Rockstar questions High Court ruling

By Robert Purchese Published 25 January, 2008

Was happy with 18-rating, shockingly.

Rockstar has questioned the High Court of Justice's decision to send Manhunt 2 back for re-evaluation.

The publisher said it was unable to comprehend spending more public money on censoring a game that was well within the rules of an adult rating.

"We believe the Video Appeals Committee decision was correct and do not understand the court's decision to expend further public resources to censor a game that contains content well within the bounds established by the British Board of Film Classification's18-plus ratings certification," Rockstar said in a statement.

The VAC decision was overturned by Mr Justice Mitting who said an "error of law" had been made.

This error was related to the definition of what constitutes harm. Mitting said VAC had misinterpreted it as actual harm, rather than, as he put it, a wider sense of potential harm.

Manhunt 2 will now be re-evaluated by the Video Appeals Committee under new guidelines.

If Rockstar receives a negative response that would effectively end the appeals process, as it is unlikely the House of Lords would want to know.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (24) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • optimusprym8 #1 4 years ago

    *yawn

  • the_dudefather #2 4 years ago

    bit of a shame that it not allowed a release, fair enough Rockstar like the push the edgy button a lot to create media hysteria, but it would be bad if this happened to a game that was actually good, like GTA4 for example.

  • Triggerhappytel #3 4 years ago

    I know people keep going on about it, but it'll be interesting to see how Condemned 2 gets on. From what I've read and heard, that game will be as violent as anything in Manhunt, but here's betting that gets an 18 rating and comes out with no problems.

  • L42yB #4 4 years ago

    Yeh... I don't really care what happens to this game as I don't want to play it. But I do disagree with banning it. It's an adult game so only people over the age of 18 can buy it. If kids still get their hands on it then that is a different issue... I mean, we age limit lots of things (porn, alcohol, cigs, etc.) and kids certainly get hold of this stuff too. Does that mean we now need to ban everything unless it is safe for children?

    As for his statement about "potential harm" as opposed to "actual harm"... what is that meant to mean anyway?

  • Skeletor #5 4 years ago

    @Triggerhappytel

    According to interviews with the devs Condemned 2 has already been "trimmed" in order to avoid a similar fiasco...it's all about the money after all;-)

  • bozman #6 4 years ago

    This is getting very tiresome now. With a lovely thing called the internet, this continuous action to stop it getting a UK release is irrelevant. If Rockstar would kindly release it in another PAL territory (Europe or Australia will do nicely thanks) so that those that want to play it can order it in, that would be lovely.

  • penhalion #7 4 years ago

    Ha gotta say I laughed at this one. Serves them right for taking the BBFC to court in the first place. Didin't they realise that the result would either be to throw censorship into chaos (probably causing polititians to wade in and we all know that's not a good thing) or the BBFC would have to contest the ruling.

    Next time maybe they should just make less crappy games, then they wouldn't have to resort to shock tacktics to try to sell them.

  • sd99 #8 4 years ago

    Good! Rockstar only makes games like this to get controversy. The game's shite and wouldn't sell otherwise.

  • Triggerhappytel #9 4 years ago

    @ Skeletor - thanks. Cool name, by the way.

    @ bozman - a Dutch guy on the UK PlayStation forums told me it has been release in Holland and this version has English text and voiceover. I cannot vouch for the validity of this, but it might be worth checking out if you want to buy the game.

  • keyboardmonkey #10 4 years ago

    This error was related to the definition of what constitutes harm. Mitting said VAC had misinterpreted it as actual harm, rather than, as he put it, a wider sense of potential harm.

    Surely all Cigs and Alcohol should be banned if we all took the "sense of potential harm" into account when approving products to be sold.

  • penhalion #11 4 years ago

    @Keyboardmonkey

    Why do you think Cigarette packets all say in big letters "Causes Cancer and hazardous to health". Why do you think the government finally had to ban smoking in public or risk being sues by everyone who even got a cough from second hand smoke.

    The only reason smoking isn't out right illegal is because it generates huge amounts of tax revenue. I genuinely think the government figure heck we may as well make money off the muppets before they keel over.

  • nufcfan123 #12 4 years ago

    All this for an average game

  • keyboardmonkey #13 4 years ago

    @penhalion , I think i didn't make my point well. You are right the government restricts the sale of tobacco and alcohol, puts health warnings on products etc... but still approves them for sale. But the potential harm doesn't stop them from allowing the sale. (Lots of VAT to be made).
    So i don't see why the potential harm should stop the sale of this game.

    Not that i am ever going to buy it, just winds me up that games are made to look like the great evil plague of our times.

  • MrClam #14 4 years ago

    >All this for an average game

    All this so that the law courts/bbfc recognise games properly and start rating them properly too. As opposed to just fobbing them off as kids things.


    >Good! Rockstar only makes games like this to get controversy. The game's shite and wouldn't sell otherwise.

    I even don't know where to begin with this moronic statement..


    What you guys don't understand, is like films in the past, we NEED controversial games to make the world sit up and notice that games arent just for kids.

    If it wasnt for the film industry pushing the envelope, then every film would still need the lead male character to have one leg touching the floor during a kissing scene.

    Controversy is NECESSARY for gaming to EVENTUALLY be considered as a real work of art (like films for example) and people to recognise properly what it is.. So we dont get those shitty scare tactics of fox news with regards to the like of mass effect...

  • Drakron #15 4 years ago

    "What you guys don't understand, is like films in the past, we NEED controversial games to make the world sit up and notice that games arent just for kids."

    Oh I do understand ... but THIS is not what we need, this is a goreporn on the likes of "Saw" and similar trash that is really not aimed at adults.


  • smelly #16 4 years ago

    It's about time the government put age ratings on books isnt it?

  • Bonus #17 4 years ago

    @L42yB

    Those are the sort of arguements in games favour we don't need.

    Never known of a 12 year old in the news with porn, alcohol or cigarettes? You must live in a different world to me.

  • Cappy #18 4 years ago

    As is the norm whenever this comes up around here people who haven't even played the game seem to have a lot to say.

    Having played the original version and the amended version, I see it for what it is. A serviceable title which isn't especially good but isn't especially bad either. In terms of violence its not really that shocking, I have seen it all before somewhere else. For kids films the Star Wars series seem to have an unhealthy obsession with amputation but nobody seems to complain about it there.

    Of course I have concerns, not about kids playing it, but about why Manhunt 2 had to exist in this form in the first place. I just don't think gamers are clamouring for more violence, I'm definitely not. I wish more games gave us an opportunity to play and enjoy a story without injuring or killing anything.

    It strikes me as hypocritical whenever you get the usual forum big mouths talking rubbish over this issue since they're normally no stranger to games with massive body counts themselves. Its okay if its a FPS though isn't it? Rockstar should have the right to release this game for adults, though I really wish they would apply their talents elsewhere in future.
    Edited by 1 at 25/01/08 @ 19:44

  • BBIAJ #19 4 years ago

    Actually, Monolith are developing Condemned 2 in co-operation with ratings boards, so as to keep it all in check, so I can see why it would need to be "trimmed", there'll just be stuff that was left out due to guidelines.

  • dllord #20 4 years ago

    Who gives a shit? its an old game now anyway!

  • thefinn #21 4 years ago

    @Bonus:

    No, those are exactly the kind of arguments we do need. The entire point is that, even though kids get hold of booze and cigarettes and porn from time to time, that is not usually seen as an argument for banning them entirely (OK, maybe it is for porn by some). In order for it to be OK to outright ban a game, the "potential harm" arising from it needs to be worse than alcohol or cigarettes, otherwise a ban simply doesn't make sense.

    And considering the "potential harm" from cigarettes especially is pretty damn close to "actual harm", that's a pretty tall order.

  • Bloodloss #22 4 years ago

    I hope for the best with Rockstar. Fully support them in trying to fight the nanny state banning things unnecessarily, even if their game is shit.

  • bioreit #23 4 years ago

    Condemned 2 is different to Manhunt 2.

    Firstly, look at their predecessors (concentrating mostly on story-lines, here, so some might wish to look away):

    Manhunt 1: You play a criminal supposedly executed for his crimes, but really you have been pitched into a snuff-film environment, where you have to battle with other criminals, mercenaries, and corrupt police. Your character does protect a female journalist, but seeing as she is working on exposing the stiuation you have been thrust into, it is arguable that this protection is motivated more from a sense of self-preservation.

    Condemned 1: You play a forensic crime officer, investigating why so many inhabitants of the city seem to become almost mindlessly violent maniacs. It is a survival horror game, true, but where you play a character struggling to make sense of what is happening to himself and others - the entire motivation for the game is to stay alive and to find out what is happening to everyone, presumably with an aim to helping them. Quite different to Manhunt 1.

    This difference is also exhibited between the respective sequels. In Manhunt 2, you play a character who is mentally deranged, killing any and everyone, regardless of their moral character (so comparisons to horror films are inadequate, as the victims in such films are almost always 'guilty' of some undesirable trait or action, making it seem almost as though they are being punished). Also, the game pushes the player towards committing acts as violently as possible, encouraging and rewarding sadism.

    In Condemned 2, although your character has 'fallen' since the first game, you are still trying to make sense of what happened and although there is much excessive violence, the game neither constantly rewards excessively brutal acts nor makes you kill innocents. Your character has personal demon, yes, but his core motivation is still 'good'.

    These differences are, I believe, why the Manhunt series comes in for extra scrutiny from bodies such as the BBFC and why making direct comparisons to other games - such as the Condemned or Grand Theft Auto series - as well as 'similar' films - such as the Hostel and Saw series - is wrong. Manhunt and, in particular, Manhunt 2, are almost unique in their use of 'Protagonist Point of View' - almost every other game and film that ever gets mentioned in these debates uses the 'Victim Point of View'. Empathy with a perpetrator is different to empathy with a victim and therein lies the major difference.

  • clean515 #24 4 years ago

    I imported it from the us just to support rockstar... I hate censorship.