No evidence connecting games and violence, says BBFC News

I play plenty of violent games and have yet to murder anyone.

I will fucking murder ANYONE who says videogames have made me violent.

Common sense prevails.
I thought for sure the BBFC were going to rule against Video Games when I first heared they were investigating them.

...........................

If there's no link, then why the Manhunt 2 ban?

This is amazing stuff. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at these quotes.

"If there's no link, then why the Manhunt 2 ban?"

I don't know. Maybe the article will tell me.

BBIAJ, didn't you read the confusing double negative? These guys are clearly professional writers, not social scientists!

"The research certainly achieves the objective of establishing that research does not demonstrate that there is a causal link. But what it certainly does not establish is that there isn't."

I like it that they've played the game. I dislike it that they still have an instinctive hard-on for censorship and deciding who gets to play what.

They'll wait to hear what the Daily Mail have to say first. If it blows up big, they'll stick with the ban. If they think they can sneak it out under the radar, they'll let it pass.

This is ALL about 'society's attitude' - as dictated by the Sun and The Mail as usual.

Ah, but is there a connection between games and vaginal elasticity? That's the real question.

So, essentially they're not satisfied that with an 18 rating, that minors could get hold of copies? That means a blanket ban?

...

Question is then, why give anything an 18 rating? Why have ratings at all? The point of a ratings system is to give advisory ratings to people who are buying it as to the content contained within. If the BBFC are uncomfortable with parents buying it for their teenage children, then I'd certainly say that isn't a fault with the game, or the ratings system - it's a much wider social problem where parents do not pay attention to the content their children are exposed to, and when things go wrong they find a means to absolve themselves of any hint of bad parenting or blame or guilt.

There is certainly a point where things become unacceptable, but in the movie industry I think we're already there - but there is a large slice of society that enjoys this kind of thing. The BBFC are being hugely hypocritical if they believe that we're not - if there already - dangerously close to that threshold with movies, as effects and the visceral gore become more anatomically correct and more realistic. Many movies demonstrate some of the most unbelievably sadistic routines, and how it can be done with very little effort in some cases - in others, with objects we see as eveyday. It's there to shock, to scare, to repulse. But if some can be impressioned then it's only serving to give them ideas, surely? I don't see them rushing to ban the next Saw film.

Admittedly, movies are not interactive but you'd be an idiot to think that they're not translating something across to the audience, demonstrating some of the sickest things you couldn't imagine. Where is the difference with videogames? It's all well asking where you stop with games, but where do you draw that line with films?

But back to the ratings issue - if they don't trust that ratings work to deter this content from filtering down to minors, then that is a serious, SERIOUS issue that should be taken very seriously. Manhunt 2 may end up a casualty of this but it's something that they should be doing a better job of getting across, something that needs a lot more work - ad campaigns in prime-time TV slots to remind parents to pay attention to the ratings, for example (if we can have advice to drink in moderation, stop smoking, drive carefully etc. then why not have a campaign to remind people that ratings are there for a reason?).

I have thought long and hard about this and I truly believe that censorship serves no purpose for Manhunt 2. It makes it more desirable, and it won't stop people from importing it (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's any law making the import of an unrated game illegal). Classify it as 18, get to work reminding people about ratings and let us see what all the fuss is about. And, if what people say is true, let the market see that all that visceral gore can't make an average game any better than average.

It's a stupid case. If we're at this point in censorship, then we've got deeper problems than a videogame using visceral gore as a cheap marketing ploy...

I think they hugely overrate the importance of games being interactive. If movies like Hostel are not to be censored, then nothing should be imo.

The BBFC guys sound like honest and smart persons, but with an unfortunate blind spot :(

If they ban violent games because interactivity brings people one step closer to being violent, then they should ban loads of other games with racist stereotypes, for the interactivity there will bring players one step closer to racism and xenophobia. Ex: C&C Generals and Resi 5

And then comes homophobia, and so on...

I prefer Bully. This game is just an embarrassment to the industry.

"A videogame is inherently less likely to be strictly supervised, and that is supported by research," he said, adding that violent films are usually watched late at night.

"You don't come home from work, have your tea and watch Saw 3. Games are played at all times of the day when children are about in the house."



It's very reassuring that Caldecott wants to oversee how people raise their children.





No, hang on. It isn't. It's actually quite creepy. How people raise their children has nothing to do with the BBFC, never has and hopefully never will. Some parents don't give a fuck what the BBFC says about a film, or indeed any other media, and still manage to raise children who are not violent sociopaths.

Note, we're not discussing the actual quality of the game. (It's well known it's a bad game either way).

"But you can't make classification decisions without regard to the social prevalence [of games]."

I see. So the BBFC now admit that their age rating system is a failure so decide to ban anything not suitable for children rather than educate parents and work on consistent rulings. Genius logic. Nice one. Really.

"If there's no link, then why the Manhunt 2 ban?"

To help keep crap games away from our kids.

Violence is one thing in this game, but the shock value is the only thing it has going for it. The rest of the game is a mindlessly boring stealth 'em up.

@Jetsetwilly ("Ah, but is there a connection between games and vaginal elasticity? That's the real question. ")

Well, it seems Caldecott's statement covers this too! -

"The research certainly achieves the objective of establishing that research does not demonstrate that there is a causal link. But what it certainly does not establish is that there isn't."

Slap an 18 certificate all over it, and make it clear by the boxart that the game involves "performing" many acts of violence etc. and STFU.

If a kid has shit enough parents not to stop them being exposed to that kind of content they have much bigger problems than videogame exposure to worry about.

"You don't come home from work, have your tea and watch Saw 3."

Uh, yes you do.

I HATE with a fiery burning passion being told what I can and cannot play or watch, because of children and families. I ain't in that demographic, so why the hell should I be suffering for them?

I come home from a stressful day at work, having thought about in great detail, yet never acted upon, the killing and brutalizing of all the co workers and superiors that really don't add anything good or decent or worthy to the world, and I blow off some steam with violent video games and movies instead. I watch whatever the fuck I want whenever the fuck I want. Its one of the freedoms of currently being single, without sprogs, which I'm sure is a view a lot of people can agree on.

It can be a shitty world out there, and some people choose to over eat, drink, or do drugs, or be promiscuous, in order to deal with their lives without going insane. some people do go insane. its different strokes for different folks. I choose to self medicate and offset any potential madness from stress by playing violent video games. it has worked extremely well so far.

If anyone can say hand on heart that they do not engage in any of the above activities, then congratulations, you must have found religion.

My point is thus: Should I switch to alcohol, overeating, drug abuse and promiscuity?No. Is this good advice? No.

Then why should I pay because of shitty parents who couldn't give a fuck about the raising and supervision of their own spawn?

Its the cunts who want the freedom to live how they please, who want everything on that list except the games, but want the benefits of having a family, or not wearing a condom, or living for the moment and crossing bridges when they come to them, without taking into consideration their offspring and the future they all share, that are making me suffer.

Its the pricks who want governments to basically take care of their mess, instead of taking the initiative and being responsible for the raising of their children, the rules in their house, what is acceptable and what is not, and what they allow their children to play, watch, and do, that are making this whole debacle worse than it needs to be and putting my carefully controlled self medication in jeopardy.

Its much easier to blame the government when it hits the fan, and in turn shift responsibility to an inanimate object that cant really argue back or defend itself.

first it was graphic art, then literature, then it was music, then movies and now games. it was never the fucking parents fault that little johnny liked to bite the heads off chickens was it?

What if little Johnny realizes that he is going to continue to bite the heads off chickens and potentially much worse, long into his life, but exercises self control and restraint with a carefully regimented system of letting off steam in a style that brings no harm to anyone or anything? Just long enough until he can join the army, or become a surgeon, or join a boxing club?

Well thats tough shit Johnny, because we know best

I was glad this game was banned. Shit like this brings down games as a medium. This game was only ever intended for teenage boys to go 'woah, you can cut his head off with a hacksaw' to, not for any kind of horror experience. If you want a good horror game play Project Zero 2.

Maybe Rockstar will make better games in future instead of going for shock tactic bullshit like Manhunt. Games shouldn't have to rely on gore to sell. A good game with gore as part of it should sell, but not one that relies only on gory deaths and nothing else. If Manhunt had no gore whatseover, had clean deaths but was the same game, would it have sold any copies in the first place? I doubt it.

For the record I thought Hostel was shite as well. But those European girls had nice jugs ;)

@TheJuriel
"I dislike it that they still have an instinctive hard-on for censorship..."
Best. Analogy. Ever.

" There is certainly a point where things become unacceptable, but in the movie industry I think we're already there - but there is a large slice of society that enjoys this kind of thing. The BBFC are being hugely hypocritical if they believe that we're not - if there already - dangerously close to that threshold with movies, as effects and the visceral gore become more anatomically correct and more realistic. Many movies demonstrate some of the most unbelievably sadistic routines, and how it can be done with very little effort in some cases - in others, with objects we see as eveyday. It's there to shock, to scare, to repulse. But if some can be impressioned then it's only serving to give them ideas, surely? I don't see them rushing to ban the next Saw film.

Admittedly, movies are not interactive but you'd be an idiot to think that they're not translating something across to the audience, demonstrating some of the sickest things you couldn't imagine. Where is the difference with videogames? It's all well asking where you stop with games, but where do you draw that line with films? "

I think you've missed their point somewhat. Or simply not given it enough thought.

Violent movies invariably make us empathize with the victim, hence, as you've pointed out, the resultant inclination to be shocked, scared or repulsed.

Violent videogames place you in the position of the killer, where shock, fear and repulsion are not the intended reactions for the player. By definition a violent videogame HAS to reward you for committing a violent act. The whole concept of videogaming is based on just such gratification. Therefore you're essentially being told to feel GOOD about committing acts which, under other circumstances, would shock, scare or repulse you.

A good analogy is this:

A violent movie is the equivalent of a nightmare in which you are under threat of/victim to the most heinous and unspeakable acts.

A violent videogame is the equivalent a dream in which you're committing the most heinous and unspeakable acts. Which sounds like the healthier dream to you? There's a rather explicit difference.

So don't bundle the violent movie argument into a discussion on violent videogames. There is a very clear distinction to be made between the two.


"But you can't make classification decisions without regard to the social prevalence [of games]."

You've got to see where they're coming from with this - and this is where the "line" comes into it, determining the "line" that shouldn't be crossed. The reality is, kids can get their hands on absolutely any game that is commercially available in whatever territory they live in. The reality also is, that parents cannot police their children to an extent that ensures their kids don't play these games. So the ultimate reality is that the classification system is extraordinarily ineffectual. Which brings us to the "line". These guys have to say to themselves, "we know kids are going to play this game", and then they have to ask themselves "can we live with that?" Gears of War, yes I can live with a kid playing that game. Bioshock, yes, I can live with a kid playing that game. This has to be what these guys are saying to themselves in some part of their brains.

And then, of course, it all boils down to, well, who gives these guys the right to draw that line? A perfectly viable question. But in fairness, the BBFC seem generally to have their heads screwed on. Some people just have a problem with others telling them what they can and can't do/watch/experience. But that's like complaining about having a government running your country or having parents growing up or having to adhere to societal norms when it comes to mating. Just be thankful you don't live in Germany (Gears) or Australia (LSL:MC) or Singapore (Mass Effect).

It's obviously a contentious issue, but an important one that's worth talking about without entrenched views that have come about in large part due to the vitriol of the anti-gaming lobby.

They played four levels and kinda got the jist?
Is this how game reviewers judge a product, or for that matter the BBFC?

"Well we watched the first half an hour of Saw 4 and it looked O.K. Give it a PG"

Play the whole thing in order to judge it fairly. They may be a twist at the end where all the people turn out to be Aliens, Griffins AND Daleks!

If you don't experience the entirety of the product you can't judge effectively whether the ban is deserved.

One more case of gaming being fobbed off.

Whilst I agree with the BBFC's decision i'm concerned as to where exactly they are drawing the line as some of the reasons they give for banning it (name lots of humans killing humans & use of every day items as weapons) does lead me to be concerned as to how they will rate condemed 2. Or is condemeds slight supernatural under tone going to be enough for it to squeeze past with another 18 cert?

@Kami

As i've pointed out in other threads they have used the "but minors might still see it" line before with horror films allow an 18 cert for the cinema version but then requiring cuts or a total ban when it comes to releasing it on DVD

I would really like to feel the outrage that some of the other posters on here seem to be experiencing but ultimately I feel the right call is being made by the BBFC here.

Excellent post there by BarretBonden, couldn't agree more. The gaming medium can't be subjected to the same rules as films due to the very thing that makes it better than films- the interactivity. Perhaps it is time a board simply for games was introduced to better deal with issues such as these. Then it might be more reasonable to expect a thorough inspection of every game rather than just playing the first level.

Maybe BarrettBonden, but there are films out there about the bad guys - always have been and always will be. A horror movie is as much about the killer or the monster as the victims, after all - maybe more today as people want nastier bad guys, we've especially seen this with the Saw series. As for empathising with the victims, I would agrewe with you if they were still the kind of people you could empathise with. In most horror films I watch I actually feel less empathy for the victims these days, they're so badly scripted or so painfully cliché that there is no reason to feel anything.

The simple point is this - video games and movies have come to the SAME crossroads at more or less the same time. That is, we're at a point where the gore level is getting more anatomically correct and much more accurate, as well as getting to excessive levels that most of us find uncomfortable, unreasonable and at times frankly unnecessary. Movies are being allowed to pass. Games are not. They may be two seperate mediums, but the end result is still going to be painful if they succesfully keep Manhunt 2 from a rating. It means more prevelence is given to one medium than the other. That's not good for gaming as an artform, a medium or in general - setting the industry back quite a long way and leading to more censorship as a result as people protest over things like Resident Evil 5. It's not going to be good for movies which will eventually just hit a point where no-one can take it because they're allowed to go further, allowed to push boundries of taste and decency to breaking point - and at what point do the BBFC say, "No more!"?. And it's not good for us as consumers of both mediums. As for DVD's... yeah, that's why we have so many "uncut" versions on sale. Please spare me, I'm not buying it at all.

In short, as much as I am loathe to admit it, I back Rockstar on this - IN PRINCIPLE ONLY! Manhunt 2 does not register on my radar as a game I want to own at all, but I am aware of the serious repercussions that unsuccessfully rating the game will bring. Everything I've heard is that it's a shit game. If there hadn't been this fuss it would have failed miserably (I hope it would have at least). But no, we're discussing about gore levels - gore levels which apparantly aren't a patch on a lot of the gore movies you see today in movies. You may cause the action but there has been worse violence in videogames - caused by and to the player.

I fear Manhunt 2 is being used because of it's notoriety. It's being held up as some sort of demon, when the truth is - we've had worse in movies, games and TV. The BBFC get to look like they're doing something, but my hopes that our censors understand the implications of what they're doing is gone. My faith in the age ratings system is gone now the BBFC admit that they don't think people pay attention to them any more. In such a scenario, why do we have the same system and why does the BBFC see the need to censor something because the ratings system doesn't work the way they want it to?

The seriousness of this case goes far, far deeper than Manhunt 2. My greatest fear is if they keep Manhunt 2 from a rating, they'll sweep it all under the rug and the issues like age ratings and the lines that can be drawn and a public campaign or considering a change in ratings or such forth will never see the light of day. I want Manhunt 2 to get a rating now more than ever so the BBFC and all parties involved can get together and consider why the system doesn't work as they intend it to and what can be done to make it so we don't fall into this trap again. THAT is important, now more than ever before, and if it means we need a 21+ rating now or some other changes to the system - count me in for at least giving it a chance.

All this case highlights for me is;

1) Our ratings system doesn't work.
2) The BBFC admit this.
3) To counter this, they'll refuse to rate anything that they worry will fall through the system to minors.

Which brings us back to (1).

Any questions now? The BBFC have bigger problems to worry about than not rating Manhunt 2. If the system doesn't work, why do they bother and more to the point, why do they exist at all?

Questions they won't ask because this is their job and they would prefer to not look at the failings of a ratings system that isn't working. Oh look, there's that nasty "No accountability" thing that we've had a lot of the past few weeks in the UK. It seems to be highly contageous.

For real, seriously. Manhunt 2 is the worst example in the world to hold up as a pillar of gaming. I know this. Everyone who reads this post knows this. Just the ramifications of it falling are many and varied. I'd rather it was passed and the BBFC got around to debating how to change the system so it does work, than win and do nothing just to censor something else down the line as well.

I applaud BarretBonden's post. What specifically bothered me was this part. I quote :

"Violent videogames place you in the position of the killer, where shock, fear and repulsion are not the intended reactions for the player. By definition a violent videogame HAS to reward you for committing a violent act. The whole concept of videogaming is based on just such gratification. Therefore you're essentially being told to feel GOOD about committing acts which, under other circumstances, would shock, scare or repulse you. "

I disagree. Maybe you havent played the Manhunt games?

The premise of Manhunt is simple. You kill or be killed. And the people who you are killing/maiming/mutilating are not run of the mill bystanders. They are not like those innocent victims you see in the films.

The victims of Manhunt are actually ruthless killers themselves. Not only will they kill YOU on sight, but frequently in the game its made clear. Your victims will often be found torturing other people - being sexually perverted - or conspirators to end your life. Now, over here, the player is given a choice. You can either feel :

1. Gratification and satisfaction that you erased one of these vicious creatures off the earth.

2. Shock and horror at the way you brutally killed him.

Incidentally, i might add that the player is even given control over the amount of violence they want to give - furthermore, the only "reward" you get from the highest level of violence is the execution sequence. You dont get "achievements" or "points" for it. A "gruesome" kill makes you susceptible to other enemies around you because it takes so long to pull off.

My point is simple, if Manhunt 2 (or even the first Manhunt for that matter) was a game where you pranced around brutally killing INNOCENT people in this manner, i would've totally agreed. But it just so happens your own victims are probably, even more vile than you are. And killing them so brutally well, thats exactly what makes Manhunt sell. Not just the "shock factor violence" as some people like to claim.

H. -

"They played four levels and kinda got the jist?
Is this how game reviewers judge a product"

yes actually in about 80% of reviews

couldn't they have banned it on the premise of it being a shit game?

on the other hand, i just had a round of zuma, now excuse me as i go throw bowling balls at pedestrians. Good job i haven't just played paper mario, all this "violence" that video games "might" induce would have made me bend space-time to jump on people's heads from the next dimension (although that would be funny... like wtf what's jumping on me zomg !!!!!!!11111111!!!!!!)

I'm still on the BBFC's side

The issue aside, he sounds like a cock.

I'm glad the BBFC is there to help me not show violent games to kids in my home.

Damn it. I spent ages crafting a response in the Tiga and psychologist defend R* comments thread, only to find that the BBFC have just said what I said. In far fewer words, too.

"Caldecott later suggested that videogames with violent content are more likely to be seen by children than violent films"

This is not the fault of rockstar or any adult gamer that wants to play adult themed games.
Its a very weak argument.

The premise of Manhunt is simple. You kill or be killed. And the people who you are killing/maiming/mutilating are not run of the mill bystanders. They are not like those innocent victims you see in the films.

In the first Manhunt, with it's Most Dangerous Game plot, this was certainly true. In Manhunt 2 you're playing a mental patient and the only reason we know who the bad guys are is from his point of view. He's supposedly framed and incarcerated unfairly, but it's the very definition of the unreliable narrator. The game even drops hints as to whether or not you're playing a truly wronged man or just a paranoid lunatic. That the idea is to kill pretty much everyone you see certainly doesn't help. In a film, like American Psycho, this device can be used to add a layer of ambiguity - it's never clear, for instance, if Patrick Bateman really is a serial killer, or just a yuppie narcissist who fantasises about being a serial killer. It becomes a commentary on greed, power and the 1980s themselves. In Manhunt 2, the device is mostly used for gruesome yuks with no moral context. Kill everyone. They might be evil, or you might just be nuts. Who cares? The result is the same.

But more than that, the entire premise of these games is that you're sneaking up on people and killing them. In Manhunt 2 in particular, the "kill or be killed" concept is not as cut and dried as in the original. Before, you were being hunted and had to fight back. Now you're the hunter. Whether they're conspirators against you or not, when you attack they're frequently unaware, unarmed or otherwise defenceless. Once you've begun the execution sequence, there's no way for them to fight back. At that point it ceases to be a game of skill and becomes spectacle. The brutal tortures that ensue are therefore heightened - you could even say defined - by your victim's helplessness. Coupled with the uncertainty about the mental state of the character you're playing, this has to be a problem for the BBFC.

BarretBonden + 1

@ rashes

""Caldecott later suggested that videogames with violent content are more likely to be seen by children than violent films"

This is not the fault of rockstar or any adult gamer that wants to play adult themed games.
Its a very weak argument."

Maybe, but it's a reality and one that the BBFC is aware of. Maybe they should do absolutely nothing and just cross their arms and tut? Until the ELPSA ratings are taken more seriously and games retailers have the same attitude and responsibilities as film retailers and cinema operators and parents are educated, something has to be done, as an interim measure.

@ DanWhitehead

+1 for well thought out post.

+10 for making me draw a parallel between Manhunt 2 and The Great Gatsby, thereby cementing in my head that the game is going to be an empty, self-serving disappointment.

@ Barretbonden (who I missed first time around)

+1 (and +1 for tardiness on my part)

Reasonableness FTW!

@bioreit

But it's got to do with division of resposibilty. The BBFC has a clear remit, to classify the age suitability of a published work.
They are not supposed to speculate on how well the lands laws are enforced and how good parents are at supervising and raising their children.

If kids are going to see all games anyway then what is the point of any rating system?
Should not all 18s rated games be banned by default then?

I'm bored of Manhunt 2. It'll be good when they either release it or ban it, then we can all go off and do something else.

The whole issue with videogames is that they are still perceived by the vast majority of people as "toys", and thus intended primarily for kids, a situation that you do not see with movies where it is understood that all movies are not for the little ones. In particular, this is worrying when you see parents buying their children games like GTA, Manhunt or even COD4.... because "it's only a videogame !". The same parents would not go and offer movies like The Godfather, Hostel or Saving Private Ryan to their kids.

However, even if the perception of the public is different a game should not be banned as it is to be respected as an art form in the same way as a movie, a book, etc.

The industry as a whole must act together in this and EDUCATE PEOPLE. Explain them that things have changed and that videogames are not anymore about blue pixels chasing yellow ones...

I am a gamer since the days of Pong and understand this very well: no violent videogames are played in the house before the kids are put to bed and the only ones they got a chance to play are the likes of Mario & Co. The same applies to movies.

Actually, most of my - so called enthusiast - gamers friends understand this as well. The ones that do not seem to get it are the - so called - casual gamers. I visited one this w-e : he was very proud to show me his new ps3 running COD4 in front of his 5years old kid...

In a sense, graphical fidelity (i.e. photorealism in games) will help move things forward: when you won't be able to tell the difference between a character killed in a movie and a game, people should get the point.

I really don't understand why people are backing R* on this. The Manhunt games are pure lowest common denominator ultra-violence. The entire point of the game is 'violence is funny' and it's not being ironic.

R* are better than this, They've done much better games. This is just taking the piss.

Hopefully, this won't pass the ban and R* - and other developers - will now know where the line is drawn and en devour to make good games. Whether they are violent or not.

just release the damn thing, let idiots buy it and then realise it's a pile of shite and then we can all laugh at Rockstar for being provocative, attention seeking twats. The more the BBFC stop it's release, the more hype it gets therefore the more people want to buy / play it. If it hadn't been banned in the first place, it would get released as normal amongst what was a really strong line up for other titles and it would have disappeared without trace.

To all those of you saying "Good, it's a crap game anyway", remember to duck as the point goes zooming over your head at full speed.

My opinions on this were well documented on the original thread and well debated, and they haven't changed. The BBFC are tying themselves up in bumbling knots and desperately trying to justify themselves having been picked apart by everyone with half a brain cell. Let's hope the appeals panel sees sense and overturns this despotic decision.

This must be costing Sony a fortune in backhanders to the BBFC. How much does a big corp have to pay to keep up this kind of publicity?

;)