Rockstar appeals over Manhunt 2

By Ellie Gibson Published 9 October, 2007

Says ban is unacceptable.

Rockstar has said it will continue fight against the Manhunt 2 ban, describing the BBFC's refusal to grant the game a certificate as "unacceptable".

"We are continuing to appeal the British Board of Film Classification's decision to deny the edited version of Manhunt 2 an 18-plus certificate and thereby ban its release in the United Kingdom," the company said in a statement.

"The changes necessary in order to publish the game in Britain are unacceptable to us and represent a setback for videogames."

As announced yesterday, the BBFC is standing by its initial decision to refuse Manhunt 2 a certificate. That's despite changes made by Rockstar to the game in a bid to meet the ratings board's requirements.

The publisher's statement concluded, "The BBFC allows adults the freedom to decide for themselves when it comes to horror in movies and we think adults should be similarly allowed to decide for themselves when it comes to horror in videogames, such as Manhunt 2."

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (85) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • OllyJ #1 4 years ago

    Banhunt more like!

    .....er....

  • AndyboyH #2 4 years ago

    @OllyJ - nice pun

    It seems like rockstar are crying over spilt milk. The industry is just going through exactly the same period of pushing the limits that both book publishers and movie companies already encountered. Sometimes the limits can be pushed and boundaries broken. With Manhunt 2 - it looks like they've pushed too far, and it's come back to bite them - it was always to be expected, especially considering the subject's content that they doggedly pursue.

    Not every game needs to be bright colours and sparkles and lacking in violence, and I enjoy my F.E.A.R. and Resident Evil as much as Katamari and Mario, but then do we really need a game which seems to exist solely to make real Jack Thompson's delusional ramblings of "games being murder simulators"??

    [edit: added punctuation]
    Edited by 2 at 09/10/07 @ 09:13

  • Altrezia #3 4 years ago

    Totally agree with rockstar. I wouldnt buy the game, as I'm a wuss and dont 'do' scary games, but I really hate to see things banned for no reason.

  • DDevil #4 4 years ago

    Manhuntlol

    lolhunt

    Manlol

  • Rirekon #5 4 years ago

    Colour me deeply unsurprised.

  • space_ace #6 4 years ago

    come on, what's a little manhunt between friends?

  • Kryon #7 4 years ago

    "The BBFC allows adults the freedom to decide for themselves when it comes to horror in movies and we think adults should be similarly allowed to decide for themselves when it comes to horror in videogames, such as Manhunt 2."

    I couldn't agree more. This ban was a fuckwitted decision by the BBFC and is not because of content, it has been banned because the BBFC took alot of heat for allowing MH1 because in 2004 some retarded 17year old (who shouldn't have been playing the game anyway as it was an 18cert) killed his younger friend and tried to get out of it by saying that playing MH had addled his tiny brain. The courts decided that he was chatting shit and said there was no proof the game was involved in any way.

    This is the BBFC disallowing us to enjoy this game to take the heat off themselves! TWATS!

  • jiveguy #8 4 years ago

    "The changes necessary in order to publish the game in Britain are unacceptable to us and represent a setback for videogames."

    "Therefore, " he continued, "we will now embark on a murderous rampage within the offices of the BBFC until the game receives a certificate."

  • chicknstu #9 4 years ago

    Unrelated... but If you walked into your living room and saw your kid clutching a wii-mote, making a stabbing action, accompanied by the realisation of this on the screen, the squelching sounds, the screams, and a look of glee on your kids face..... how would it make you feel.

  • Segnit #10 4 years ago

    Even if Rockstar wins the appeal and the game gets a release here, the damage is done. Developers are now very cautious on the material they include in future games. This is at least a partial win for the anti-sadism camp no matter what the outcome of the appeal is.

    My stance? Adults should have the ability to make their own choice on what games to buy *ONLY* if there is an effective system in place that prohibits minors, especially children from accessing these games.

    Although such a system exists; education and awareness on the subject however is at an unfortunate minimum. Thus i conclude that Manhunt 2 and it's ilk should be released only when the industry has matured a little bit more. Prematurely introducing this type of game in an industry that's still in its relative infancy is at best unwise and at worst irresponsible.

  • JayeM #11 4 years ago

    If movies like Hostel can be released I see no reason to ban this game.

    I won't play it, I don't like violence, gore or being scared, but I realise some people do.

  • Segnit #12 4 years ago

    Hostel is in an industry that's been established now for over a centuary

  • Brodie #13 4 years ago

    I'd ban Hostel as well - it was shit too.

  • Kryon #14 4 years ago

    @chicknstu

    If my child was under 18 years of age, it would make me feel like a poor parent . If my child was over 18 or in my parental view mature enough to safely enjoy the game, I'd say "Go on my son/daughter, stab that mutha to death". Then I would have a go myself.

    Just like to add that if my child had a Wii I'd be very distressed as it is imo a bit pants:)

  • Bigglesworth #15 4 years ago

    Rockstar's argument is false; the BBFC will similarly ban movies if they see the need to. Playing the victim card here is completely inappropriate.

  • BadBoyBonner #16 4 years ago

    "he was chatting shit"

    Now there is a phrase I haven't used for years.

    Made me chuckle, a lot.

  • Monkey-Wizard-Ken #17 4 years ago

    @Altrezia

    I agree, this ban is unacceptable.
    Rockstar should start a petition or something
    Let’s start the revolution, fight the power and all that!

  • playgen #18 4 years ago

    I'm bored of people moaning "adults should have the choice"
    well they do have a choice, and overall we choose to have a body in place, whose decisions process is taken from the public, to chose what should be avaliable.
    If you think that nothing should ever be banned, and no subject or action in media could ever be over the top or too sick then sorry but your in the minority. People moaning about their civil rights should just shut up, its a game for crying out loud, your hardly being shot at for daring to suggest the government isn't that great.

  • RexRunti #19 4 years ago

    Before condeming the BBFC (I am yet to hear anyone suggest another questionable judgment) this was taken from their "Video Game Submission Guide" (this and other documents are availble from http://ww w.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Subm... )

    <em>Theme
    The acceptability of a theme depends significantly on its treatment, ie the context and sensitivity of its presentation. The most problematic themes are unlikely to be appropriate at the most junior levels of classification. Correspondingly, there
    is no reason why most themes could not be satisfactorily handled at the
    upper categories.

    However, given the complicity required of players by video games, themes involving interactive sexual violence, drug misuse or particularly sadistic violence may be restricted to the highest categories and possibly even cut or rejected</em>

    I do however feel that any video game or film should be available to adults unless the media itself is illegal.

  • kangarootoo #20 4 years ago

    Jesus, can we get some actual facts into the discussion here. Whatever your opinion, surely it should be informed. Otherwise we are hardly better than a cage of screaming monkeys.

    The BBFC did not ban MH for "no reason". They banned it because it did not pass the criteria that is very clearly laid out for them. Its a barely subjective process, their guidelines are very clear.

    ALSO, their guidelines are created by public consultation. They are constantly updated as public opinion shift. The people working at the BBFC DO NOT create the guidelines themselves. They are based on the wishes of WE the general public.


    Start here,

    [link url=http://www.bbf c.co.uk/policy/index.php
    ]http://www.bbf c.co.uk/policy/index.php
    [/link]

    and READ.

    Then read this.

    [link url=http ://www.bbfc.co.uk/customer/cust_procDigi.php
    ]http://ww w.bbfc.co.uk/customer/cust_proc...[/link]

    Then have a think. Then by all means contribute.

    We don't have to all agree, but at least lets base our opinions on something more than the first brain fart that springs from our adrenal glands.

  • Segnit #21 4 years ago

    You should start a revolution Monkey-Wizard-Ken. It should serve to get some rebellion out of your system. Who knows? Maybe you might end up getting a reason for the ban? Or better yet, maybe you'll even manage to serve for the benefit of Rockstar's cause.

  • RexRunti #22 4 years ago

    @Kanga

    100% agree and sugest reading through Video Game Submission Guide as well (it takes a little digging to find). It is available here http://ww w.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Subm... and remember R* should have read it before hand.

  • Kryon #23 4 years ago

    Lol, Kangarootoo does 'brainfarts'

    /gets coat

  • themerlin13 #24 4 years ago

    chicknstu
    "Unrelated... but If you walked into your living room and saw your kid clutching a wii-mote, making a stabbing action, accompanied by the realisation of this on the screen, the squelching sounds, the screams, and a look of glee on your kids face..... how would it make you feel."

    I would feel I was an embarrassment to the human race in my failure to be a responsible parent allowing my child access to adult material and I would turn myself into the closest police station. ;-)

  • captainrentboy #25 4 years ago

    Good on the BBFC I say, keep that piece of shit banned. I can't understand WHY people would want to play it anyway, according to guys that have had a go it's just continuous and gruesome killing pretty much all the way through. How is that enjoyable entertainment? ''Ohhh I've had a long hard day in work, how shall I relax this evening, ahhh yes I'll play a game where all that's asked of me is that I murder lots of folk using extremely sadistic methods''
    Yes, yes lots of you will bang on about your rights and what not, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, or else what'll be next? 'Rockstar's Kiddy Fiddler Simulator 2008', ohh that's a bit wrong aint it? But hey, if a sick pervert wants a bash, and he's over 18, who are we to stop him, it's HIS right I guess.
    And like a guy pointed out above, this isn't just a case of the BBFC being bastards, the fact is the vast majority of parents out there are fucking dense when it comes to age certificates on computer games, with most of them saying to their underage children ''Ohh, it's an 18 Timmy, are you sure this game wont be too DIFFICULT for you?''. It happens, alot! I work in Game and see it every day.
    Until adults are more clued up, I believe it's right that overly sick shit like this is kept off of the shelves, so that there's absolutely no chance of the more impressionable minors out there getting hold of it.

  • SimonM7 #26 4 years ago

    This debate is all rather moot since none of us have played the game and thus can't really decide whether it shares anything with the way Hostel is set up. I, personally, found the first Hostel to be a rather refreshing angle for the usual teen slasher flick, and I appreciate what it implied in terms of human sadism and what "makes you a person like that".

    If this game similarly explores the nature of that, then screw the fact that you ARE the killer, that's just a boon of the medium as you're inadvertedly going to "side" with the guy you play as opposed to a film where symphathy is the only tool available to achieve the same thing.

    I remember back when we were all discussing Manhunt 1 and some said (including myself) that if the game is good then it deserves to exist. That's perhaps a narrow mindset, but I think the same is true here and now. If there's quality to back up and justify the angle of the game, then it earns its right to display that content. If it's a hamfisted attempt at shock and gore for shock and gore's sake, then we can really do well without. Good in this case is obviously tied to the morale of the game, or the conclusion one arrives at in the end. If the BBFC is to be believed, and I honestly have some faith in them, then the themes do not in any way objectively explore the topics mentioned above.

    Sure, we can argue that it's up to us to decide whether we want it or not, but hey, "guns don't kill people, people do" some say to justify their availability. It's obviously not that simple, and the same applies with Chicknstu's example. If this is released, then you can bet your ass that kids everywhere will be playing it, good parents be damned. Maybe someone really should be deciding whether it's worth putting on shelves or not, and maybe someone has made the right choice.

  • asharkman #27 4 years ago

    just buy it on import. aren't ps3's region free anyway?

  • themerlin13 #28 4 years ago

    LOL, it's a video game on a console with very basic graphics, compare to films available in shops that children could also end up watching?

    I EAT YOU FLESH AND I DRINK YOUR BLOOD

    OR

    ILSA SHE WOLF OF THE SS

    lol THEN you will see REAL violence, blood, guts and boobs :)

  • Kryon #29 4 years ago

    @captainrentboy

    'Rockstar's Kiddy Fiddler Simulator 2008', ohh that's a bit wrong aint it? But hey, if a sick pervert wants a bash, and he's over 18, who are we to stop him, it's HIS right I guess. "

    No no no, that's imo completely different, there are some forms of media that are ILLEGAL, child pornography & simulated kiddy porn being two of them. Simulated voilence, horror, etc in movies and games is not against the law. I repeat, this ban is the BBFC saving their own arses, not wishing a repeat of the controversy of 2004 regarding the first installment of the game.

  • crazyhorse174 #30 4 years ago

    blah blah blah same old comments blah blah blah if Hostel can be released then why not this? blah blah blah

    Weren't all the different points in this argument discussed - in a very coherenet and mature way, I should add - yesterday?

    All these articles are doing is giving more publicity to this game, which is probably half-arsed anyway.

    When it finally is released (which no doubt it will at some point), it'll sell by the lorryload simply on the back of all the publicity.

    Rockstar + contraversy = regular occurance these days. All it adds up to is more ammunition for the Jack Thompson/Daily Mail reading idiots who think "games make killers."

    Knock it off Rockstar...you showed with Table Tennis that you can actually make a decent game that doesn't court contraversy.

  • dcangel #31 4 years ago

    In other news, the Earth revolves around the Sun, night follows day (except at certain times of the year in the extreme North and South) and humans love nothing better than killing each other.

  • Kryon #32 4 years ago

    dcangel lives on Thundera (third earth) with his pet schnarf so yes it does..I think?
    Edited by 1 at 09/10/07 @ 10:16

  • dcangel #33 4 years ago

    @Kyron: Watch your mouth or next time I'll go Lion-O on your ass. :p

    Back on topic for a moment, I am actually surprised and a little disappointed that any edits Rockstar made weren't sufficient for the game to get a rating. There's only so much you can edit out before you change the essential nature of the game. That said, I had no plans to purchase it anyway, so it's not a big issue for me.
    Edited by 1 at 09/10/07 @ 10:19

  • Olemak #34 4 years ago

    It would be cool if the BBFC admitted that the game was less gory, but was still banned anyway, because the game is just plain crap :)

    Man, that is the kind of censorship agency we really need. No more Spider-Man 3 the game etc. "Manhunt 2 - banned by the BBFC for being shit" probably wouldnt't sell too many copies :)

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #35 4 years ago

    "That's despite changes made by Rockstar to the game in a bid to meet the ratings board's requirements"

    Changes made to make the AMERICAN ratings board's requirements. In their extended statement, the BBFC complained that Rockstar hadn't done anything to address their particular complaints.

  • pyrat6 #36 4 years ago

    "... represent a setback for videogames"

    Not really. It's a setback ofor this particular game and maybe rockstar. But not for videogames in general. The rules were there in place before you made the hame - so a precedent is hardly being set.

    Honestly ---- all those rough/tough/bad mutha games ... and yet they throw a hissy fit like this when they don't get their own way.

    They know that real gamers will import the thing. They are just worried that their chav-demographic will miss out. F'k em.

  • afghan_jones #37 4 years ago

    Just change all the blood for candy, call the main character 'Schizocolate Toffeecide' and release it on the 360 as part of the Viva Pinata range.

  • pyrat6 #38 4 years ago

    Good plan. What's the antonym for 'viva' ?

  • captainrentboy #39 4 years ago

    I mean they could just leave it to imports, or even set up a UK based website, which would be the only place the game could be bought, so then only 18yr olds+ could buy it with their credit cards. Sure it wouldn't stop it falling into young hands entirely, but it would lessen the amount of young uns that could get hold of it.
    But Rockstar need that 10-16 yr old age group, as I'm willing to bet it's those, pestering their parents for the game, that end up making up a very large percentage of the game's total sales.

  • Fitzmogwai #40 4 years ago

    "Muerte Pinata"?

  • RexRunti #41 4 years ago

    "Morir Pinata"?

    Anyway the BBC are reporting on a review into violence in video games and how to protect the children etc. Some commentators are holding this up as example that the current system is working and are hopeful the report will end up as "parent's need educating" as opposed to computer games are evil.

  • urban #42 4 years ago

    sigh. we're all adults and we can watch all sorts on the internet, its purely for the children and that really really annoys me.

  • zuljin #43 4 years ago

    @urban
    "sigh. we're all adults and we can watch all sorts on the internet, its purely for the children and that really really annoys me."

    Are you kidding me? Have you not heard about the new pornography laws in the UK? It would make viewing images of bondage illegal in the UK (even consenual).

    Just because you view dodgy stuff on the net and you haven't been caught doesn't make it legal.

  • Kryon #44 4 years ago

    Yes, pressing the X button while viewing gore for enjoyment is totally different to just viewing gore for enjoyment...hmmm

    /walks away...
    Edited by 1 at 09/10/07 @ 12:16

  • Blood_and_Thunder #45 4 years ago

    They deserve this to be banned for making games that are only about gore. If the first Manhunt had ordinary killings without all the gore would it have gotten any attention at all based just on it's gameplay? Like hell would it.

  • DanWhitehead #46 4 years ago

    You can kill the Little Sisters in Bioshock, but there are consequences for this act, and - crucially - you can also choose not to kill the Little Sisters.

  • kangarootoo #47 4 years ago

    @Kryon

    "Yes, pressing the X button while viewing gore for enjoyment is totally different to just viewing gore for enjoyment...hmmm"

    Shame on you. I have a big rubber stamp here with "OVERSIMPLIFICATION" written across it. As soon as I find my red ink pad, your post is in trouble.

  • KillallHippies #48 4 years ago

    I would just print all the discs as Region Free and encourage importing. Is that legal?

  • TriggerHippie #49 4 years ago

    I would just print all the discs as Novelty Coaster.

  • Kryon #50 4 years ago

    @Kanga

    Oversimplifying? hmm, I'm not so sure. I mean do you really think people go to watch films like Saw for the great story and acting? I don't. I think the average person watches these films specifically to revel in the depravity of the gore and 'ingenious' death sequences. If this is acceptable then I see no reason why hitting the X button to see the gore should make any difference at all. People don't leave the cinema after watching Saw saying things like "Gosh darn it, I'm so glad the bad actor escaped at the end", they would more likely be ranting about how cool the death-mask scene was etc. So I think this moral issue of "playing the evil doer 'vs' being on the side of the victims" is convoluted to say the least...

  • zuljin #51 4 years ago

    @Kryon
    "Oversimplifying? hmm, I'm not so sure. I mean do you really think people go to watch films like Saw for the great story and acting? I don't."

    Have you seen the Saw series? I definately go for the story, and some of the actors are pretty high profile, although I agree that does not necessarily make them good.

    So in summary, you really don't speak for everyone. :)

  • Genji #52 4 years ago

    I wish I could play games where "all you have to do is press the X button". It'd be a lot less tiring...

  • Fitzmogwai #53 4 years ago

    [link url=http://www .zefrank.com/gametime/index.html
    ]http://www .zefrank.com/gametime/index.html
    [/link]


    It's left and right, rather than just "X", but almost there...

  • kangarootoo #54 4 years ago

    @Kryon

    My point is that the interactivity in games is not as straight forward as "hitting the X button" and then watching the result play out. That implies that experience is no more immersive or personal than me hitting the on button on my DVD player and then watching the movie.


    Regards the Bioshock reference.

    POTENTIAL SPOILER - you have been warned.

    The little sisters are presented in the game as monsters as well as children. If they were clearly just innocent kids it might be a valid comparison, but they are not presented that way. You even have two opposing characters giving you differing advice, with one telling you "they aren't children anymore" and "you are fooling yourself if you think you can save them" (I paraphrase from memory), so within the context of the game and story its not as cut and dry as some are suggesting.

    MH2 lacks this context, which is the issue the BBFC have.

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

    Bioshock is very even handed in tone and motive by comparison.

  • RexRunti #55 4 years ago

    @Kryon

    Have you actually looked at anything the BBFC have ever said about anything?

  • Kryon #56 4 years ago

    @Zuljin

    "Have you seen the Saw series?"

    Yes I have and tbh I thought the violence was extremely gratuatious (and needlessly so in places). The story could have been told just as well without such ott visuals, therefore surely these visuals are solely for gore freaks to enjoy?

    So really if you do enjoy gore for gores sake, is that any worse then playing the protagonist in a gory game? I honestly don't see the difference..

    /is baffled

  • Kryon #57 4 years ago

    Yes Rex I have, your point being?

    @Kanga

    "My point is that the interactivity in games is not as straight forward as "hitting the X button""

    OK so you jiggle away at your joypad pressing the red, green, blue and yellow buttons at times even daring to perhaps use a trigger button if needed. I don't see how it makes any difference though me old china.
    Edited by 1 at 09/10/07 @ 16:17

  • zuljin #58 4 years ago

    @Kryon
    "Yes I have and tbh I thought the violence was extremely gratuatious (and needlessly so in places). The story could have been told just as well without such ott visuals, therefore surely these visuals are solely for gore freaks to enjoy?"

    When you say it could have been done without gore, that is most definately your opinion. The simple fact that not many films in recent times have gripped me as much, means I would have to disagree.

    "So really if you do enjoy gore for gores sake, is that any worse then playing the protagonist in a gory game? I honestly don't see the difference.."

    No, its a complete opposite to me (note I'm not necessarily pro or anti banning). The difference to me is that when someone is in a trap in Saw, I'm on the edge of my seat. Whats going to happen, is he going to make it, is he not? Playing the protagonist in a gory game there is very rarely any sympathy for the person you kill. You are a murderer, and the more blood on screen, the better.

    I'm most definately in different frames of mind when I play Manhunt than I am seeing any gore film.

  • captainrentboy #59 4 years ago

    Good God, Kryon really isn't understanding the difference between watching an act of, pre-determined, violence on film, and actually sitting there controlling how you go about killing someone, picking a weapon, and planning out what to do and how to do it.
    The fact that you are in total control and immersed in whatever sadistic scenarios Rockstar have devised makes all the difference, and I find it weird that you can't see that, but I think people could harp on about it explaining the differences to you all day and you still would say ''Nope, they're the same'', so I'll shut up :)

  • kangarootoo #60 4 years ago

    @Kryon

    I would say I'm splitting hairs somewhat, but actually I think captainrentboy is making the same point as me. I suppose I might draw the same conclusion, i.e. I'm kind of out of ideas as to how to explain the difference between interactive and passive in a way that you will accept is tangible.

  • smelly #61 4 years ago

    (I posted this in the other thread - but that seems dead now.. so here we go - slightly out of context here.. but my beliefs still stand)


    @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 #62 4 years ago

    @smelly
    And I'll just post this on this thread too then:

    "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."

  • Kryon #63 4 years ago

    "When you say it could have been done without gore, that is most definately your opinion."

    Whoa there Nelly! I didn't once imply that Saw should have 'no gore whatsoever', merely that it was needlessly ott in places, that's a completely different thing!

    You do raise some valid points in your post though and I can see where you're coming from but I don't think we will ever agree on this. I mean I didn't really even consider Saw/Hostel to be horror movies, they are more a subcategory like Scream, it's horror but it comes under the 'slasher' category, I see Saw and the like more as 'gore fests'. I mean c-mon there really isn't a great plot in either Saw or hostel. I honestly believe these movies are aimed at people who enjoy watching fictional characters die in the most extremely vile fashion possible.

    I mean after watching Saw what did you say to your mates about it afterwards? I'm sure the pretty gruesome death scenes would have probably been near or at the top of the list? Or did you tell them how much you enjoyed the story?
    Edited by 1 at 09/10/07 @ 16:48

  • zuljin #64 4 years ago

    @Kryon
    "When you say it could have been done without gore, that is most definately your opinion."

    "Whoa there Nelly! I didn't once imply that Saw should have 'no gore whatsoever', merely that it was needlessly ott in places, that's a completely different thing!"

    :) Its not a bad thing stating your opinion, but you can't summarise everyone with your own experience thats what I was trying to get at...

    "I mean after watching Saw what did you say to your mates about it afterwards? I'm sure the pretty gruesome death scenes would have probably been near or at the top of the list? Or did you tell them how much you enjoyed the story?"

    Aaaactually... First thing I mention is the story :) No really! To me first and foremost it is a whodunnit. And the endings twists and turns have not yet ceased to surprise me.

    Although in all fairness the second thing I usually mention is to not go see it if you are of weak disposition... :)

  • Hamshira #65 4 years ago

    Im sorry but people like STKD really need to get a clue. There is *NO SCIENTIFCAL PROOF OR STUDY THAT VIDEOGAME OR THE ELEMENT OF INTERACTIVITY INFLUENCES OR EVEN CAUSES BAD BEHAVIOUR*, stop assuming things like the bloody BBFC.

    If anything, studies have shown that they actually lesson anger/violent thoughts by allowing those impulses to be expressed safely in a videogame/non reality enviroment. Go research this shit if you dont believe me.

    The controversial stabbing back in 2004 with Manhunt 1 proves this. The batshit stabber blamed manhunt, and the courts just simply didnt have it - why? Like i said, no proof to back it up.

    The BBFC is just cowering because of the media pressure caused by the events a few years back, and are singling out manhunt 2 based on assumptions of "interactivity" being dangerous - and not only that, all these ridiculous claims of "context". Context? Oh bloody please, the original manhunt forced you to do the exact same thing. Kill or be killed. I dont see the difference in context here.

  • Kryon #66 4 years ago

    CaptainRB

    I understand that as far as you're concerned playing as an evil protagonist in a game is morally somehow wrong? (Well, I hope you didn't play GTA then...) imo it's a game, fantasy, evil killer or pink and fluffy puppies, I see no difference, I'm an adult and don't get so engrossed for either to affect me.

  • kangarootoo #67 4 years ago

    @smelly

    If you've read the other thread you already know what I have to say to you.

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #68 4 years ago

    They should make a kid rape game. Then I'd like to see you all try and defend the 'There should be no censorship' argument.

  • kangarootoo #69 4 years ago

    @Kryon

    I have to say, re the Saw films, the story was actually the thing I spent the most time talking about when discussing the films with friends.

    Re the horror I of course might say something about it being quite gory "but not as shocking as the hype suggests" but I spent far more time talking about the presence of plot twists, and whether the story in pt X was better or worse than pt Y.

  • captainrentboy #70 4 years ago

    No, that wasn't my argument at all, I didn't say it was wrong, my argument was to do with the differences between film and computer games, and the fact that they effect people differently whilst watching/playing.
    A simple example being that I'm far more immersed whilst playing Tekken, and react far differently to either winning or losing a fight, than I would watching the latest Jet-Li flick where he's kicking a whole manner of ass. Because I'm the one in direct control of the Tekken fight, whereas the Jet-Li fight is a fancily directed, pre-determined film scene.
    And for the record, I can't fooking stand GTA :) Because playing the part a ho-popping Gangsta nigga mo-fo has absolutely no appeal to me.

  • kangarootoo #71 4 years ago

    "I understand that as far as you're concerned playing as an evil protagonist in a game is morally somehow wrong?"

    I also might add (though I'm not sure its a fair critisism to level at crb) that things are rarely as cut and dry as terms such as good and evil suggest (though some people like to think so; it makes life less complex).

    Example.
    Is Sam Fisher a good guy or a bad guy? Are the people that give him his orders good guys or bad guys?

    On the face of it, SF is a hero - a good guy. He puts himself in jeapardy to protect us from evil people.

    But on the other hand he is the tool of a government that thinks it is ok to do exactly what it wants around the world regardless of the boarders or laws of other countries. They call it the "fifth freedom", but that really translates as "we can do whatever the hell we want if we think its in our interests, now bugger off clearly evil person".

  • Kryon #72 4 years ago

    @CaptainRB

    hmm not too sure if you should use words like that here old boy. Anyway, yes I except that there are differences betwixt watching and playing, as in you press buttons and make choices in the latter. My argument is, as an adult does this make the media more potent to you? It has the opposite effect on me tbh and what is the difference in enjoying watching someone else kill helpless people in sickening ways to enjoying playing the character that does the dirty deeds in a video game? Imo the moral issues seem to disappear if you see it in this way. I do 'get into' games and movies. The effect of either/both are of no consequence to me.

    I just don't like this moralistic stance that some are taking! Are you telling me you buy resident Evil to bring down the terrible Umbrella Corp? Don't lie! You buy it to blast the sh** out of zombies!!!

    What about multi-player online gun battles? How in Gods name can it be wrong to kill a victim (who isn't real, in Manhunt) but it's OK to 'virtually' shoot the F*** out of a real living person you can even talk to before you finish them off?

    Really not trying to offend anyone but sometimes I think some people here are bonkers :(

  • christbait #73 4 years ago

    Keep up the fight, Rockstar! Games developers aren't babysitters!!

  • RexRunti #74 4 years ago

    The following are quotes from the BBFC. Can people please read through this before accusing them of bias or media pandering (also it may help to look at BBFCs recent research stating that they feel violence in video game is LESS of an issue than in videos http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/). And before you accuse me of anything I actually believe Manhunt 2 should be classified I just think blaming the BBFC is the wrong stance to take. Anyway here are the quotes:



    ...given the complicity required of players by video games, themes involving interactive sexual violence, drug misuse or particularly sadistic violence may be restricted to the highest categories and possibly even cut or rejected



    The BBFC acknowledges the difference between watching a film or video and the more interactive experience of playing a game. However, research into whether this interactivity has any significant effect on the potential for harm, which the BBFC is required to consider, is inconclusive. Consequently, in considering harm arguments, the BBFC errs on the side of caution and applies the same standards to games as to video.



    The BBFC will only refuse a certificate to a game as a last resort, but where there is felt to be a significant risk of potential harm, rejecting a game may be the only option.



    [Examiners] view the material and recommend a category decision, cuts or other actions. Examiners are drawn from a range of backgrounds including social work, teaching, probation, journalism, research, psychology and marketing.



    Games clasified in 2006 (and any cuts made)

    Category..Number..Cut..Percent

    U...............38.........0........0.0
    PG.............42.........1........2.4
    12..............31.........0........0.0
    15............112.........1........0.9
    18.............74..........0........0.0
    R18............1..........0.........0.0

    Totals ......298.........2........0.7



    On the original cut of Manhunt 2

    "Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing.
    "There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game,"
    “Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game's unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game," added Cooke.
    "Against this background, the Board's carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public."



    On the most recent version of Manhunt 2

    "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,"

    Edit: Table formatting. Also no one has yet named a single other questionable decision made by the BBFC in the last ten years.
    Edited by 1 at 09/10/07 @ 18:24

  • smelly #75 4 years ago

    @kanga : Still disagree with you (Even though personally i dont like/play unnecesarily violent games).

    .. See comment in other thread for more info

  • jachap #76 4 years ago

    Practically every game I own simulates killing in some way. Killing demons, killing Nazis, killing criminals, killing children infested with parasites, killing prostitutes, killing aliens, killing dozens of civilians who just happened to stray in front of my wildly careering car. And I laugh wildly as the ragdoll physics sends blood spraying and bodies flying everywhere. God, its fun.

    Everything about Manhunt 2 seems to be a logical extreme of the dirty, gritty, blood-soaked, kill-a-thon style of games on the market. Its the distilled essence of a million other games, compressed down into one blood-soaked slice of gaming pulp.

    This isn't one game they're banning. Its practically every game I own.

    And maybe they're right. Maybe I shouldn't enjoy killing things so much. Maybe I shouldn't spend so, so much of my time doing it. Maybe any of us who think they're right and that maybe Manhunt 2 is not the best ever idea for a game, should seriously examine everything else we spend our time on.

    I mean, in American History X, I thought Ed Norton curb-stomping a black criminal was one of the most sickening things I'd seen in a film. Now, in Gears of War, I do it ten times a day. What does that say about me?

    No - wait - FUCK THAT! THEY'RE STUPID DAILY MAIL READING TOTALITARIAN FAGGOTS! I'M PERFECTLY SANE! LET ME KILL WHATEVER I LIKE!

  • zuljin #77 4 years ago

    @jachap
    In American History X you don't see the actual curb stomping now do you.

    And in Gears you are still performing the action towards charicatures (sorry I have bodybuilder/army friends, they do not look like that).

    Again, read the actual statement BBFC produced before condemning them.

    For all sane posters that were having a sensible debate, but disagree with the actual guidelines of the BBFC:

    http://ww w.mcvuk.com/news/28507/Full-det...

  • kangarootoo #78 4 years ago

    @RexRunti

    +1

  • Kryon #79 4 years ago

    ""Against this background, the Board's carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors"

    What range of harm risks exactly? Somebody tell me how playing this game will harm me (or any other normal adult) Sorry but those who believe/agree with this have truly earned the title of 'Sheeple'. They give no explanation as to how this game will harm anyone, just that it will "because we say so!" and it seems many of you happily accept this...

  • zuljin #80 4 years ago

    @Kryon
    "Somebody tell me how playing this game will harm me (or any other normal adult)"

    I'm over 18, I buy the game, get offended beyond belief and sue the government for taking away my innocence.

    Okay, thats "slightly"dramatised, but in essence I guess there would be a number of mature people who would be offended by the game. Take Irreversible and Saw series (again). Many people knew exactly what they are in for, and yet still left the cinema early because they were not prepared for what they saw (and in some cases were even sick in the cinema).

    I think as a majority of youngsters, a lot of us are fairly openminded here (I've only nearly left the cinema once because I was slightly offended). But the BBFC has to cater to the fact anyone over the age of 18 could very easily buy this game.

  • Kryon #81 4 years ago

    "But the BBFC has to cater to the fact anyone over the age of 18 could very easily buy this game."

    If you take this view, then surely Saw and Hostel should have never seen the light of day either, as you just said, even people who had been pre-warned of their content and nature were disgusted to the point of causing actual vomiting in some and others to leave the cinema in complete disdain .

    There will always be certain people who are offended by certain things, imo, as an adult I make informed choices when spending my money. Its not our fault if others do not and end up regretting their purchase (whether it be cinema ticket or video game)

    Just out of interest, what movie did you walk out of? :)

  • jachap #82 4 years ago

    zuljin - you've completely missed my point.

    I think its all too easy to decide that any censorship is bad and simply, endlessly reiterate that argument until the end of time. I think that's what a lot of gamers do - pigeon holing anyone who has problems with violent games as just another Daily Mail reading cretin and dismissing them. I saw that happen in this very thread.

    My final comments weren't serious. They were just an obviously far too subtle jibe at such a reaction.

    Yet I can perfectly understand why someone from outside, as it were, could have a real issue with the fact millions of people now grow up playing games that make warfare and killing glamorous. So what if its virtual? If murder is abhorrent, surely going around virtually murdering people is something approaching as abhorrent?

    My point about American History X is, in that film, it is the low point of Ed Norton's descent into the white supremacist subculture. The rest of the film is about him trying to get away from that act and all that it represents. It is not in the film to get everyone to cringe or, worse, clap their hands together with enjoyment.

    Largely, games don't do this. They don't have a single act of violence in the second act to which you have been working inevitably towards and from which you then have to recover. They take films and, in the main, strip away the characters and story and moral debate. They distill it down to that cringing, terrible moment and then assign a button to it and get you to do it 100 times.

    You don't kill one person and agonise over it. You kill two hundred people, reload, and kill a hundred more. It has no repercussion, moral, intellectual or emotional, for the player. Its just solely entertainment.

    Despite the fact I play violent games (and enjoy them) I'd like it if people within the industry actually had a sensible debate about this, rather than just slag off the BBFC - which is the instant (and extremely tedious) knee-jerk reaction.

    Surely we all have a responsibility to pro-actively help the situation by improving the (violent, bloodthirsty, macho) image of the games industry? Surely major game companies like Rockstar have that responsibility too, rather than just designing and releasing (or trying to, anyway) a game which is just going to kick this endlessly cyclic debate into motion again?

  • zuljin #83 4 years ago

    @Kryon
    "If you take this view, then surely Saw and Hostel should have never seen the light of day either, as you just said, even people who had been pre-warned of their content and nature were disgusted to the point of causing actual vomiting in some and others to leave the cinema in complete disdain."

    Well, I guess so, but the point is that the BBFC, at the end of the day mere mortals, will have to try and predict outrage / outcry over each individually. Yes people will always be offended, but there is some degree of guesswork as to how many people and how badly. Didn't say I had all the answers, just trying to give a reason as to how certain people would be "harmed" :)

    "Just out of interest, what movie did you walk out of? :)"
    Nearly walked out of Innocence. I was watching it with my girlfriend, and we couldn't decide whether it was trying to make a point, or whether it simply tried to show as much underage nudity as possible. Very bleak film.

  • redgiemental #84 4 years ago

    "I couldn't agree more. This ban was a fuckwitted decision by the BBFC and is not because of content, it has been banned because the BBFC took alot of heat for allowing MH1 because in 2004 some retarded 17year old (who shouldn't have been playing the game anyway as it was an 18cert) killed his younger friend and tried to get out of it by saying that playing MH had addled his tiny brain. The courts decided that he was chatting shit and said there was no proof the game was involved in any way. "

    I'd just like to point out this isn't what happened. You are right that Manhunt had nothing to do with the killing. Just the killer wasn't the one that owned the game it was the victim. So even less of a reason to try to blame the game really. Just wanted to clear that up

    Good day

    EDIT: Apparently one other person made this correction. Sorry. Carry on then.
    Edited by 1 at 12/10/07 @ 00:55

  • Kryon #85 4 years ago

    "I'd just like to point out this isn't what happened. You are right that Manhunt had nothing to do with the killing. Just the killer wasn't the one that owned the game it was the victim."

    Me thinks you've been smoking that old crack pipe again matey :) ...Where exactly did I say that the killer owned the game? All I said was that the courts were asked to consider whether him playing the game could have been a negative factor. I didn't ever once go into whos piece of software it was...

    Lol, it's like you cut 'n' pasted one of my posts, replied to it but had just forgot to actually read what I'd written in the first place?