore, your argument that not being elected makes it different from an elected Government official making the decision is exactly right, except I'd argue it makes it worse on exactly that basis.

  • prolific8 #54 4 years ago

    @DanWhitehead

    And that means it should be banned...why?

  • SEVQA #55 4 years ago

    Fitmogwai

    Understood - but as the bbfc only seem to be behaving like this *now* one can wonder as to what sort interference the government may have had and may be having. As the subject of computer games has been in the political spotlight quite recently their must be an influence a waxing of sorts!

    “restricts the right to public protest, and the concurrent increase in police powers under the terrorism and serious organised crime acts”

    What you mention above is my concern for the interference because those laws have green carded government intuitions to have a nose in none gov bodies including mine and your PC.

    Don’t get me wrong I don’t want to start going down the UFO road but I can’t help but be sceptical as soon as anything gets banned these days!

  • Eighthours #56 4 years ago

    Region free, please.

  • El_MUERkO #57 4 years ago

    have you got a permit to discuss? break it up then or you're all being renditioned to scotland for electro-ball-re-education

  • DanWhitehead #58 4 years ago

    And that means it should be banned...why?

    I didn't say anything about why it should be banned. I'm just pointing out why saying "But they gave Hostel an 18" is a weak argument.

    In the entire history of videogames, the BBFC has only banned two games - one of which got released anyway - so all this panic-stricken talk of slippery slopes and thin ends of wedges comes across as kneejerk panic. You only have to look at the games that are on the shelves to see that violent videogames are not exactly under attack. It's pretty clear just from its concept that Manhunt 2 is more than just a game with violence in it.

  • monkie_king #59 4 years ago

    i've read that Rob Zombie's Halloween remake practically shows it from Michael Myers' perspective (thus ruining any mystery, tension, empathy with the victims etc). Can anyone confirm that?

    A mitigating factor might be that Halloween is a bit less brutal than Zombie's previous efforts in an attempt to court the mainstream, I guess.

    Out of interest, I wonder what it would take for the BBFC to ban a film outright these days (not that I want them to).

    (edited in an attempt at coherency).
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 14:22

  • CouldntResist #60 4 years ago

    Prolific8:

    "Now I see why this country is going downhill so quickly...too many sheeple accepting whatever controls are forced upon them "for the public good". To those of you applauding the BBFC, grow up. This is the thin end of the wedge and as soon as they start realising people like you are happy to accept censorship because you can't make your own minds up or think these benevolent public institutions are infallible, it will only get worse. Nanny statism at it's worst."

    ROFLLMAO

    DAILY MAIL Reader. Daily Mail Reader ALERT!!!

  • prolific8 #61 4 years ago

    @CouldntResist

    Actually, I don't read any newspapers. I just like, y'know, not being told what I can and can't watch/play by people who decide what's best for me. If you're happy with Mr. BBFC running your life and protecting you from digital representations of things, good luck to you. Some of us value personal freedom, and we appear to be in the minority.

    And DanWhitehead, that still isn't a reason to ban it. It might be worse than Hostel, but I ask the question again. It should be banned, why?

  • Daymare #62 4 years ago

    "i've read that Rob Zombie's Halloween remake practically shows it from Michael Myers' perspective (thus ruining any mystery, tension, empathy with the victims etc). Can anyone confirm that?"

    \o

  • Fwing #63 4 years ago

    It isn't banned. Nobody will go to jail for owning it.

    It just can't be sold in shops here. Hardly a problem in the days of the modern internet.

  • zuljin #64 4 years ago

    @prolific8
    "Okay then, give me one good reason for banning this game, beyond "it's violent"."

    BBFc have made plenty of statements as to why they've banned Manhunt 2.

    "All the BBFC have done is show themselves to be utter hypocrites, by allowing films like Hostel and games like the original Manhunt to pass and then banning the this game because it's "a step too far". Well, we should all be glad that these grey old men sitting in a room in London can decide this for us. Here I was thinking that as an adult I should be able to decide that for myself. Silly me."

    Yes silly you. To put Hostel on a par with a game YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED, is silly. And, yes, there will be films and games which will take things too far, why do you say that sarcasticly? As an adult you CAN decide for yourself. You can decide this is not a society you approve of and move.

    "It's called freedom of choice, and this decision is yet another indication that the concept is dying a death in the UK."

    And that freedom of choice is subject to whether or not this may or may not be harmful to others. By all means, petition for that grey legal area, but not for "I should be able to do what I want since I'm an adult".

  • Daymare #65 4 years ago

    "And DanWhitehead, that still isn't a reason to ban it. It might be worse than Hostel, but I ask the question again. It should be banned, why?"

    Dan's comment WASN'T about the ban subject, ffs!

  • CouldntResist #66 4 years ago

    Prolific8.

    No the BBFC are not running my life. They have banned one insignificant little game. That is all. This is NOT the thin end of the wedge, from which they will launch their plans for world domination. Ok, you're not a Daily Mail reader, but your comments demonstrate three things: paranoia, illogical disaffection with the state, and blatant exaggeration; three things that broadly characterise the aforementioned group of people.

  • Fitzmogwai #67 4 years ago

    @ prolific8 and SEVQA

    The BBFC's attitude to material is absolutely essential to this discussion. If the BBFC had announced "That's it, we're having a crackdown", published a change to their guidelines and, for example, refused a certificate to Saw IV, we would be having a very different debate, and I would in all likelihood be arguing the point that games and films that would deserve a release were being banned absolutely unnecessarily.

    However, this hasn't happened. The BBFC guidelines remain untouched, and material that the "moral minority" believe to be gratuitious and offensive is certificated every day.

    Furthermore, while I accept that the BBFC are not an elected body, they make every effort to be open and transparent about their policies and decisions, are willing to debate them in public, and update those policies to suitably reflect, and in some cases drive, public attitudes to what constitutes acceptability. Consider the recent releases of Shortbus and 9 Songs, both of which contain real on-screen sex, and which would, up until a few years ago, have received R18 certificates (if any) instead of the 18 certs they have today.

    In this case, not being a government body means that the BBFC are actually less open to political interference than if they were. I think it unlikely that, with the Daily Mail mentality of our current government, that either of those two films would have been released if the Home Office had its hand in certifying films. Remember when Westminster Council prevented Crash being shown a few years ago?

    Manhunt 2 has been measured against a set of policies that are openly available and highly liberal. For something to be judged by the BBFC to be unacceptable would take a concerted effort by a film-maker or developer. For Manhunt 2 to be resubmitted and refused twice by the BBFC shows that the game raises genuine concerns.

    Now, the inevitable question: "Have you played it? Do you even know what you're talking about?". No, I haven't played it. I play a lot of other violent games though, and no, I've not turned into a psycho killer. I'm not going to chainsaw people to death because I've played Doom and I wouldn't garotte people if I had played Manhunt 2 on the Wii.

    There are reasons why the BBFC made their decisions about Manhunt 2, and they are far more considered than some kneejerk reaction to "violent games, won't someone think of the children!" or any imagined political interference from parliament.


    Edited for spelling and minor tidy-ups
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 15:07

  • RexRunti #68 4 years ago

    From the BBFC website (I suggest people read their guidlines and FAQs before commenting)

    <em>Rejects
    The Board will attempt to deal with films, videos or DVDs which are unacceptable at any category through intervention such as making cuts or requiring the addition of warning captions. If this is not possible or not acceptable to the distributor, works may be refused classification altogether. ‘Taboo’ themes are acceptable, but not if their treatment is likely to encourage harm to viewers or, through their behaviour, to society. The following are of particular concern:

    graphic rape or torture
    sadistic violence or terrorisation
    illegal and glamorised drug use
    material likely to incite racial hatred or violence
    portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context
    sex accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury or humiliation
    material likely to be found obscene by the courts. </em>

    Are people really saying that media that glorifies or does not approach these subjects in a responsible manner should be available on general release?

    There has to be a line somewhere and if "ripping a man's testicles off with a pair of pliers in order to progress" isn't over it then what is?

  • urban #69 4 years ago

    looks like i'll be buying it in america then huh

  • SEVQA #70 4 years ago

    @fitzmogwai

    “There are reasons why the BBFC made their decisions about Manhunt 2, and they are far more considered than some kneejerk reaction to "violent games, won't someone think of the children!" or any imagined political interference from parliament.”

    The only reason I’m here is because I have played it and I’m a game tester by profession, so I do know what I’m talking about!

    I would have been concerned if the game was a bad game, but its not! how can this not be knee jerk!

  • TriggerHippie #71 4 years ago

    The only person I know that was upset about this ban used to shoot small birds with an air rifle and keep the bodies in a carboard box under his house.....

  • Fitzmogwai #72 4 years ago

    I agree that the BBFC are being firm about Manhunt 2, but I'd argue against them being inconsistent or irrational. I think they've been quite clear about what the policies are, and they explained what their concerns about the game were to Rockstar.


    To be honest though, from what I've heard about the game, I'm not sure quite what Rockstar could do to it without having to make major changes to the plot or structure.

    Other than pull out the trusty 'zombies' standby. "Dear BBFC. Is it okay to rip a zombie's testicles off with pliers? Alien zombies with green blood?"

  • Fitzmogwai #73 4 years ago

    @ SEVQA

    It's not the BBFC's job to determine the quality of the game, simply whether or not the game is acceptable within the agreed confines of this country's civilised society.

  • SEVQA #74 4 years ago

    Look, yes the game is dark yes it’s gritty with a bleak and desolate atmosphere and yes it has loads of gore.

    The only part that would deserve cutting would be the graphic nature of the death scenes which if the BBFC decide on what parts ‘specifically’ are needed to be cut then I don’t see how anyone can make a right decision when we are dealing with issues like this.

    “one mans heaven is another hell!”

    The reason I say this is because the plot and story line are all there for mood and setting and have nothing to do with violence you couldn’t self imagine from a good book!

    The question I would like answered: is if Rockstar removed every scene of red blood from the game would the BBFC allow its release?

  • malteaserhead #75 4 years ago

    Daymare
    @malteaserhead

    Hills remake did not "glorified and unconsequentialized" an act of rape.
    ___

    from what I remember, I disagree.
    The rapists suffered no consequences for the rape. they were already 'in trouble' for the burning at the stake thing and other acts.

    Also that's a very strict term that I was poking at, considering this in their own guidelines:

    The following are of particular concern:

    * graphic rape or torture
    * sadistic violence or terrorisation
    * portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context
    * sex accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury or humiliation
    * material likely to be found obscene by the courts.

    I'd say forcing a woman to perform sex acts on you while holding her baby at gunpoint covers most of these concerns.
    What happened?
    Nothing...

  • kangarootoo #76 4 years ago

    @prolific8

    "All the BBFC have done is show themselves to be utter hypocrites, by allowing films like Hostel and games like the original Manhunt to pass and then banning the this game because it's "a step too far""

    So a hypocrite is someone who defines limits? They say they will pass one work, but not another, for clearly stated reasons, and you say they are hypocrites? More information please.


    "allowing adults to buy a computer game is not "living in a society without rules". It's called freedom of choice"

    What about a situation where your freedom of choice directly affects my freedome of choice. What happens then?


    "Here I was thinking that as an adult I should be able to decide that for myself. Silly me."

    Again that is hugely oversimplified. You don't seem to consider that WHAT you decide to do is an important part of the discussion. Does being an adult means you can decide for yourself whether to commit murder, evade taxes, drive on the wrong side of the road?

    I'm sure you might say that those things are obviously wrong, whereas deregulating films and video games is obviously right. In a subjective debate, nothing is obvious. Rather it is all a matter of hopefully informed opinion.

  • RexRunti #77 4 years ago

    @malteaserhead

    Are you making an argument for refusing a rating to "the Hills have Eyes" or for rating Manhunt 2 an 18?

    Do they get away with it or do they get their comupance? Are they portrayed as the "heros" of the story?

    <em>‘Taboo’ themes are acceptable, but not if their treatment is likely to encourage harm to viewers or, through their behaviour, to society.</em>

  • kangarootoo #78 4 years ago

    @prolific8

    "Some of us value personal freedom, and we appear to be in the minority. "

    Again, if you choose to live in society you have to accept that sometimes your personal freedoms will conflict with the personal freedoms of other individuals.

    Who takes priority in those situations? If its you, on what grounds do you make the distinction?


    @malteaserhead

    "What happened?
    Nothing... "

    Umm. Didn't they all get killed in revenge?

  • malteaserhead #79 4 years ago

    RexRunti

    @malteaserhead

    Are you making an argument for refusing a rating to "the Hills have Eyes" or for rating Manhunt 2 an 18?

    Do they get away with it or do they get their comupance? Are they portrayed as the "heros" of the story?

    ‘Taboo’ themes are acceptable, but not if their treatment is likely to encourage harm to viewers or, through their behaviour, to society.
    ____________

    Neither and both :)
    Simply saying that one gross unnecessarily violent act that probably breaks their own guidelines escapes attention while another gets attention focussed on it.

    I'd imagine tons of women were 'harmed' by those scenes (but that's ok in film, it likes to treat women horrendously and call it horror).

    If one doesn't believe that that scene caused 'harm' and steps on the 'concerning areas' I highlighted, then I guess I misinterpreted that scene.

    As for their comeuppance. It was already going to happen because of all the other things so how can one say they (both perps) got comeuppance for the sex acts alone?

    The 'nothing happened' I referred to was that such depravity occurred without (as far as I can recall) a single protest about it's gruesomeness in the media or raising of issues by the bbfc.





    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 16:18

  • SEVQA #80 4 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    please explain as I have no idea what you are going on about! whats your point!

  • subtlesnake #81 4 years ago

    "This is the thin end of the wedge and as soon as they start realising people like you are happy to accept censorship because you can't make your own minds up or think these benevolent public institutions are infallible, it will only get worse. Nanny statism at it's worst."

    The BBFC has always had the ability to ban games, and has done so in the past, so what has changed? It seems a bit silly to suggest that people never intended that the BBFC would be able to use its powers! Too often people use the 'sliding slope' argument without making any substantive claims or committing to anything. The question is, had Manhunt not been banned, how would our society be any different? In 5 years time, in 10 years time?

  • prolific8 #82 4 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    How does me buying a game affect your freedom in any way whatsoever? If the game allowed me to come and kick you while you walked down the street I could see your point, otherwise the choice to buy and play this game is mine alone (or not, as it would appear) and does not affect you in any way.

  • dudefella #83 4 years ago

    my fucking god. what is this? since when are adults not allowed to choose their own entertainment? Fuck you, BBFC, fuck you very much.

  • kangarootoo #84 4 years ago

    @SEVQA

    Any particular aspect of what I said? I'll summarise my general points.


    Restrictions placed on what we, as adults, can do is part of living in society. There are plenty of instances where the unbridled defence of my personal freedoms will impact your own personal freedoms.

    If you want total and complete freedom, leaving society is the only way to do it. If you want to live in society, accept that sometimes you can't have everything your own way.


    I think that is pretty much it in a nutshell. Any better?


    @prolific8

    "How does me buying a game affect your freedom in any way whatsoever"

    Well first off, its not just about you and me. Laws are written for the population as a whole, so the better question would be "how does one person buying a game affect the freedom of any other person in society".

    With that in mind, lets look at why we censor media in any way. The reason it is done is because there is a belief among some that exposure to certain media will affect the way a person behaves in a negative way. Specifically in this context that playing a violent game with sadisdic player interaction will have a negative effect on the player, and in turn have a negative effect on society through them.

    Now I would expect you to say "playing a game doesn't turn someone into a killer" in response. First off I would say "I agree", secondly I would say "no one ever said it was that simple".

    The fact of the matter is that we both have our own beliefs on the subject, but in truth neither of us can back our opinions up with anything solid as we have no proper experience or qualifications regards human psyche.

    Let me put it this way. Wait are you actually proposing here? Are you suggesting that the laws that govern society should be formed on the basis of a minority of unqualified opinions gained from wholly biased individuals? Is that really how you are suggesting we organise the rules of society.

    Clearly you resent not being able to buy the title, but I'm not sure what you suggest as an alternative. TBH it sounds a lot like someone saying that speed limits should be removed because they personally want to get home faster and are actually a very good driver.

    We don't legislate for individuals, we legislate for the population as a whole. That is how it has always been. And if you choose to live in society you either accept that, lobby against it, or shout pointlessly at the wind. Which is it for you?
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 16:47

  • Fitzmogwai #85 4 years ago

    @ bigo

    Ever read 1984? That was written, what, 40 years before Alan Moore wrote Vendetta and... er, we aren't living in a totalitarian police state yet.

    Seriously, take your tinfoil hat off and do something useful with your time. If you're concerned about privacy, engage with the process, make your voice heard and join a campaigning group like No2ID or similar.

  • SmileyDudette #86 4 years ago

    Aw[link url=http://www.
    ]http://www.
    [/link]
    But, then again, I'm not allowed anything much higher than 12+.

  • RexRunti #87 4 years ago

    @pretty much everyone in this suprisingly well debated thread

    I think I've just changed my opinion...

    I don't think that the BBFC are hypocritical or are judging video games any differently from DVDs (as opposed to cinema releases as they are stricter with things going into peoples own homes). However Kanga and Prolific's debate did return me to how I think a law should be created. I think something should only be illegal if it can be proved to cause harm to a person or society.

    It is difficult for me to see how a game with no actual REAL violence or exploitation in it aimed solely at adults can damage a person or society.

    Does the glorification of violence damage society? Do we need to show consequences to actions for something amoral?

    I suppose how you answer those questions determins whether or not Manhunt 2 should be banned.

  • kangarootoo #88 4 years ago

    @bigo

    Lol@grumpy.

    You actually edited your last post to add "you fucking hippy" to the end.

    Hehe.

  • RexRunti #89 4 years ago

    @bigo

    Bizarre how V was actually meant to be an extension of the Thatcher government. I doubt we'll ever see a UK (in our life times) when a paticular relgion or sexual orientation is banned. That is not to say I'm not concerned about the increasingly totalatarian state (with special regards to detention without trial). And if it does I would definetly stand up against it.

  • kangarootoo #90 4 years ago

    @RexRunti

    "I think something should only be illegal if it can be proved to cause harm to a person or society."

    On paper I totally agree. In fact it almost seems obvious. In practicality though, I wonder how you might prove some of the things we take for granted. Empirical proof is pretty hard to gain even if lab conditions.

    Not being able to prove something could mean its not true, but it could also mean its just hard to prove beyond doubt. Would that be enough to form the laws that protect us? I'm not sure.

    Also, forming and revising laws gives us test cases. An example is drink driving laws. The jury was hung over whether driving after drinking made difference at all, but sufficient evidence existed to put the law into the practice. The actual reduction in deaths and accidents blew everyone away, even those who had lobbied for the law to become practice. So it was only AFTER the law was put into place that proof beyond reasonable doubt could be obtained.

    You can see that raises some interesting questions regards a possible "lets give it shot for 5 years and see what happens" attitude to law making. What will the consequence of "giving it a shot" be in any individual case? Specifically what will be the impact of getting it wrong? For congestion charging, not huge perhaps. For capital punishment, rather more risky. The risk of "testing" a law might be an important part of the debate if we decide that proof before legilation is not the only way.

    So what I'm saying in summary is that your approach sounds totally reasonable, but would it give us the best overall result? It might give us the "fairest" result, but would it save lives, reduce costs, protect liberties in the most effective way? I don't know.
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 17:22

  • cyber_nicco #91 4 years ago

    For all you folks out there saying that it is a good decision because (more or less) you have to draw the line somewhere...

    Do you want it banned because you feel it's in bad taste? Is that what you're getting at? You do realize, don't you, that the rights of the minority need to be protected against the majority. I mean, you bitch and moan when someone threatens your gaming hobby in a more general sense, don't you? Certainly, a majority of people don't play video games, so why shouldn't they ban them?

    Here's my take on it... If it can't be shown that your activities impinge upon another's quality of life, then you should be free to enjoy your life in any way you choose. To my knowledge, there's never been ANY proof that violent video games lead to "real" violence. Therefore, banning this video game is merely a matter of someone finding it vulgar and not wanting you watching it. They find it distasteful, and not being in control of your taste, they will simply not allow you to purchase it.

    Trust me, you don't want to go down that path. Seriously.

  • Fitzmogwai #92 4 years ago

    @ bigo



    Was just reacting to your - go on, admit it - slightly over-the-top post.

    And that was a nice edit... :0)


    Anyway, I've seen Reefer Madness, so I know to avoid the dope. Mmmmkay? A decent drink, on the other hand... now we're talking.

    I do think the privacy debate is important, and I'm on the "bugger off out of my life you nosey bastards" side of the argument. I think we've got a long way to go before we're in serious trouble though, and you have also to bear in mind the sheer staggering incompetence of government when it comes to large-scale IT projects. They might want it, but they'll never manage to make it work. It will just waste vast amounts of our tax money, that's all.

  • DFective #93 4 years ago

    Wasn't the first one supposed to be shit? It's like Killzone FFS!

    Still, fuck censorship! I'm moving to Ameriland!

  • kangarootoo #94 4 years ago

    @cyber_nicco

    "To my knowledge, there's never been ANY proof that violent video games lead to "real" violence"

    There is no cast iron proof, but there is suggestion in both directions. Again this comes back to "how much proof do you need" before making a law.

    It is also a balance of risks. We have two broad possibilities (and I'll exageratte for clarity). That games can influence people to be killers when they otherwise would not be, and that games cannot exert such influence.

    Now balancing the risks involved.

    If we assume games can make people into killers, band them as a result, and are wrong.... some gamers had their access to games restricted slightly. Surely anyone with a degree of context about them would happily say "yeah that sucks, boohoo, lets move on".

    If we assume there is no connection, don't ban such games, and are wrong... someone dies (somewhere, somehow, its not important). In that instance the result is pretty tragic.

    So comparing the two risks I would say if there is any doubt either way, ban the odd game (BBFC ban about one work overall a year, and have banned less games than I have fingers since their founding) and gamers can just suck it up and find something else to play.

    The thing that bugs me whenever this debate comes up is that a minority clearly don't give a shit about the right of anyone other than themselves. They aren't interested in debate, they aren't interested in facts, they aren't interested in democracy. They just want to be able to play whatever game they like at any time and they frankly don't care about anything else.

    For the record I don't believe there is a connection and would be happy to see MH2 released, but I accept society is not ran purely to serve my own needs and my own often misinformed or unfounded beliefs.

  • Fitzmogwai #95 4 years ago

    @ cyber_nicco.

    Sadly for your argument we don't live in a libertarian utopia.

    It's a simple fact that the society which we live in has developed conventions to protect both itself and its citizens from a degree of harm.

    There's always a debate going on about where the boundaries are drawn within that society, and art and culture are among the ways in which those boundaries are tested. But the fact is that there are lines.

    It's not about "oppressing minorities". I'm sure every one of us as gamers has felt misrepresented by the tabloid nonsense that constitutes the "debate" about videogaming in the broader context.

    It is, though, about whether a particular work is judged to be so potentially damaging to its audience, regardless of whether it's a game or a film, that it be prevented from sale for the protection of society in general.

    Quite simply, those are the rules. By all means, list any current "civilised" societies that operate on any other basis, even though the boundary lines might be in slightly different positions.

  • cyber_nicco #96 4 years ago

    Hmmm. These same arguments were made against Rock and Roll when it was first introduced. We laugh now, but this was a serious topic then.

    I think the two previous posters (Kangarootoo and Fitzmogwai) largely miss my point... Maybe I didn't go far enough. There is zero link between video games and violence. So, as I said, it is being banned on the basis of being in poor taste (much like Rock's early detractors).

    I have no interest in MH2 either, but sometimes you have to look beyond your spectacles at the bigger picture. Do I think this spells the end of a (mostly) free society? No. Do I think this type of thing is done by a group of completely out-of-touch farts that sway to and fro with the political tides? Yes.

    In parting... Much gets made of America's censorship of sex in the media. I agree, it's absurd. However, it's the same process at work. Many, many Americans disagree with these standards, but a small group of (old, uptight, and politically responsive) people get to make these decisions for the rest of us. This happens - not the end of the world. I don't, however, want to listen to a bunch of whinging EGers telling me how great it is to have censorship (as long as it's not a game they're interested in.) I mean, come on, look at what you wrote, Kanga.

    "The thing that bugs me whenever this debate comes up is that a minority clearly don't give a shit about the right of anyone other than themselves. They aren't interested in debate, they aren't interested in facts, they aren't interested in democracy. They just want to be able to play whatever game they like at any time and they frankly don't care about anything else. "

    What a great load of crap. I don't give a rat's ass about Manhunt, but you seem to insinuate I do and (essentially) accuse me of being disingenuous. I don't know if you're projecting your own rationale, but you're certainly not describing mine.

    No hard feelings, of course, but I think you've got it all wrong.
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 18:08

  • Bidermaier #97 4 years ago

    The BBFC is right, we are not adult enough. God bless the big brother.
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 18:04

  • absolutezero #98 4 years ago

    The games not even that offensive to be honest.

    Yes I've played it. A beta version leaked onto the net awhile ago and is freely available.

    Its also not that bad, it would be something I bought on the Wii for sure. Its not mature in the slightest, its just nice shockly gore horror, if you don't like that sort of thing then don't play it. You would'nt go to see Hostel or Grindhouse and no ones bleating on about them making cinema "look bad". Kinda like if you don't like watching Gravure Idol videos you most likely wont like DoA Volleyball and most likely bleat on about it making games look bad aswell.

    boo fucking hoo.
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 18:44

  • CouldntResist #99 4 years ago

    cyber_nico:

    "There is zero link between video games and violence"

    I wonder; from what background are you making that statement from? How can you so easily and categorically state that as truth?

    Glamourisation of drugs, smoking and alcohol almost certainly contributes to increased usage. Could the same not be hypothesised for violence, however improbable? I'm not saying that you're wrong. However, i think you should consider that making such absolute remarks with no backing evidence is in the realm of extremism.

  • Ryze #100 4 years ago

    Fuck you BBFC - Netherlands all the way.

    Jet2.com or the import websites will make a KILLING!

    /stab, stab, stab, saws nuts off with wiimote

  • Ryze #101 4 years ago

    perfect timing ^

    /stab, slash, strangle, stab, stab, stab

  • cyber_nicco #102 4 years ago

    @Couldn'tResist

    You make a good point. What I'm suggesting, however, is not that there isn't a link, or couldn't be a link, but that no scientific studies of any merit (that I've heard of) have proven any sort of causal relationship between video games and violence. There have been many, many times that various media/art have been attacked or censored for having some sort of negative effect on society as a whole. Almost always, these ideas end up being debunked later. Seriously. We went through this with religion, painting, sculpture, literature, theater, cinema, etc... Do we have to take the same route every time there's something a little different? If the government wants so badly to ban something, shell out enough money to fund a proper study by a credible source, then they can make their laws.

    You shouldn't ban something just because you find it distasteful. Do you guys get that?

    p.s. I think your substance abuse analogy is also largely without merit. I mean, drugs are shown on tv and in movies much more than in the 60's and 70's, but in most places dug use is lower now. I think popular art imitates life - not the other way around...
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 19:31

  • GiarcYekrub #103 4 years ago

    @ Fitzmogwai

    They have made a decision not to make a decision thus "unclassified". This indecision is what makes them irrelevent. Game Clasifications are important but it seems the BBFC see it perfectly justifiable that people have a Game ordered from abroad(I think they said that in their intial press release) sat on your shelf with no BBFC 18 sticker prominatly displayed on it

  • Daymare #104 4 years ago

    @malteaserhead

    You're highlighting the rape scene in Hills as a point where BBFC should raise their heads and because they didn't (but they banned Manhunt 2), they're hypocritical? That is how I understand your points, I apologize if I'm wrong. But if I red you correctly, making all the "fuss" about the rape scene makes you a little hypocritical too. Why are you not making a fuss about all the killing in that movie? And if you are, about all the killings in all the movies? Yeah, let's just cut everything out! Let's stop making movies about the horrors of life and just have comedies where nobody gets hurt!
    Movies are widely accepted as an art form for a long time now and for a good reason. Violence and rape and other "depravities" are a fact of life and what kind of an art form would movies be if we pretend everything is just sunshines and rainbows and make only movies about happy people? Rape scene in Hills remake (a movie with a lot of blatant political undertones) was nothing compared to a rape scene in a french film Irreversible, for instance, and that movie - which has a 5+ minute rape scene - is a masterpiece.

    You might only be saying that they shouldn't ban Manhunt 2 and not that they should also ban horror movies, fine, but leave Hills and Saw and Hostel and other movies out of this. Just because they all deal with violence, they don't deal with in exactly the same way - not compared to each other and not compared to Manhunt 2 or any other game.


  • DanWhitehead #105 4 years ago

    People throwing around words like "freedom of expression", "totalitarianism" and "police state" should really consider what those terms actually mean. I'm sure all the people in prison around the world for speaking out against their government, or for practicing the wrong religion, would be overjoyed to hear their situation compared to people in the UK being unable to spend their disposable income on a videogame where you can castrate people.

    Perspective. Let's have some.

  • RexRunti #106 4 years ago

    I don't think the BBFC is the issue. From what I have seen they have stuck to their remit and aside from this instance no-one can has brought up a single example of questionable judgment. The issue is the BBFC's remit/guidlines. Unless a film/game is actually breaking the law, say incitement to commit murder or racism, or a crime would have been comitted in making the film (underage sex, snuff films etc.) purely for entertaiment purposes (as opposed to documentaries), I can't see any justifiable reason for preventing its sale. Yes, reasonable steps should be taken to prevent it falling into the hands of minors but you don't ban cars because some people speed.

    And as for the test law (straw-man) argument/where laws should sit with debatable proof: We have to important principles in this country 1. Innocent until proven guilty and 2. (the increasingly comprimised) "You can do anything you like as long as it's not illegal"

  • kangarootoo #107 4 years ago

    @DanWhitehead

    +1

  • smelly #108 4 years ago

    >It's not even that good.

    Played it then have you?

  • smelly #109 4 years ago

    "
    Manhunt 2 is exactly the sort of drivel that gives our industry a bad name. Woo I say!"


    No.. Drivel posted by geeks like that is the sort of thing that gives gamers a bad name


    "Well personally I couldn't less that it's banned especially after reading the less than impressive reviews of the game. "

    Can someone point me to these "less than impressive reviews"?? I've only seen good ones?
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 22:53

  • Foxclose #110 4 years ago

    Can't believe there's some people here defending the BBFC!

    This game is legal and adult enough to own and play in the United States and Netherlands, but not here??? How insulting!? enough said .

    Fuck you BBFC!
    Edited by 1 at 08/10/07 @ 23:29

  • ph101 #111 4 years ago

    yes i do find this decision insulting.

  • smelly #112 4 years ago

    Personally I *am* against violent games.. I find them unnecessary.

    However, im MORE against being told what to do by a fucking nanny state - especially when the reason for the ban is almost definately nothing to do with the content, and probably everything to do with getting petty political "revenge" on take two after the uproar the bbfc took after the first one.

    They're too scared to have the daily mail knocking at their door telling them they're doing a bad job.

    I recon if this game was released under a different name by a different company then it'd have been let through scot free.

    Absolutely fucking pathetic.



  • dryden555 #113 4 years ago

    first game was crud -- have no interest in the 2nd one

  • cobracotton #114 4 years ago

    we don't need people to tell us what to do, simple as that

  • Daymare #115 4 years ago

    "we don't need people to tell us what to do, simple as that"

    Absolutely right, Tarzan!

  • Kryon #116 4 years ago

    "it's hard to see where the element of interactivity really separates Manhunt from the likes of Hostel, Saw, Devil's Rejects etc. Smacks a bit of "you can show whatever you like, so long as it's not triggered by pressing X"."

    +1

    Also, MH2 was not banned in the UK because of any 'content' issues imo, rather because of it's prequel being implicated as a possible reason/trigger for a deluded 17y/o boy murdering his 14 year old friend back in 2004.

    If smelly got high on 'shrooms', put on a red flat cap, tied a yellow towel round his neck in super-hero cape fashion and jumped out of his 6th story window screaming "ITZA ME, MARIOOOooooo!!!" ...Would they then ban Mario games? I doubt it but they should as it's the same thing!

    I also feel that movies like Hostel are more hard hitting than any game (at present) as they use actual people to portray the acts of depravity rather then pixels.

  • gooners2006 #117 4 years ago

    if retailers could clamp down on their employees selling rated 18 games to minors then there wouldnt be a problem with this game being released....but because some people believe that all underage person that play any violent videogame let alone Manhunt 2 will become axe-wielding murderers.
    I believe that this game wont be released over here in the UK until people realize that there is not a link between the murder of a nurse and games like Manhunt and Manhunt 2

  • kangarootoo #118 4 years ago

    "we don't need people to tell us what to do, simple as that"

    /sigh

    Yes, thats right, its as simple as that. The whole discussion about social control, that has been taking place since the invention of the spoken word, has been boiled down to one obvious conclusion by a single sentence on an internet games forum. Well thank christ for that. Maybe we can all get some sleep now.


    Next up. World Peace.

    "Everyone should just stop it, now."

  • zuljin #119 4 years ago

    @bigo
    Battle Royale. Fantastic film.

    EDIT: Worst sequel ever though.
    Edited by 1 at 09/10/07 @ 09:50

  • kangarootoo #120 4 years ago

    Not true. The sequel to Dumb and Dumber was in fact the worst sequel ever. This is a fact, and evidence of this can be found inscribed on the "side" of the our DNA.

  • malteaserhead #121 4 years ago

    Daymare
    08-Oct-07 19:46:59

    @malteaserhead
    You're highlighting the rape scene in Hills as a point where BBFC should raise their heads and because they didn't (but they banned Manhunt 2), they're hypocritical? That is how I understand your points, I apologize if I'm wrong.

    ____________________________________

    That is correct. I am neither arguing for Hills nor Manhunt 2 to be banned, just a common approach to be adopted for fictional, grossly violent and voyeuristic media. I believe Hills (and many others) also crosses the boundaries set out by the bbfc.
    ____________________________________
    Daymare -
    Why are you not making a fuss about all the killing in that movie? And if you are, about all the killings in all the movies? Yeah, let's just cut everything out! Let's stop making movies about the horrors of life and just have comedies where nobody gets hurt!

    Movies are widely accepted as an art form for a long time now and for a good reason. Violence and rape and other "depravities" are a fact of life and what kind of an art form would movies be if we pretend everything is just sunshines and rainbows and make only movies about happy people? Rape scene in Hills remake (a movie with a lot of blatant political undertones) was nothing compared to a rape scene in a french film Irreversible, for instance, and that movie - which has a 5+ minute rape scene - is a masterpiece.
    _________________

    What? I think you have gone bonkers here. :) I never said murder wasn't something that couldn't be viewed as 'a harm' to the viewer either, simply picked the rape as an example. Comparing Hills (btw I am a horror fan) to films that deal with 'real life' issues like political skulduggery, rape and murder in an adult fashion is quite chucklesome. Moreso, the categorising them as art! C'mon. ;) Hills is pure gore porn, not a political statement and not art reflecting life (at best only a thin veneer). Of course taboo subjects should be approached, but simply showing such things doesn't make the film/movie mature/art or any more worthy of exception.

    In any case, (I think we are probably on the same side ;)) as an aside,
    one of the biggest problems I have with censorship (which is justified in some cases - at least hypothetically - snuff, incitement to hate etc) is the strange way we as a society (or our media) seems to flip-flop on issues.

    One of the most extreme examples that has really bothered me in fairly recent times is the Beslan school hostage situation. There it was on tv in real time. Terrorists (?) shooting naked children in the backs broadcast live for all to see at 11 in the morning. So you can show real 'harms' at any time to any one (I'm sure a lot of wee ones saw that too) but a fictional game designed for adult consumption offends decency....

    /rant off



  • Fitzmogwai #122 4 years ago

    @ GiarcYekrub


    No - The BBFC actively made the decision to refuse a certificate, they didn't put it off and leave the game in some sort of limbo. All that means is that the game is legally prevented from sale in this country. It doesn't stop you from bringing the game into the country from elsewhere. The game hasn't been "banned" in the sense that it is illegal to possess a copy.


    @ gooners2006


    I spent some time working in a games shop. all the staff there had been told in no uncertain terms that they would lose their jobs, and could go to prison, if they were caught selling games to underage customers.

    The problem here is actually the parents. There is nothing to stop an adult from buying a game and then giving it to their child, and this happened to me many times. I'd tell the kid that "Sorry, I can't sell you GTA:SA because you're not old enough", the child would leave the shop and return a few minutes later with (usually) his mother.

    The parent would be angry with me and demand to know why I hadn't sold the game to her little darling. I'd explain that: a) I wasn't allowed to, and b) what the game contained that made it unsuitable. You know, murders, beatings, pimping, sex, theft, etc.

    Every single time this happened, the parent would simply ask "Can I buy it though?" Then take the cash out of the childs hand and slap it down on the counter.

    Don't blame the staff, blame the parents.


    @ bigo

    Yeah, I remember those dark times - the video nasties. I don't remember any music being banned, other than "not being playlisted on Radio 1" (Hello Frankie Goes To Hollywood). Still on sale, and at #1 for how many weeks?

    The BBFC has changed lot since then though, and all those films that weren't certificated then are available today - even such genuine horrors as Cannibal Holocaust. Yours on Amazon for a fiver right now.

    That's the thing - I firmly believe that these days the BBFC aren't "censors"; just some bunch of reactionary old fools, determined to cut everything they get their hands on to ribbons "for our own good". They do a very difficult job, and they do with sensitivity, tact, and *always* with both eyes firmly open to context. The days of "would you let your wife read this?" are long gone, and aren't coming back.

    And Battle Royale was *ACE*

  • Fitzmogwai #123 4 years ago

    While there was lots of media froth, there wasn't any real danger that any of them would be banned though. The worst that happened was albums having to have a "parental advisory" sticker on the CD case. How many sales did those stop? Not many, I'd bet.

  • Foxclose #124 4 years ago

    "The BBFC has changed lot since then though, and all those films that weren't certificated then are available today - even such genuine horrors as Cannibal Holocaust. Yours on Amazon for a fiver right now. "

    Yeah, cut to shreds!

    There still a lot of movies the BBFC insist on cuts. It doesn't matter nowadays thanks to the internet and importing thankfully.

  • RexRunti #125 4 years ago

    bigo

    Believe it or not the Urotsikidoji you saw was probably quie heavly cut (hard to believe I know). But the BBFC have very strict rules regarding rape scenes and before the edit a lot of the scenes appeared to show the victim enjoying herself which is an instant cut. I'm assuming the third one meant that these cuts were not sufficient or that one of the victims was clearly below the age of consent. The BBFC only refuse one or two releases a year.

    Incidently I think "Perfect Blue" was passed with out edit due to the tact and responsibility it used.

    The BBFC are actually consistant and you can read all their guidance on their website. The only thing we can argue is whether the guidlines they work to should be changed.

  • Lov3 #126 4 years ago

    Anyone who bans any legitimate form of media needs to be shot. Violent video games taught me that.

  • Lov3 #127 4 years ago

    @DanWhitehead: "People throwing around words like "freedom of expression", "totalitarianism" and "police state" should really consider what those terms actually mean. I'm sure all the people in prison around the world for speaking out against their government, or for practicing the wrong religion, would be overjoyed to hear their situation compared to people in the UK being unable to spend their disposable income on a videogame where you can castrate people.

    Perspective. Let's have some."

    Sorry, I love you and everything, but fuck off. The fact that people have it worse elsewhere is not an argument, even in the slightest. Censorship may be worse in China right now, but that doesn't magically make it ok here. Now "totalitarianism" and "police state" are obvious exaggerations, but "freedom of expression" is right on the money.

  • kangarootoo #128 4 years ago

    @Lov3

    You miss DW's point. Context is important.

    The current situation with MH2 impinges on the freedoms of a few gamers, in a way that barely affects their life, to serve the majority wish (as I tire of saying, the BBFC follow guidelines created by US the general public. They do NOT just do their own thing. They serve us).



    Here is an open question, to you and every other poster. What do you suggest as an alternative? Now please think carefully about this and try to be objective.

    The way the BBFC operates is fundamentally in line with public feeling. They exist because of public feeling. Their guidelines are drawn up because of public feeling.

    Now anyone who says censorship should be removed across the board is basically saying the laws that govern a country should NOT be based on the wishes and morals of the populace as a whole, but rather they should based on the opinions of a minority who have an wholly unobjective agenda of their own.

    What is being described there is not democracy. It is a dictatorship, in this case with gamers in the throne.

    So if the current system of one man one vote isn't working... what are people actually suggesting as a replacement?

    As I've said before, I don't necessarily agree with the BBFC on this one. But the vast majority of the people in the UK do. Now maybe they are idiots, maybe they are "sheeple", maybe they are all Daily Mail readers (or any other bigoted and patronising term that some people on here seem keen on using daily), but as long I choose to live in the UK I accept that (surprisingly) the entire country isn't ran to serve my whim.


    Getting back to DanWhiteheads original point. Some people seem to have an issue with not being able to do exactly what they want. One single game gets banned, and they act as if the whole world is mistreating them.

    There is proper suffering out there in the world. Not getting your own way every single time is not suffering... it is REAL ADULT LIFE. Grow up, and suck it up, you whining children... might be one way of putting it, if I was feeling mean ;)
    Edited by 2 at 09/10/07 @ 14:00

  • malteaserhead #129 4 years ago

    Now anyone who says censorship should be removed across the board is basically saying the laws that govern a country should NOT be based on the wishes and morals of the populace as a whole, but rather they should based on the opinions of a minority who have an wholly unobjective agenda of their own.

    What is being described there is not democracy. It is a dictatorship, in this case with gamers in the throne.
    ____________________

    What? Like the war in Iraq? What is democracy nowadays? ;)
    /isn't being serious

  • RexRunti #130 4 years ago

    @Kanga

    Pulic feeling is not a good way to govern a country we do not live in a <em>direct</em> democracy otherwise peodophiles would hung by the testicles and skinned alive. The death penalty would come back the moment a haneous crime was comitted and homosexuality would still be illegal.

    So the way I think the BBFC should work (not that I have a huge problem with the BBFC unlike a lot of the reactionaries on here who think it's run by Kieth Vaz) is not to ban any form of media which isn't illegal. We have laws regard incitement to racial hatred and other crimes likewise where a crime has been commited in order to make the film it is also illegal. If you don't want to watch films like Hostel or Saw (I don't) they're pretty easy to avoid. Likewise just because the majority of people in the country don't agree with something is not an excuse to ban it. It is however a reason not to enforce it.

    Here's one for you though: What harm does Manhunt 2 inflict on scociety?

  • Genji #131 4 years ago

    "So the way I think the BBFC should work is not to ban any form of media which isn't illegal."

    Run that sentence through your head again. See if it still makes sense afterwards....

  • CouldntResist #132 4 years ago

    Sigh...debates on internet forums such as these will never go anywhere. For the record, i'm in favour of the BBFC and people like kangaratoo, Fitzmogwai etc. But really, you guys are arguing a lost cause.

  • Daymare #133 4 years ago

    @malteaserhead

    "Comparing Hills (btw I am a horror fan) to films that deal with 'real life' issues like political skulduggery, rape and murder in an adult fashion is quite chucklesome. Moreso, the categorising them as art! C'mon. ;) Hills is pure gore porn, not a political statement and not art reflecting life (at best only a thin veneer). Of course taboo subjects should be approached, but simply showing such things doesn't make the film/movie mature/art or any more worthy of exception."

    Hills can't compare with films that deal with real life issues in "adult fashion"!? Oh, PAlease, you think dramas and documentaries and such are more "mature" than the horror genre? I so don't agree I can't even express how much:) Just because horror genre deals with more primal human issues, doesn't mean it should be looked upon. I hope you don't mean the whole genre in general and you just didn't like Hills remake, but Hills is not a stupid "gore porn" movie as you make it out to be. Sorry, but as a "horror fan" you should know better;) Its' themes are as mature as themes in - insert your favorite drama here - , only done in horror genre and you know, as a fan you say you are, what its' conventiones are. Finding Nemo is a CG cartoon and it as smart as any other "mature, serious" movie. Don't let the rules of the genre keep you away from the truth;) Anywayz, you didn't like the Hills remake, I did and we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. But, as Dan pointed it out quite nicely, naming some horror movies as an example why they shouldn't ban Manhunt 2 is just not very strong an argument on that subject. Especially not now, when most of us haven't even played the game yet.

    "In any case, (I think we are probably on the same side ;)) as an aside,
    one of the biggest problems I have with censorship (which is justified in some cases - at least hypothetically - snuff, incitement to hate etc) is the strange way we as a society (or our media) seems to flip-flop on issues."

    Yes, we do agree that the issue of censorship is problematic (it always will be), but the difference is that I'm not outright implying that BBFC's decision is wrong. Anybody saying that implies he/she "knows better" or that that he/she thinks about BBFC as "just a bunch of human beings, who shouldn't presume they can rightly decide what is acceptable and what isn't". Yes, they are "just a bunch of people", but so are we. Living in a society automaticly means we can't have it our ways all the time and that a lot of decisions will be made for us by a group of apointed people. And that's that. Alternative is living in the jungle, where playing Manhunt 2 would be the last thing on your mind:)
    Edited by 2 at 09/10/07 @ 16:00

  • smelly #134 4 years ago

    @Kanga:

    So you're saying the world should be ruled by mob mentality? Every time the daily mail goes off on an ill-informed rant that the law should change to please them?

    The bbfc went ape on this game not for it's content, but because the daily mail linked the first one to the killing of a young boy. Now DESPITE the FACT the police said nothing of the sort happened, and in fact it was the young boy who was killed who played games (and manhunt) and not the kid who did the killing (who didnt even own a games machine).

    But because the daily mail created an uproar saying "ban this filth", now the bbfc have changed their opinion to match theirs.

    Now do you think it's right that a tabloid can have THAT much power? After all, it's only sensationalising things to improve it's sales figures!!! That's not "public opinion" is it?

    Especially If "public opinion" is based on un-informed falsehoods..

  • zuljin #135 4 years ago

    @smelly
    "The bbfc went ape on this game not for it's content, but because the daily mail linked the first one to the killing of a young boy."

    ffs no it didn't. Their statement:
    "We recognise that the distributor has made changes to the game, but we do not consider that these go far enough to address our concerns about the original version.

    The impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the gameplay, is clearly insufficient.

    There has been a reduction in the visual detail in some of the 'execution kills', but in others they retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature.

    We did make suggestions for further changes to the game, but the distributor has chosen not to make them, and as a result we have rejected the game on both platforms. The decision on whether or not an appeal goes ahead lies with the distributor."

  • kangarootoo #136 4 years ago

    @RexRunti

    I agree that public refarendum (spelling?) on every issue would be an awful thing, as the general public as an entity are mindless empaths with no sense of proportion of reason.

    However, deciding the initial process of deciding how the BBFC should operate had to come from somewhere. In the end it was peer review from the general public that formed a fair part of that process. The public didn't cross the t's and dot the i's, but their input had to be a part of the process or they simply wouldn't have accepted it.

    In other words, you try and keep the public out of the nitty gritty, but you have to accept to some degree that its their country too and they have to be at least SEEN to be involved in running it to some small degree. Simply turning around and saying "if its not illegal its not getting banned, now piss off" wouldn't have been accepted. Reality has to be factored into the plan or its no plan at all.


    "Here's one for you though: What harm does Manhunt 2 inflict on scociety?"

    Well let me put on my "I don't really think its that simple, but some people do" hat. I can then respond with "It takes people who are on the edge of being unhinged and gives them the shove they need", and they might stab me on the way home.

    Now I firmly do not believe that a sane person playing a violent game will turn into a killer. But I think it is reasonable to think that some nutcase who thinks about murder a lot may be inspired to take the final step by some form of media that glamourises the subject of their fetish.

    It drives me into a f*cking cyber rage everytime I see yet another idiot poster (not you) write "I know that playing this game won't make into a killer".

    NO ONE SAID THAT you bloody imbecile. Everyone that writes such a comment should know that in the eyes of anyone with half a brain, they have identified themselves clearly as a low IQ having dullard who should be ignored or pelted with fruit, and then ignored.

    Whatever we believe, or know (in truth, lets be honest with ourselves, very little) about the effects of video games and films on human behaviour, there are people out there (some of them very reputable and sensible; a damn sight more than some of the posters on here going by their angry outburts) who believe there is a connection.

    We can't simply dismiss their opinions, and we certainly can't dismiss them on the basis of "boohoo, I get upset when I get told something negative about games, 'cos I like playing them".

    In the absence of empirical proof we could either say "there is no connection, therefore there can be no law" or we can say "well we can't prove a connection, so we shall look at the balance of probabilities and also weigh up the risks of each option".

    Many laws are based on a balance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. They exist because we realise proof beyond all doubt is not necessarily workable in the real world.

    I mean, what is the real purpose of a law? Should its purpose be to be able to resist all scrutiny, or should its purpose be to protect the populace? Maybe we just have to wing it on occaisions and hope we get it right?

  • kangarootoo #137 4 years ago

    @smelly

    Oh ffs, if you aren't even going to make an effort I'm just going to stop responding to you.

    DO NOT wheel out that old "So you're saying..." mechanic on me. Its pure strawman diversion and honestly not worth my time or patience to try and explain back to you.

    One thing I will says is that it would appear, given the way this disucssion has gone on this and the previous thread, the total and complete irony of "So you're saying the world should be ruled by mob mentality" is completely lost on you.

    As zuljin suggested, go and do even a small amount of research, read the BBFC statement, put down your pitchfork... and then come back and we'll talk. Until then you are just making yourself look foolish.

  • smelly #138 4 years ago

    So you're honestly telling me you think the bbfc would've banned this game if it was released under a different name from a different publisher? Or indeed if there wasnt such an uproar about the first game?

    As you stated earlier, the bbfc rate things based on "public opinion" but what if public opinion is based on sensationalist media reporting?

  • Lov3 #139 4 years ago

    "@Lov3 You miss DW's point. Context is important."

    Perhaps so. Dan never actually said that made it ok, and certainly people were exaggerating, so perhaps I misinterpreted. If so my apologies to him (best reviewer on eurogamer imo :) ).

    "The current situation with MH2 impinges on the freedoms of a few gamers, in a way that barely affects their life, to serve the majority wish"

    Again, I can't say that makes it a good thing, just because lots of people think it. The majority of vocal public opinion has been against a lot of things. Gay people for example.

    "Here is an open question, to you and every other poster. What do you suggest as an alternative?"

    How about the same ideology they have in the US - full freedom of speech in media protected by law. Now they don't follow that principle 100%, but theoretically they should have to.

    I'm sorry, but I don't understand censorship apologists at all. What harm does it do people? Show me evidence thats anything other that circumstantial. On the other hand, A Clockwork Orange was banned in the 70's, now its part of the english curriculum. Manhunt may suck, but do you want to set a precedent whereby the 'A Clockwork Orange' of video games is refused release in our country? After all, if our laws were ever so slightly tougher, there would be no GTA.

  • Fitzmogwai #140 4 years ago

    / Pedant hat on

    Actually, A Clockwork Orange was never banned. Kubrick himself demanded that Warners prevent its distribution in the UK, after he was so sickened by the media hysterically conflating its release and the beating of a young man.

    / Hat off