Rockstar upset by Manhunt ban

By Games Industry.biz Published 20 June, 2007

They "emphatically disagree".

Rockstar Games has stated its disappointment at the BBFC's recent decision to refuse Manhunt 2 a rating in the UK, effectively banning the game from sale, GamesIndustry.biz reports.

The Grand Theft Auto and Canis Canem Edit publisher disagrees with the ratings board's decision and believes adult consumers should be allowed to make up their own minds about the content of any game.

"We are disappointed with the recent decision by the British Board of Film Classification to refuse classification of Manhunt 2. While we respect the authority of the classification board and will abide by the rules, we emphatically disagree with this particular decision," reads a statement from the company.

"Manhunt 2 is an entertainment experience for fans of psychological thrillers and horror. The subject matter of this game is in line with other mainstream entertainment choices for adult consumers."

The BBFC said it would not give Manhunt 2 a rating on the grounds that "to issue a certificate would involve a range of unjustifiable risks, to both adults and minors".

The Rockstar statement continues: "We respect those who have different opinions about the horror genre and videogames as a whole, but we hope they will also consider the opinions of the adult gamers for whom this product is intended."

"We believe all products should be rated to allow the public to make informed choices about the media and art they wish to consume.

"The stories in modern videogames are as diverse as the stories in books, film and television. The adult consumers who would play this game fully understand that it is fictional interactive entertainment and nothing more."

For more sustained and cumulative casual sadism, read GamesIndustry.biz.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

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

You may also like...

Comments (179) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • 3william56 #1 5 years ago

    Not particularly in favour of censorship, but Rockstar are bl**dy idiots to keep flogging this dead horse. Not a particularly good game (MH1), and now with added Hi Def Gorn for extra Daily Express baiting, which might sell a few import copies, but if they get the BBFC fired up, other, decent games (e.g. GTA) might be in trouble. And it's just another embarrassing juvenile violence-a-thon to drag games back into the dark ages. Not a chance of seeing it down under, thanks to having no R18 for games. Good riddence, hope they lose a ton of money on it, and go back to polishing GTA.

    Oh... Fir
    /axe to the head

  • Moggo #2 5 years ago

    Not surprised and, for the first time since probably forever, I don't have issue with the game's banning. Seems like a glorified playable version of Hostel, another piece of entertainment which was full of excessive violence developed purely to push the boundaries.

  • MinuteMan_X #3 5 years ago

    As a libertarian, I'm strongly opposed to all forms of state censorship, and I challenge anyone to disagree.

    PS Manhunt rocks!

  • NewYork #4 5 years ago

    FREEEEEEEDOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!

  • Gene #5 5 years ago

    this is madness!!

  • Segnit #6 5 years ago

    MinuteMan_X you are wrong. I challange you to prove otherwise!

    Note: Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't BBFC private as opposed to state owned?

  • The_Inquisitor #7 5 years ago

    Who do you trust? hubba hubba hubba. who do you trust?

  • Avaloner #8 5 years ago

    I do have an issue on this ban, not because I wanted to play the game (I am 29 btw) but rather on general principle. Why do they allow movies like SAW, Hannibal Rising or Zodiac to be shown while they ban movies because they contain the same things? I have never been revolted by any video game in the way I have been by these movies and yet they can be bought or rented while some games are banned.

  • Azazel #9 5 years ago

    The adult consumers who would play this game fully understand that it is fictional interactive entertainment and nothing more."

    Except for the one random psycho who always lets the side down... grrr

  • attacanteblue #10 5 years ago

    @MinuteMan_X

    We can't argue about censorship without considering stuff that is banned already. Let's face it, virtually all of us (I hope) would say that all forms of child porn should be banned from any kind of distribution - so a line in the sand already exists, whether we like it or not.

    The question is not should there be censorship, but rather should Manhunt (and for that matter Saw/Hostel etc.) be censored.

  • thedaveeyres #11 5 years ago

    Crying all the way to the bank, once they eventually do get a certificate, surely.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 08:40

  • captainrentboy #12 5 years ago

    Let's be serious, Manhunt 2 must've been pretty relentless in needless killing and voilence for the BBFC to ban it outright, I mean it's not like they're renowned for banning any old thing, and I actually think they're quite easy going as a whole, how some of the films out there pass for a 12a or 15 I'll never know.
    Terminator 3 always springs to mind, 12a rating, yet it features an arm right through a friggin chest in gory close up detail.
    And anyway why would you want to play a game where all you do is kill humans in a variety of different, gruesome ways, with no other variation in gameplay. How is that enjoyable, or a good way to pass any spare time?

  • Oceadge #13 5 years ago

    @attacanteblue

    Isn't that line drawn to protect children though. Should animated child porn be banned?

    Also, surprise, surprise - the Irish censor banned the game too.

  • Segnit #14 5 years ago

    Although I'm a lurker, I'll make an exception and put a couple of points:

    Point 1 - Movies are passive by nature while games are active.
    Point 2 - Censorship is ALWAYS bad and you're against it, right? Then I suppose you're also against censoring child porn then?
    Point 3 - "I don't need to be told what i should or shouldn't be playing as I'm an adult and can decide that for myself" - The response to which is: You may be capable of deciding what games you deem appropriate for you to play. I assume that you're a sane and healthy adult above the age of 18. Therefore it is indeed unfortunate that you're caught up in the crossfire of this problematic but real issue between politics and popular opinion. Just like it is unfortunate if, being the civilian that you are, happen to die during a war simply because the enemy forces "made a mistake" and thought that your house was a military bunker (Thus the term "casualty of war";).

    Although i do sympathize with the people that will be affected by this ban; it needs to be said that the very egocentric nature of these people is the biggest pitfall of both their arguments and opinions. Thus, you guys would make for poor-to-average politicians incapable of making your voices effectively heard in public.

  • Segnit #15 5 years ago

    To frod:

    1- "So?"? I guess you win that argument for sure!

    2- Strawman you say? So i didn't make a point?

    3- Exactly

  • ChimneyBug #16 5 years ago

    I'm sure it was even news on Eurogamer that not long ago more reasonable studies have shown that exactly because you are interacting with it, you dont really get to forget it's all just a game.

    Whats this nonsense about child porn? Child porn is illegal and punishable. Playing games is not.

  • lennon #17 5 years ago

    @ChimneyBug - Its an easy argument for the "Daily Mail" crew to use.

    What I dont understand is that murder is illegal. So why not then ban all games that allow you to willfully kill someone.

  • Eldritch #18 5 years ago

    Rockstar have been trying to push the envelope with regards to violence for many years now. Seems like, for some people, they've finally crossed the line. And I can't say I'm sad about that.

  • Segnit #19 5 years ago

    Child porn is censorship. Either you agree or disagree with censorship. If you don't agree with censorship whatsoever then admit that watching child porn can be a normal healthy activity to participate in. Otherwise, if you do realize that this in not the ideal world where everyone has had a similar ideal upbringing and because of that censorship needs to be enforced from time to time, then we are all square and on the same page. And that realization would quickly turn this thread into a moral and a philosophical debate.

  • lennon #20 5 years ago

    @Segnit - It is illegal. As is murder. Your point is......

    Its a real poor taste argument. Sad really.

  • Segnit #21 5 years ago

    Let me be frank... although you guys are the hardcore gamers... you are in fact also the small fish. Harsh but hey... it's only true.

    Edit: To lennon - i wasn't talking about the law as I'm sure that you've already noticed.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 09:21

  • ChimneyBug #22 5 years ago

    what are you on about? Child porn is not censorship. Censorship of child porn is censorship and child porn isnt censored, its banned, illegal, completely disallowed. In a vaguely relative sense, things that are illegal are therefore being censored, but you cannot compare censorship of a legal medium to the complete censorship of an illegal medium, thats just daft.

  • Kiigan #23 5 years ago

    Banned in Ireland too, though Eurogamer hasn't reported it.

  • space_ace #24 5 years ago

    r* are throwing the gauntlet, twice, and are upset by the reaction? reminds me of the gauntlet scene in robin hood: men in tights :)

  • Sie #25 5 years ago

    Segnit, you're dangerously close to saying something you may very well regret. Child porn is not about censorship, it is a very serious criminal act and has no part in this discussion. Please stop using it as a comparison no matter what your agenda may be as such a comparison is not a valid one and in very poor taste.

    Attempting to portray child pornography merely as an censorship issue not only undermines the gravity of such a crime but will also undeniably cast a very bad light on anything you have to say here.

  • Brogan #26 5 years ago

    the BBFC themselves a few weeks ago said that games were LESS harmful, because of their interactivity, than films.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 11:19

  • Segnit #27 5 years ago

    ChimneyBug, you did indeed correct me, so that's a positive step for sure.

    In other words, banning child pornography by law was an effort to weed out the problem. When they do crack down on child porn, every country censors the images in their news. So yes it's banned and yes it's censored.

    So in essence, agreeing with 1 ban while disagreeing with another makes your way of thinking an opinion rather then fact.

    Reality check: The notion that Manhunt 2 shouldn't be banned is an unpopular opinion among the masses. Likewise one can argue that it is the unideal opinion just like a "pro child porn" view is an unideal opinion according to me and the vast majority of people on this planet.

  • zuljin #28 5 years ago

    @Gene
    "this is madness!!"

    Madness?

    This... Is... ENGLAND!!!

  • Chaote-Imagicka #29 5 years ago

    "Except for the one random psycho who always lets the side down... grrr"

    Irrelevant - a random psycho in america shot five people to death over a period of several months because his neighbour's dog told him to. We don't ban dogs because of nutcases. Further no actual act of murder has yet to be directly linked to any videogame. The attempts to do so with the original Manhunt went awry when it was revealed that killer hadn't played the game it was the victim. And the only person suggesting a link between the game and killing was the stupid bitch who let her son play it.

    "Let's face it, virtually all of us (I hope) would say that all forms of child porn should be banned from any kind of distribution - so a line in the sand already exists, whether we like it or not."

    Not actually true. Currently* the creation and distribution of artificial (ie drawn, computer generated, textual) pornography involving minors is legal and frankly should remain so. We limit child pornography for the same reason we wouldn't allow a film to be distributed that showed actual rape or murder for entertainment purposes. What is illegal isn't the film itself it's the actions that went into creating it and the profiting from those actions that is illegal. If somebody could show that the making of manhunt involved killing actual people rather than collections of pixels I would support a ban.

    *Currently - the bloody government does currently have legislative plans to criminalise such works in the near future. I'm unsure of how far along these plans are progressing as it only affects me one area - namely the purchase of Alan Moore's book Lost Girls. Since the owning of this would be illegal under the new legislation I'm going to have to wait until I get the hell out of this crappy censorship driven country before I can read it,if I'd already bought it I'd pay more attention to when the law changes to ensure I'd gotten rid of it before the government decided what I could and couldn't read.

    "And anyway why would you want to play a game where all you do is kill humans in a variety of different, gruesome ways, with no other variation in gameplay. How is that enjoyable, or a good way to pass any spare time?"

    Tetris? All you do is makes blocks fit into lines. No other variation. I have no idea how many hours I've lost to doing the most repetitive actions imaginable since that game came out. Reduce a game to it's absolute bare bones and it will almost always seem stupid. Actually Manhunt 2 will feature I high level of sneaking, tactical movements to enable the environment to work to your advantage etc.

    "Thus, you guys would make for poor-to-average politicians incapable of making your voices effectively heard in public."

    Given your response to protest 3 I agree. We'd appeal to responsibility, personal choice and liberty rather than pandering to "I don't like it so it must be banned" crowd.

    "Seems like, for some people, they've finally crossed the line. And I can't say I'm sad about that."

    Neither am I. What I'm sad about is the idea that my entertainment habits and choices should be limited by popular opinion as an adult to the same degree they were limited and restricted when I was a child.

  • zuljin #30 5 years ago

    @attacanteblue
    "Let's face it, virtually all of us (I hope) would say that all forms of child porn should be banned from any kind of distribution"

    Sorry don't want to get involved, but it is a slightly different case however. A movie of a child in sexual poses would be illegal, and therefore censored.

    I think the right analogy would be to say, would you approve of virtual child porn?

    Carry on...

    EDIT: Whoops got to the party REALLY late...
    Edited by 2 at 20/06/07 @ 09:43

  • corzair #31 5 years ago

    too much mind polution - there has to be limits we live in a changing environment so limits change but generally this a good move.
    besides theres a few games coming up i've kinda gone off like bioshock certain aspects not nice, nasty even but there i vote with me wallet

  • Segnit #32 5 years ago

    My point number 2 still stands and anyone to only raise that point is obviously trying to derail this argument into something wrong. Misinterpreting my "point 2" will seriously devalue you as a human.

    All 3 arguments still stand I'm afraid. And i still sympathize with the pro Manhunt 2 gang. But I've mentioned it all in my 2nd post on this topic

    Edit:
    Even though i can't say i agree with Chaote-Imagicka on everything he said (though i have to admit that he was pretty spot on), he definitely is a cut above the rest on his debating skills.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 09:46

  • dcangel #33 5 years ago

    "the BBFC should only exist to rate films. Anything hardcore should be R18, nothing should be banned."

    Unfortunately it's not up to you to make that decision. The BBFC bases its rules on continual surveys of public opinion, and this implies that the majority of the viewing public would be upset or offended by the content of this game.

    Here are some extracts from the BBFC's website for your edification, regarding the criteria they use:

    - is the material in conflict with the law?
    - is the material, at the age group concerned, likely to be harmful?
    - is the material, at the age group concerned, clearly unacceptable to broad public opinion? (It is on this ground, for example, that the Board intervenes in respect of language. This ground also applies at '18', although here it is balanced against the public expectation that adults should be free to choose their entertainment, within the law.)
    ---
    "The Board will attempt to deal with films, videos or DVDs which are unacceptable at any category through intervention such as making cuts or requiring the addition of warning captions. If this is not possible or not acceptable to the distributor, works may be refused classification altogether. ‘Taboo’ themes are acceptable, but not if their treatment is likely to encourage harm to viewers or, through their behaviour, to society."
    ---
    The website also lists "graphic rape or torture" and "sadistic violence and terrorisation" as major points of concern.

    Also, an interesting blog post that weighs up both sides of the argument: http://bl ogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives...
    Edited by 2 at 20/06/07 @ 09:48

  • WriterUK #34 5 years ago

    "... While we respect the authority of the classification board and will abide by the rules..."

    What, no appeal then Rockstar?

    Good idea.

  • kangarootoo #35 5 years ago

    @MinuteMan_X

    Ooh, its like a red rag to a bull :)

    You seem to be challenging people to disagree with the fact that you oppose censorship. I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. What I think you are actually challenging us to do is find flaws in your beliefs.

    Lets be clear right from the off, the act is utterly futile as I have no doubt your beliefs are as firm as the Pope's. And whether you change your mind at some point in your life (as is likely), its not going to happen here in a spirit of "them and us" forum discussion.

    But I do like a good chit chat, especially when faced with such an assured (and therefore hopefully informed) point of view.

    So, first off humour me with a definition of "libertarianism" as you live it.

    Also, you say you oppose state censorship, does that mean personal censorship (a parent restricting the access of the own child) is ok? If so, what about community censorship (a school restricting the access of its pupils for example)? What I really asking is, at what point does the "individual" end the "state" begin?

    :)

  • SimonM7 #36 5 years ago

    How is killing polygon people and raping kids even remotely the same thing?

  • kangarootoo #37 5 years ago

    @dcangel

    +3 for taking on the mantel of presenting actual factual information :)

  • kangarootoo #38 5 years ago

    @SimonM7

    They are of course not remotely the same thing. That isn't the point. I call strawman on you (wiki it).

  • Faceman #39 5 years ago

    "Misinterpreting my "point 2" will seriously devalue you as a human"

    Eh?

  • Siberian_Khatru #40 5 years ago

    Whats wrong with not being able to buy a game from some major retailer? Buy it elsewhere. You wont be persecuted just for owning it.

    Oh, and thats not state censorship, more like corporate censorship.

  • Segnit #41 5 years ago

    >Faceman:
    >"Misinterpreting my "point 2" will seriously devalue you as a human"
    >
    >Eh?


    Some people take it that i was condoning that act. Sad but true.

  • dcangel #42 5 years ago

    kangarootoo: Well, the debate seems to be losing touch with reality, so it seemed necessary. :)

    Just for the record, I'm not necessarily in favour of censorship either, but very little is really known about the long-term psychological effects of video games (or, for that matter, movies and TV), and it seems to me that it is more socially responsible to err on the side of caution in certain cases.

    Incidentally, is anyone any the wiser as to whether Rockstar will be appealing the decision? That is their lawful right, after all. If they don't appeal, it would raise some interesting questions.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 10:04

  • Segnit #43 5 years ago

    I think they will appeal their "AO" rating in the states. At least that's how i feel. Who knows time will tell.

  • Verwandlung #44 5 years ago

    Next, ban Edgar Allen Poe!









    (I liked Manhunt very much)

  • kangarootoo #45 5 years ago

    @Sofalover

    "What if those surveys are taken in a twee Dorset village? I have never been surveyed have you? "

    Oh ffs. You don't know how the surveys are conducted, so you start presented grossly distorted possibilities that are of course easy to attack. I've never been polled for TV viewing figures, but I don't doubt its a very encompassing process.

    "It actually makes me feel sick to think of these middle class twats sat in a viewing room judging what "ordinary people" are capable of handling,"

    They DON'T. They bloody DON'T! jesus, its like you are pretending to be dense and I know you aren't really). How are you still unable to grasp this?

    They are normal people, and they don't "decide" what we get to see. They follow the rules laid out for them, rules which are created by surveyihng a huge number of people from all walks of life.

    What you seem to be suggesting is that you don't like anyone controlling your life in any way. Well my response to that is the same as it was on every other thread on this subject. If you CHOOSE to live in society, you CHOOSE to be governed by laws that may not suit you. You choose it to be that way!

    At any point in your life you can row a boat out into the middle of the ocean and I guarantee you will have all the freedom you can eat. And then all the middle class cunts can rule themselves inot oblivion, leaving you to chuckle away to yourself as the sharks start to circle.

  • knocker #46 5 years ago

    AFAIK - the laws against child porn even prohibit the *simulation* of child pornography - i.e. no illegal act needs to have been committed in the production of the pictures. "Pretending" an illegal act has taken place is enough to fall foul of the law. This is censorship.

    (Clarification is welcome - I'm not going to start looking into this sort of thing at work!)

    Another minor point is that in the majority of horror films mentioned you are (usually) expected to empathise with the victims. Not so in this case.

    Having said that - I'm really not sure about banning stuff - this game isn't really my sort of thing - but I'm uncomfortable about telling other people what they should or shouldn't watch/play/read.

    Ultimately, a big "so what" (gamers can be so selfish) a few gamers are prevented from playing at murder - and rockstar have found that using controversy as PR can come back to bite you.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 10:31

  • Segnit #47 5 years ago

    kangarootoo, I admire your effort to show and correct some of Sofalover's miscalculated statements but i really think that he made his point clear. He wont budge and had already made up his mind a long time back.

  • RexRunti #48 5 years ago

    OK for those of you whining about how games are always getting a rough deal compared to movies the BBFC have banned exactly ONE game. Manhunt2. Yes 10 years ago they initially refused a rating to the full version of Carmageddon (it was released in an edited form rated 15) but when SCI appealed to the BBFC the BBFC allowed the full game to be released and the BBFC modified their criteria. Also for those of you repeatedly asking how is Manhunt 2 different from Hostel 2, American Psycho, Gears of War or whatever it is quite clear from the BBFCs statement that the answer is CONTEXT. The BBFC won't ban a game/movie because it has too much sex/violence/swearing it is the context that these are set in, and even then it will suggest cutting or editing to make it acceptable. This why the rape scene in Perfect Blue passes without issue but the rape scene in Urotsikadoji (Legend of the Overfiend) does not. In the former the scene it is made clear that it isn't a real rape and everyone feels guilty about it, in the latter the girl appears to enjoy it which was deemed entirly unacceptable and hence edited to avoid this. Incidently the scene has been shown on british television as it was discussed it from a purely academic context not as part of a (pretty flimsy) story.

    So if any movie or game sees the hero (as opposed to the protagonist) systimatically torture humans for personal gratification without consequence or respite then you can expect it to be banned. Likewise I'm sure other games that have already been produced and are freely available in Japan (where I used to live) should be banned in the UK.

  • BadBoyBonner #49 5 years ago

    However compelling the ground for interference is, it has to take into account the concept of *proportionality*. This concept ensures that such intervention must not be the “sledgehammer to crack a nut” and must manifest itself as the least amount of interference to reach a just result.


    Shouldn't the 18 rating stop the product being sold to children?

    If not, due to a contrary argument that it does not work – then why do we have it at all?
    Edited by 3 at 20/06/07 @ 10:50

  • dcangel #50 5 years ago

    Segnit: I guess they would be fools not to, since an AO rating for a game generally leads to retailers refusing to stock it. I'd expect at least Germany and Australia to ban it as well, given their rating bodies are somewhat less lenient than either ours or the US'.

    Sofalover: I haven't been surveyed. If I were to be surveyed, I would make my views known accordingly. However, if you visit the BBFC's website, you'll find an address you can write to in order to make your views known.

    Anyway, I'm talking about social responsibility, something that a great number of people these days (nudge, nudge) don't seem to care about. I agree with the right of a person to choose his or her own entertainment as far as the law allows, but if we choose to live in a given society, it seems to me that we have a responsibility to at the very least obey the rules of that society, even if we disagree with them as in this case.

    Edit: Bugger. You beat me to it, kangarootoo. :D
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 10:34

  • kangarootoo #51 5 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner

    Given the rarity of a BBFC ban being issued, and given the extreme content of this title in particular, I'm not sure we can accuse the BBFC of a disproportionate response in this case.

    It seems to me more like a very rare exception to their normal behaviour, but they have explained clearly why the exception was made.

  • AcidSnake #52 5 years ago

    So...When's this out anyway?
    So far it isn't banned over here yet...

  • SBfistfun #53 5 years ago

    Cop for that Cockstar

  • zuljin #54 5 years ago

    @RexRunti
    "So if any movie or game sees the hero (as opposed to the protagonist) systimatically torture humans for personal gratification without consequence or respite then you can expect it to be banned."

    I wouldn't say I'm upset at the decision or anything, and I know I haven't played Manhunt 2, so I may be making a wide variety of assumptions here, but I feel the context of Manhunt 2 more acceptable than Manhunt 1. This is what I understand:

    Manhunt 1: You've done a crime you're sentenced to death for. You're obviously not a nice person, but by commiting more violence (albeit forced), you get your freedom.

    Manhunt 2: You've been locked up in an asylum (but at one point you were sane). You get to exact revenge on the people who "took your life".

    I personally find the second context more appealing, and much more interesting to explore. All I know is that I'm gonna have to try and get an import version now... :(

  • DanWhitehead #55 5 years ago

    It bears repeating that the BBFC didn't just stomp over to Rockstar's HQ and say "You can't release this game, you naughty little boys". Rockstar submitted the game, voluntarily, to be rated. Judged by their criteria, the BBFC felt unable to award a suitable rating. Thanks to the quirks of the system, this means that Rockstar is now unable to release the game. So while the end result is the same, it's not as cut and dried as the BBFC "banning" the game.

    Movies like Hostel 2 and The Hills Have Eyes have been passed without cuts. Games like Condemned allow me to smash hobos in the head with lead pipes. I can walk into most high street DVD shops and buy the uncensored work of Takashi Miike. The notion that BBFC are reducing our entertainment to bland mush is demonstrably false.

    Perhaps the solution is a system similar to US movie ratings, where studios have the option to release something unrated rather than abide by the MPAA decision. The downside is that few mainstream outlets will stock or advertise unrated products. People who really want it are able to find it, but you lose the casual impulse purchasers. That way, if Rockstar were truly commited to the artistic statement being made by Manhunt 2, they could still get it out there - albeit as a less commercially viable product.

    I also think it's worth pointing out that calling the BBFC a bunch of cunts for denying you access to simulated murder probably isn't the best way to demonstrate the mature adult consumer Rockstar claim the game is aimed at.

  • mattjohnston #56 5 years ago

    Have none of you people considered that in this move, the BBFC is actually attempting to PROTECT the games industry rather than hold it back? Think about what would happen if a game like their descriptions suggests were released.
    1 -- It would be rated 18, but that doesn't matter to most parents because they're completely clueless about video games, and especially video game ratings, and they just want their 14 year old to stop nagging them. That in itself would cause uproar once those daft parents actually took a look at the game they just bought for their own kids, which might in effect lead to the government deciding that the BBFC isn't doing its job properly, and take over the reigns themselves, leading to even tighter laws.

    2 -- The industry could have another case like that of Warren LeBlanc on their hands, where a real life brutal murder takes place, and the killer, in some attempt to have their sentence reduced on grounds of diminished responsibility or similar, blames Manhunt 2. The tabloids would have a field day, and try and disgrace the entire industry...GTA4 would have a lot more trouble getting released and the government could even reconsider some of the (admittedly pitiful) funding that they give to the UK games industry.

    Are either of these two outcomes preferable to most of you than the slighty more difficult way of trying to buy the game? I mean, I'm assuming most of the people complaining that they're adults and deserve to make up their own minds are actually over the age of 18-20 and probably have their own debit/credit card, and can therefore just buy a copy of the game when it comes out in some other country....can't you?

  • spongebob #57 5 years ago

    "The stories in modern videogames are as diverse as the stories in books, film and television. The adult consumers who would play this game fully understand that it is fictional interactive entertainment and nothing more."

    This Rockstar comment is a valid point, but it's not something you can just throw in the ring as a generic reply.

    You can't really just say that since there are so many types of other content in other media, you're free to do anything you want with some newer medium. And while there are seriously vile and purposelessly sick movies (Eli Roth's latest stuff, anyone?) out there, it doesn't mean you can or should be able to pull the same thing off in videogames.

    Of course it's a bit hard to discuss a game I haven't even tried yet, but if they don't have some really clever story in it and offer some food for thought when player offs virtual characters, I'd say the ban might be warranted.

    Has anyone here read Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho? It's probably the most graphically violent book I've ever read, but because of how Ellis handles the subject and laces it with important and thought-provoking social commentary, you actually gain a lot more than just a sick feeling in the head and stomach from the reading experience.

    If there's no underlying message or any commentary on the subject, ultraviolence is just violent porn, and it's hard to think of any really good reasons why something like that should be distributed widely. Marginal underground scenes are a completely different situation...
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 11:26

  • SimonM7 #58 5 years ago

    @ Kangarootoo

    I do believe that very much was the point. Being one to "not believe in censorship" that usually applies to a creative medium. See, movies depicting child rape (though difficult to shoot I would imagine) and actual child porn are, at least in my eyes, rather significantly different.

    Even more so when we're talking about VIRTUAL people getting killed.

    So yes, I think the point being made was very much in relation to child porn being this awful thing that nobody would want to exist, and using that to somehow invalidate someone elses point about censorship being wrong.

    Truth is, child porn is banned because real people are getting hurt for real. Rape is depicted in film pretty often, sometimes in gut wrenching detail, but it's still just fiction.

    Seeing the distinction here IS the point.

  • zuljin #59 5 years ago

    DanWhitehead +1

  • RexRunti #60 5 years ago

    @DanWhitehead

    It's not quite true that R* voluntary submitted the game to the BBFC. The requirements are more "if you think the game will need a rating you should submit it" not "submit if you want to". R* would have a hard time arguing that Manhunt 2 would be exempt from BBFC rating.

    @mattjohnston

    Although we are on the same side in this argument I fundementally disagree with both of your points. Age restrictions are legally in place so the possibility of kids being in contact is reduced. You can't ban driving for all because some people may break the law. Also I would hope the BBFC continue to ignore any pressure from the media.

    I'm against censorship in general (pro restriction by age) but there has to be a line somewhere and what I've seen of Manhunt 2 and my respect for the BBFC makes me think that this game has crossed it.

  • spongebob #61 5 years ago

    By the way, I think one of the main problems with games rating as it stands is the fact that it still is regarded as mostly a medium for underaged consumers. No matter what your arguments are, in the general public's eye games are mostly the same as Nintendo, Mario, DS, Nintendogs and kids playing them. This is the reason so many "uneducated" people are reacting the way they are.

    Movies, books and other mediums have a completely different situation as they have already gone through many of the censorship battles games are just starting to face. Add to that the fact, that the medium is interactive and as such harder to evaluate when it comes to how it affects people. Some say active participation makes it less harmful, others say exactly the opposite.

    This is not an easy issue for any parties involved. In some way it's good that we have Rockstar because they're helping to forge the future standards for what is feasable to show in mainstream games and what is not.

  • kangarootoo #62 5 years ago

    @SimonM7

    Sorry dude, I've lost the thread a bit here. Are you sure it was one of my posts you were responding to. If so, apologies, I need a bit more info (feel free to quote me so I know wwhich bit you are on about) :)

  • mattjohnston #63 5 years ago

    @RexRunti

    "You can't ban driving for all because some people may break the law. Also I would hope the BBFC continue to ignore any pressure from the media. "

    Yes, I agree in that they probably did not ban it for this reason alone, but I'm fairly sure that would have been in the back of their minds. The majority of parents really need to be educated on the ratings systems for games, but unfortunately I think a lot of them would rather just live in ignorance so that they can raise their children by "remote control".

    And has been said already, this isn't really a case of out and out censorship, Rockstar voluntarily submitted their game for classification, the BBFC couldn't give it a rating, and that is why it has been labelled as "banned"... in reality the BBFC doesn't even have a 'banned' rating, if you look at this page http://ww w.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified...

  • SomaticSense #64 5 years ago

    I hate censorship and have always been behind Rockstar's opinion that they are all just games.

    But to have a Manhunt game using the Wii controller was always overstepping the mark in my opinion. To use the whole 'but using a controller seperates people from actually performing the violence' has always been the best argument for games like the first Manhunt, but the Wii controller now makes it pointless. Actually simulating he motion of garotting someone is just going way too far.

    Not surprised it's banned. This and the James Bulger thing really makes the whole Church of England issue look pathetic.

  • UncleLou #65 5 years ago

    Censorship or not, Rockstar are bloody idiots for provocing a new mass media hysteria with a game that's probably not even terribly good.

  • BadBoyBonner #66 5 years ago

    SomaticSense - put the Wii controller aside - as it is banned on the PS2 also.

  • Devilbod #67 5 years ago

    Rockstar will probably appeal, after all it's about money for them, I really doubt that they are pushing the envelope out of some noble crusade over censorship; they are doing it for money and the free pr from the press.

    What’s more interesting to me is it doesn't appear to have hit the mainstream news yet, I don’t know about the papers but nothing on the BBC, if this keeps up then this could be better because the self selling pr machine won’t get the attention it needs and maybe Rockstar will stop deliberately doing this to get sales.

    Im sitting on the fence with the whole what should be/not be banned thing, because I don’t know what is in the game, but over all the BBFC do seem to do a good job, I remember when this happen with Urotsikadoji the Press and Government where ranting that it should be banned but the BBFC didnt flinch.

    But I really don’t like the way Rockstar has to make games that do stir things up all the time, it isn’t really helping things and it makes it easy for people to point a finger however wrong it maybe and blame computer games for they’re own or societies failings.

  • mattjohnston #68 5 years ago

    @Devilbod

    The BBC had it briefly on the front page of their news website (in "other Top Stories" at the top right mind you, not as a main headline)...but now its been relegated to the same location inside of the "Technology" section. I'm fairly sure the tabloids are having their usual field day with it.

  • The-Bodybuilder #69 5 years ago

    >"this is madness!! "

    Madness?

    THIS. IS. CENSORSHIIIIIIIIP.

    /boots Gene into deep pit.

  • RexRunti #70 5 years ago

    @SimonM7

    Yes rape has been simulated in movies before but the way it is shown is where the regulation comes in. (See my post above re:perfect Blue vs Urotsikidoji) And yes you talk about the distinction between the two. This appears to be where Manhunt 2 has fallen foul of the guidlines as it does not make the distinction that brutally murdering and torchering people is bad in fact it actually encourages it. And there are games from Japan where you can (and encouraged to without consequence) rape VIRTUAL people and I would fully expect these games to be refused a BBFC rating in the UK as well.

  • sanctusmortis #71 5 years ago

    It's quite blatant from that statement they're milking this. After all, it's not like the game was going to be massively popular, and now it's front page news in some papers. So, if they get the ban lifted, their (probably terrible as in not fun) game sells loads off the controversy.

    The ban was right from everything I've heard, and good on the BBFC.

  • lennon #72 5 years ago

    "This appears to be where Manhunt 2 has fallen foul of the guidlines as it does not make the distinction that brutally murdering and torchering people is bad in fact it actually encourages it."

    Apply that statement to GTA or Saints Row where you are encoraged to commit crimes often against officers of the law and almost always against innocent bystanders and whats the difference?

  • BadBoyBonner #73 5 years ago

    @Kangarootoo - proportionality

    While they have offered explanation (which I have read by the way! Lol) – I do feel that in reality the argument they are using – while effective and arguably valid – is also one that could be put forward with at least equal force to other medium that they have released.

    I think the most informed out cry, from the games industry or it’s consumers, is one against those calling for the game to be banned, also possibly correlate to those that would/will never have played it, or even have knowledge of it, were it not for this ruling by the BBFC.

    If BBFC are the moral champions and divine saviours of us, the benighted rubes, rather than knee-jerk popularist self servers, then surely they are implying films like Hostel 2 should not be released.

    Least we forget, in justification of the BBFC’s credibility, this is the same organisation that banned Carmageddon in 1997 (subsequently overturned on appeal) but gave the “thumbs up” to releasing DeathRace 2000 in 1975.

    I think the Kaiser Chiefs said it best - “We are the angry mob, we read the papers everyday. We like who we like, we hate who we hate; but we are all so easily swayed….”
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 12:51

  • dcangel #74 5 years ago

    lennon: "Apply that statement to GTA or Saints Row where you are encoraged to commit crimes often against officers of the law and almost always against innocent bystanders and whats the difference?"

    The difference is that both these games have something else to offer the gamer in addition. Manhunt 2 does not - it ostensibly fixates specifically on torture and violence seemingly for its own sake. All the previews I've read essentially say the same thing.

    BadBoyBonner: "I do feel that in reality the argument they are using – while effective and arguably valid – is also one that could be put forward with at least equal force to other medium that they have released."

    The media are fundamentally different, therefore I'd put it to you that the comparison isn't entirely useful. Watching a violent movie is unarguably a more passive, less participatory pursuit than playing a violent videogame. Violence in movies is frequently (but not always) balanced out by the perpetrator getting his or her just desserts, or by the fact that the perpetrator is insane or otherwise clearly not intended as a role model. Sometimes, the wider societal consequences of said violence are also shown. In games, however, violence is frequently implied to be free of negative consequences, as has been stated previously. That is where the distinction lies, in my mind.

  • RexRunti #75 5 years ago

    @Lennon

    Actually in GTA you can commit crimes against officers of the law whether you are encouraged to or not is another question. Also there are consequences for shooting an officer, normally this means you are attacked by more and more police officers until you escape or (more normally) die. Secondly the police in GTA are generally portrayed as almost as bad if not worse than the protagonist, often corrupt and certainly not innocent. Also GTA has humourous and almost slapstick quality to it, Overlord also encourages violence against innocents but I doubt anyone here would expect it to get an 18 rating let alone a "ban". And finally GTA could be considered to have commentary on modern life in the city under pinning it all. Whilst all this means the game certainly isn't suitable for children there is nothing contencious enough to mean an adult shouldn't be allowed to play it.

    Manhunt 2 does not appear to have any of these redeeming qualities and GTA certainly does not encourage unconsequential torture. This is why the BBFC feel Manhunt 2 has crossed the line which no game and only a hanful of movies have crossed before.

    Edit: Spelling
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 13:31

  • kangarootoo #76 5 years ago

    @Sofalover

    The BBFC do not get their information in the same way Loreal do. They have absolutely no agenda to load their questions or skew demographics.

    You seem to have this idea that the BBFC are some evil group, who will distort the truth in order to restrict the distribution of games and films. I'm really not sure where this is coming from, but I might cheekily suggest that your views on censorship have become a chip on your shoulder that is distorting your OWN view of things in this case.

    As far as the agenda of the BBFC to apparently inhibit your fun, if anything the exact opposite is true. The BBFC people I met were rationale, restrained, they were all around their early 30s and into lots of the same stuff that we are. Believe me, if any of their time is spent trying to influence things, it is spent trying to stop a vocal minority restricting access by anyone to anything.

    The way things are rated is based on starting with a clean sheet. Everything starts off essentially with the lowest rating, and is then compared against a checklist of issues that may raise its rating. You seem to think they are all about restriction, when in fact their job is simply to rate things according to the rules they are set.

    If someone CHOOSES to submit their work for assessment (as has been mentioned numerous times, this submission is voluntary), and in the end the BBFC find they CANNOT apply a rating according to the rules they are set, banning is the only possible result. They don't ban as such, but they can sometimes fail to award a rating. Most of the time they pass things unchanged, very occasionally they make suggestions for cuts that will result in recategorisation, extremely rarely they can do neither and so an effective band results.

    Man, I feel like a stuck record here. A lot of time and effort would be saved if people just did a bit of reasearch and tried to view things objectively.

    "They have no mandate to ban anything as far as I'm concerned"

    Well as I CONTINUE to say, they DO have that mandate as far as the majority of the society in which you CHOOSE to live are concerned. So the choice ultimately is your own and you can't really blame anyone else for it.


    Aimed at everyone.

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

    Please bloody read this. Its very interesting as it shows the exact details of eacg game listed. If everyone reads this before continuing we might actually make some way toward knowing wtf we are all discussing here.

  • BadBoyBonner #77 5 years ago

    @DCangel - "perpetrator getting his or her just desserts" - isn't failure to complete the task in-hand exactly the same?

    Someone getting something they do not want against someone not getting something they do want.

    Seems like an argument of semantics - Someone achieving something they do not want against someone not achieving something they do want.

    Player thus getting his just deserts through failure of the mission.

    Empirical evidence for interaction, and the affect upon the user, seems from one study to the next to be diametrically opposed. Who is to say that little Johnny was or was not influenced far more by the death of his gerbil his Dad stood on in rage as opposed to a game like Manhunt, or when he got called fat at school etc etc etc.

    I am stood in mock surprise, that such a thing as murder even existed before the advent of computer games.

    “The media are fundamentally different, therefore I'd put it to you that the comparison isn't entirely useful.” You then go on to state in your next statement – to make a (supposedly) inarguable comparison

    “Watching a violent movie is unarguably a more passive, less participatory pursuit than playing a violent videogame.” The implication here is that watching violence that for all the world seems real, with real people, (film) somehow has less of an impact than playing a low fidelity – clearly no real people involved - game on the Wii/PS2. I disagree.

    “Violence in movies is frequently (but not always) balanced out by the perpetrator getting his or her just desserts, or by the fact that the perpetrator is insane or otherwise clearly not intended as a role model” See above – in addition who said Manhunt is to be viewed as a role model – or any computer game for that matter?

    “Sometimes, the wider societal consequences of said violence are also shown. In games, however, violence is frequently implied to be free of negative consequences” Which game is it that supplies no consequential feedback?

    I dare say little Johnny finds it difficult to truly differentiate between zombies, and pale skinned people who moan a lot.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 13:49

  • thepicto #78 5 years ago

    I'm curious on one point. What is the difference between the consumer being able to make the choice to indulge in activities that don't involve killing police/innocents in a game that does allow it (GTA), and choosing to not buy or play game that has nothing else (Manhunt)? The fact that you can do other things in the GTA games doesn't seem relavant since you can choose not to torture people in manhunt by a) standing still and admiring the textures or b) not play the game in the first place.

  • SimonM7 #79 5 years ago

    @ RexRunti

    Yeah I agree with your sentiments, I was just criticising Segnit's comparison game/virtual murder and child porn, and responded to the subsequent "that's not the point" comment.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 14:00

  • kangarootoo #80 5 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner

    "The implication here is that watching violence that for all the world seems real, with real people, (film) somehow has less of an impact than playing a low fidelity – clearly no real people involved - game on the Wii/PS2. I disagree."

    Care to expand on why you disagree?

    It doesn't really do justice to your post or the discussion to, after nicely laying out what appears to be the opposite point of view, simply respond by saying "I disagree".

  • DrunKao #81 5 years ago

    Wait. Where's the added High Def Gorn?!?!?!

  • lennon #82 5 years ago

    @RexRunti - Ok I see what your saying. I cant say I entirely agree that there really is that much difference as the consequences you mention are hardly enough to put you off setting about on another crime spree seconds after being incapicitated and so there isnt really any consequence at all to killing them all over again. Would a minor understand that the police are being potrayed as not entirely innocent themselves, and especially in Saints Row progress in the game is rewarded by commiting all manner of crimes not to mention achievements given for doing so!

    The difference with Overlord is thats its a fantasy setting. I wouldnt mind betting that had Rockstar created a game where you killed Aliens or Zombies we wouldnt be having this conversation now.

    Then again I havent played and neither would I ever have played Manhunt 2. Its more the potential future ramifications of this decision that concern me.

  • Segnit #83 5 years ago

    SimonM7
    I did not mention anything on virtual murder as i recall.
    As for point number 2... what i was saying is and let's clarify this... is that censorship does exists and we are ALL fine with it (Child porn is banned/censored all across the world). So all those people arguing against censorship of any type are suggesting so while inadvertently contradicting themselves on a very deep level.

    Child Porn is very bad and is rightfully (in my opinion) banned/censored from this world.

    If i failed to make my point clear initially then i am sorry. Now that I've hopefully clarified the situation, misunderstanding should stop.

    Point 1 - Movie's are passive in nature, where as games are active. They are fundamentally different mediums at their core.

    Point 2 - ALL of you agree to censorship to a certain degree. That includes you Sofalover

    Point 3 - "I don't need to be told what i should or shouldn't be playing as I'm an adult and can decide that for myself on what to play or not" --- Assuming the person who is arguing against me is over 18 and had a relatively positive upbringing, then i agree... this decision does suck. Unfortunately for all of us though, this is not the ideal world where everything is fine and dandy.

    Additionally, we have to accept that there is a slight chance that games do negatively effect an unknown amount of minors and for many different reasons. And although that is not a reason enough to ban this game outright... it's still a cause for concern and is but one of many factors that BBFC am sure had a long hard look into.


    As it stands though, quiet a few people already made way more progress on this debate then i did.

    "mattjohnston: Have none of you people considered that in this move, the BBFC is actually attempting to PROTECT the games industry rather than hold it back? Think about what would happen if a game like their descriptions suggests were released."

    "spongbob: This is the reason so many "uneducated" people are reacting the way they are."

    The other guys who made some cool posts know who they are!

  • ruckus #84 5 years ago

    "Misinterpreting my "point 2" will seriously devalue you as a human."
    Oh do get over yourself...

  • Segnit #85 5 years ago

    I take it you didn't misinterpret it then :)
    Good for you :)

  • Sie #86 5 years ago

    I would like to bring to everyones attention the "behind the scenes" conduct of the poster Segnit with regards to this conversation. I have just received this disgusting message from Segnit in relation to my, and others, public request (you can read it in this thread) for him to stop relying on his questionable comparisons to child pornography. I duplicate his message in its entirety here.

    Segnit wrote in a private message to myself...
    "I am sorry that you feel that my private message was in anyway sinister.
    Likewise i am sorry that you interpreted any of my messages to in any way condoning child abuse, sex, rape, murder, torture etc. I am against it all.
    It is unfortunate that you were publicly putting a spin on my posts to make it seem like i was pro child sex, pro child abuse, pro murder etc. I am against all those things.

    It is unfortunate that you lack the comprehension skills to prove in any anyway that i was undermining the seriousness of child porn. Child porn is a horrible act and if you think otherwise then you can seriously go talk to people of your ilk.

    Once again, i respect your opinion except for the part where you seem fascinated with child porn."

    Segnit, for you to accuse people of being in favour of the sickening crime of child pornography because they ask you to stop using the subject in your invalid arguments is dispicable. You are conducting yourself in an absolutely disgraceful manner that needs to be brought to the attention of those engaged in this debate. I was not spinning your post, I was questioning the subject matter within it. I was not implying you were glorifying or otherwise condoning that subject matter. Should you need clarfication, read my comment in this thread again. Your interpretation is at fault.

    For you to, quite personally, attack me with harassing and upsetting private messages with appauling and slanderous accusations could land you in very, very hot water.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 14:48

  • Segnit #87 5 years ago

    Sie thanks but i beat you to it a couple of posts earlier.

    Also, i will get into hot water for what exactly again?

    Oh right you didn't read my clarification earlier.

  • Segnit #88 5 years ago

    Already managed to edit your post too, eh?

  • kangarootoo #89 5 years ago

    @Sofalover

    "if they are all in their early thirties, that in itself is skewed"

    The few that I met were, but that isn't even the point. I was just responding to your "middle class twats" comment, which I found to be wholly unobjective and written very much in the spirit of having a chip on one's shoulder, if you don't mind me saying.

    "well I have yet to ever see a survey that isn't loaded or unbalanced in some way"

    Me neither, but these things are not binary states. You seem to suggest that because no survey of the public can be infalible, we should not attempt to represent the public at all? What alternative would you suggest takes its place? Or is it representing the wishes of the populace itself that you take issue with?

    I heard a lot of complaining, but I'm not seeing any suggested alternatives other than anarchy. Anarchy always seems like a fine idea to angry young minds, but the reality of anarchy is that someone is murdering your family for fun and profit and there is no one to help you stop them.

    That is one of the things that bugs me about the "the state shouldn't tell me what to do" attitude. When someone is told "no" they get all irate, but if their house gets burgled or a family member falls ill, who do they call?

    Being told "no" occasionally is part of adult life. Sometimes we want things to be a certain way, but they aren't. We accept that however because we realise life isn't perfect and overall we have things pretty damn good. And that if we want so many other freedoms (such as not being shot and robbed) we have to deal with certain restrictions (restrictions that occur because others think they know better than us, which often as not, they do).

    We accept all of this, unless we refute reality and the life we have chosen for ourselves. For you to be able to buy exactly what you want WOULD impinge on someone elses rights. That is a fact; a fact that demonstrates just how subjective rights really are.

  • Sie #90 5 years ago

    Segnit.

    Your delusional self-serving moral highground is no excuse to accuse anyone of the things you have simply because they question your dumbing down of the severity of the topics you choose to compare censorship too.

    Your own posts are all the evidence needed with regards to your defamatory and questionable conduct.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 15:03

  • Segnit #91 5 years ago

    Sie,
    Look mate, no offense but you are way off topic. I contacted you privately to see what your beef was and you explained it to me. Thus i responded with a reply clarifying that child porn was all wrong. And what did you do? You go ahead and post the message for all to see? And without even a warning or permission from me? Anyways i don't mind cause it only hammers on the point that I've been making.

    Good luck with your English skills though... like in the first private message i sent you i told you that i love your writing style and use of English. You are definitely ace and i forgive you! We all make mistakes. And if you don't want forgiveness then i forgive you anyways.

    Why was i gonna get in hot water again by the way?

  • BadBoyBonner #92 5 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    "The implication here is that watching violence that for all the world seems real, with real people, (film) somehow has less of an impact than playing a low fidelity – clearly no real people involved - game on the Wii/PS2. I disagree."

    Care to expand on why you disagree?

    It doesn't really do justice to your post or the discussion to, after nicely laying out what appears to be the opposite point of view, simply respond by saying "I disagree".

    -------------------
    Expansion of disagreement

    I disagree that – the low fidelity of the Wii/PS2 systems, with avatars that are clearly unreal – has greater impact upon the viewer/gamer than…

    Real people who talk to each and can convey every human emotion, at film resolution, using effects that are by definition developed to be indistinguishable from real life.

    If this was the case then developers would have long ago solved the problem of generating emotional connection whilst simultaneously allowing complete freedom and without recourse to narrative driven non-interactive cut scenes. This is clearly not the case.

    Lets take Rocky as a yard stick.

    From my experience both personally (myself and people I have been with witnessing both), by social commentary from comedians (notably Eddie Murphy) and by general consensus through the relative success of both; a stronger argument could probably be put forward that most people felt a greater emotional connection to the protagonist in the film than the game – yet the game is interactive and the film supposedly inarguably passive.

    If the inarguably passive criteria existed, then resting heart rates and adrenalin levels would ONLY fluctuate while playing the game and not the film. What I am submitting is that interaction happens at many levels both psychological and physiological regardless of direct input on the outcome – or bearing witness as a third-party.

    If this was not the case, post traumatic stress disorder could not exist. It does exist.


    My submission in a nutshell is this – interaction does not inextricably lead to a heightened level of attachment; and passive viewing does not guarantee detachment.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 15:19

  • zuljin #93 5 years ago

    @Segnit
    Not that I want to get involved in but this:

    "And without even a warning or permission from me?"

    To me is an admission of guilt...

    Not sure what of, mind.

  • ruckus #94 5 years ago

    If it was a private message then I think you can assume that the author wanted it to remain so or they'd just post it directly to 'comments'.

  • Sie #95 5 years ago

    Segnit, all that is needed is for you to apologise for your accusatory, slanderous remarks. This is what has offended me.

    Failing that, you can continue to play this juvenile egocentric victory chasing game you're playing. I also request for the second time that you stop sending me private messages as I will not be responding to them and consider them harassment. As I stated, if you have anything to say regarding my comments, state it publicly, including any loaded, dafamatory remarks you may want to direct at me.

  • Segnit #96 5 years ago

    Nope... i sent him a PRIVATE message. But anyhow the message is there for all to read :)

  • Segnit #97 5 years ago

    Sie,
    No offense mate but you are off topic

  • zuljin #98 5 years ago

    @ruckus
    Not sure if directed at me but... Thats the whole point isn't it. My private messages are private because I don't want to bother the whole site with them, never because I worry what other people might think what I write in them.

    Ironic all of this is in a thread about censorship :)

  • kangarootoo #99 5 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner

    Thats the spirit :)

    Edit: and I think I agree with your final summary. However, I think to some degree so would the original poster.

    You declare quite definite states.

    "interaction does not inextricably lead to a heightened level of attachment; and passive viewing does not guarantee detachment. "

    but I am not sure the original poster was suggesting the contrary. Supposing about the degree of influence of each media type, and how in turn that influence might be affected by the degree of interactivity, is not to state somethign as fact one way or the other. Your final summary is erring on the side of putting words into someone elses mouth (and might even warrant me wheeling out a strawman :) ).
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 15:36

  • Segnit #100 5 years ago

    Zuljin, if you simply read my email you'd realize that i am not bothered with people reading it. What i said in the message still stands. On top of that, it was a private matter and there was no reason for the whole site to be dragged into this moronic and and childish discussion. Also he has edited almost all his posts which makes them a bit untrustworthy as he can change what he says any time.

    I still don't understand why he thought i could get into trouble for what i said.
    Anyways, I forgive him and all is well :)

  • Sie #101 5 years ago

    Segnit, I'm absolutely speechless. Truly, I am. I have nothing more to say on the matter. Should you be interested, my edits were merely grammatical in nature, the content of my post, despite your implication, has not been altered.

    Apologies to Eurogamer for temporarily derailing the subject. Let the Manhunt 2 discussion continue.

  • kangarootoo #102 5 years ago

    "Segnit, I'm absolutely speechless. Truly, I am"

    I wish you bloody both were. No one has any clue what you are on about anymore.

    Right, here is a competition. The bigger man is the one that stops talking first, thus demonstrating how they truly don't give a crap what the other poster thinks.

  • zuljin #103 5 years ago

    /Tumbleweed

  • SimonM7 #104 5 years ago

    @ Segnit

    I got your point Segnit, it's not that I didn't get it. You wanna compare fictious content (albeit tasteless and unsettling) to photographed rape of children and I reckon that's a stupid comparison.

    When someone is against censorship, that person isn't saying I LIKE IT THAT CHILDREN ARE BEING RAPED. Just because someone wants creative content in their un-compromised form doesn't mean he's condoning child porn.

    People aren't dying/getting raped as a result of making Manhunt 2 or any movie featuring scenes depicting rape, and that means that your child porn vs creative content point is completely irrelevant.

    I'm not wildly interested in debating this further, I'm just clarifying that there was nothing vague about your statement, and I fully got it.

  • lennon #105 5 years ago

    Ok Im going to have to ask about this strawman business.

    Where I work its been banded about for a while in management meetings and from what I can tell it means.

    "I have not got a clue where we are going or what we need to do but what I want you to do is go away and do all my work for me."

    Is it being used in the same meaning here? It sounds bloody crap by the way.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 15:51

  • Segnit #106 5 years ago

    Got you SimonM7!

    I'm glad that's sorted (Though i am not sure whether we're talking about point 1, 2 or 3).

  • ruckus #107 5 years ago

    @lennon
    strawman from wikipedia.


  • zuljin #108 5 years ago

    Iron Man from wikipedia.

    Sorry couldn't resist.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 16:06

  • RexRunti #109 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo and BadBoyBonner

    I read in an interview in the latest Edge with the BBFC that people are actually less affected by computer games than films. The reason being if you are subjected to distasteful images in film you carry on sitting and watching, you are unlikely to stop the movie and turn it off. In a game you more likely to stop, partly because if it is something happening to your character you probably died and have to choose to restart, or if it is something your character is doing you have the power to stop them doing it.

  • lennon #110 5 years ago

    [link url=http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wicker_Man
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wicker_...[/link]

    Anymore.

    Still think strawman sounds like something David Brent would say.

  • ruckus #111 5 years ago

    "The term Iron Man can also be used to describe a game that is played by oneself whereas additional players would normally be required. Playing in this manner makes the game much more difficult thus requiring "wits of iron".

    Never heard of that one before...

  • zozart #112 5 years ago

    1) Geez, Segnit. Go back to lurking.

    2) I hope the other PAL versions (France, Italy, etc) will have an English language version because I really want to play this on Wii (wouldn't bother with the PS2 version) and I don't want to mod it to play the NTSC version.

  • kangarootoo #113 5 years ago

    @RexRunti

    I heard they held that view.

    I would also imagine that it is something much easier to test, though I still don't think we can safely make the leap of faith required to presume that games are therefore less harmful.

    It could even be suggested that the viewer's subconscious find the game content more disturbing, and THAT is why they choose to stop playing. perhaps if the film was "as damaging" they would actually choose to stop watching also?

    Personally, I dunno, which is what makes it interesting.

  • Segnit #114 5 years ago

    I just love heated debates.

    Anyhow Sofalover, you can't begin that's why you wont.

    And Zozart, i can see that we're on the different sides of the coin. Which explains why want me to go back to lurking.

    The truth is that i really do feel for the anti-ban group. But what you guys fail to realize is that BBFC wasn't the main culprit of the ban. They went by their usual routine and couldn't justify giving it a rating. Since i haven't played the game yet, i can't really conclude that the ban was necessary but unavoidable. But unlike some of the people here, i think that there is the possibility the game is unjustifiably violent.

  • RexRunti #115 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I see your point, but as it is the BBFC with the view and it is the BBFC that has "banned" the game therefore arguments along the lines of "they treat games more harshly than movies" become a little redundent.

    PS. I appreciate you haven't been making these arguments the BBFC and have in fact spent most of your posts trying to correct ignorant assumptions about the BBFC. I think any debates about which is more damaging, films or games, whilst interesting are largly accademic with regard to the BBFCs ruling.

  • knocker #116 5 years ago

    @simonm7

    "People aren't dying/getting raped as a result of making Manhunt 2 or any movie featuring scenes depicting rape, and that means that your child porn vs creative content point is completely irrelevant. "

    I can't see the relevance of this - child porn doesn't need to have a victim to be illegal.

    It's illegal even if it just gives the *impression* of being sex involving children. So pseudo-photographs, composites, adults photoshopped to look younger are just as illegal as those where abuse has taken place.

    It's purely censorship - as there is no victim invoved in the creation - and while I'm against censorship in principle - I can see the reasons for this example.


  • zuljin #117 5 years ago

    @ruckus
    Yea I knew I posted that for a reason ;)

  • kangarootoo #118 5 years ago

    @SimonM7

    To presume that censorship should only be applied where someone suffers in the creation of the media is to forget the whole debate raging behind all of this. Which is, does WATCHING the media increase the risk that you will do something bonkers at a future point?

    I don't think any of us disputes that IF we knew for a certain FACT sure that watching a rape scene made you more likely to be a rapist, we would stop people watching it. The dispute actually exists over whether the connections are real or simply perceived.

    I personally think that if someone finds kid porn (as an example) an attractive thing to watch, there are already bits of their head that are broken and that the act of watching is likely to increase their desire to meddle with kids.

    On that basis I am delighted to see it made illegal, whether virtual or otherwise, as I think that if doing in some small way reduces the likelyhood of future harm being commited to someone at some future point, it has been worth it.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 16:59

  • andromeda #119 5 years ago

    do some work you shysters!

  • Riggers #120 5 years ago

    It's been given the dreaded AO rating in the US by the ESRB...apparently Rockstar are 'a bit surprised'. [link url=h ttp://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=16561
    ]http://bi z.gamedaily.com/industry/featur...[/link]

    Gudgeons.

  • BadBoyBonner #121 5 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    “Watching a violent movie is unarguably a more passive, less participatory pursuit than playing a violent videogame.”

    The statement clearly implies the cororally. It also implies that all games are played alone – and are not viewed in precisely the same manner as a film, by someone watching someone playing a game. Which is not true in all households.

    So through my extrapolation of the previous point I see the logic as something like this

    If Hostel 2 is fine due to being passive – then surely you are saying Manhunt 2 is fine as long as you only watch someone else play it? Which is surely flawed logic.

    So all Rockstar have to do is disable the controls lol

    And that is my last written thought on the subject - big thanks to all who have written in - enjoyed it

    EDIT - answering the point you put Kanga not stating it as you I'm replying to - just for the sake of clarity.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 17:22

  • zuljin #122 5 years ago

    @Kanga
    "I personally think that if someone finds kid porn (as an example) an attractive thing to watch, there are already bits of their head that are broken and that the act of watching is likely to increase their desire to meddle with kids."

    I disagree. Not that I'm condoning it (can we please find a slightly less wrong example?), but I think in some ways there is a similar argument here to video game violence. Does the mere act of watching/re enacting it sate someone with a few cogs loose to not repeat the offence in real life?

    And if the cogs are too loose to the point when it makes them MORE likely, then I think this is a scenario bound to happen anyway. Does that make sense?

  • BadBoyBonner #123 5 years ago

    For next weeks debating society - we will be discussing vibrating condom's - SexToy or contraceptive? We decide!

    [link url=htt p://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2382924.html
    ]http://ww w.ananova.com/news/story/sm_238...[/link]

  • kangarootoo #124 5 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner

    "It also implies that all games are played alone – and are not viewed in precisely the same manner as a film"

    Ooh, not sure about that. All they are saying is that the act of playing a game is not as participatory. That isn't to say that people play games alone, just (I think) that if 4 people watch and 1 person plays, the experience of the player is significantly different to the bystanders.

    "Manhunt 2 is fine as long as you only watch someone else play it? Which is surely flawed logic"

    Maybe it IS fine so long as all you do is watch. Now that might be untenable as far as game production goes, but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

    If anything, if true, it simply backs up the BBFC ruling, as they have to assume people will play the game when they rate it (as opposed to giving a rating based only on bystanders viewing the game being played).

  • kangarootoo #125 5 years ago

    "SexToy or contraceptive? We decide!"

    Both says I, but that probably makes it illegal :(

  • BadBoyBonner #126 5 years ago

    What if the poeple sat there, tell the person who is controling the action to do something and the person does?

  • dryden555 #127 5 years ago

    The first manhunt was a boring game -- kill 10 times and you've effectively played the game out.

  • ExplodingClown #128 5 years ago

    Just clicked through the Manhunt 2 website, and moral agonising aside, what are we missing?

    -PS2 graphics;

    -A storyline ripped off so shamelessly from 'The Parallax View' and 'The Manchurian Candidate' that the studios should sue, with bits of 'Session 9' lumped in;

    -An ugly visual style obviously referencing 'Hostel' (which itself ripped off the blood-and-filth aesthetic of the Silent Hill games & 'Jacob's Ladder');

    -Gameplay more or less identical to the first Manhunt;

    and overall, felt like a cynical controversy cash-in, target-marketed at 15 year old Korn fans. In summary: move along people, nothing to see here....

  • smelly #129 5 years ago

    Lots of self righteous bullshit on this thread i see.

  • SimonM7 #130 5 years ago

    @ Knocker

    Ironically I was adressing the lack of relevance of the statement in the first place.

    I wasn't really offering my personal views the subject at hand, I was just commenting on a point made AGES ago that criticised one person's statement in regards to censorship with the logic implying that if he doesn't like it that games and film get censored, he's also condoning child porn. The parties involved in that particular debate are all on the clear so there's no need to continue down that line. :)

    Personally? I'm not sure there's an objective way to view this really. I'm not entirely sure you'll ever avoid ultimately making a judgement based on the work's merits rather than its tendency to create murderous bastards. While I actually respect the BBFC's decision here, they've basically said "this game is about relentless killing with no redeeming factors whatsoever". Quoting them you'll even see that they're mentioning the lack of other objectives and the tone of the game as factors, and they're pretty much saying that if the tone was less opressive then that would've made it *better*. More rewarding, more positive perhaps? But that's really the crux, because how do you justify a creative decision to impose a certain sensation on an audience?

    It's a bit like having someone judge whether a comedy is funny or not. You'll get people laughing at the stupidest, most un-funny things, and likewise someone could find deeper fundamental meaning or maybe even philosophical discoveries in a game as "relentlessly violent" as Manhunt 2. Perhaps that meaning does come from its intensity and reluctancy to give you a tangible reward in the form of hope or joy.

    We have people taking a shit on a table and displaying it as art, at some point we're giving the artist the responsibility of meaning, that somewhere within there is some justification for the content they present.

    It took me a couple of years to get to a point in my life intellectually (not that I got smarter, I just got different) where I could appreciate the first Manhunt, but even so I realise that others might never feel the same. On a basic level, maybe it is wrong for one group of people to decide whether someone else can.

    In regards to the whole.. does it turn us into murdering lunatics angle.. I just don't know. You don't know, even the *experts* don't know.. or they all do and their knowledge keeps contradicting eachother's. At this point it's a lot about guessing that the world is flat, and until someone sails off the face of the earth I think it's impossible to say.

  • zozart #131 5 years ago

    @Segnit
    "But unlike some of the people here, i think that there is the possibility the game is unjustifiably violent."

    I don't disagree. I'm sure it must have been horrific for the BBFC to refrain from a rating.

    I just want to play it because it sounds brutally entertaining. I figure that's what games are all about, anyway. People love God of War because you can stab minotaurs in the face (among other things), which is something you'll only ever get to do in a game. Because I'm not about to go out and strangle someone, I'd rather do it casually in a video game.

    Anyhow. I don't mind the ban as long as I can import it from somewhere else. :)

  • spongebob #132 5 years ago

    "spongbob: This is the reason so many "uneducated" people are reacting the way they are."

    segnit: The other guys who made some cool posts know who they are!

    With uneducated I meant ordinary people who haven't played much videogames and categorically thing they're for kids. I didn't mean posters here.

  • smelly #133 5 years ago

    "With uneducated I meant ordinary people who haven't played much videogames and categorically thing they're for kids"

    The problem is.. this is (like it or not) kinda magnified by the fact that it's on the wii as well.

  • knocker #134 5 years ago

    @SimonM7

    I actually agree with most of what you've said probably all of it - but it's been a long day and I'm lazy ;)

    I've only just read back thru the history to see why you made these comments - and in the context of the rather strange argument you were involved in they were fair enough. Point remains that you can produce illegal kiddie porn - without involving children at all. (I don't mean you personally of course!)

    The only point I was trying to make was that we accept censorship in one form or another - personally I'm against it. But I can understand why it's there.

    As you say it's impossible to be objective - which is why we have things like the BBFC, the law etc. Not ideal but better than nothing.

    I do wonder though how many people vehemently opposed to this BBFC action have actually contacted them to tell them ? You know, in sensible reasonable language.

    Dropping out now ... until someone remakes Custer's Revenge anyway.

  • EmiliasHorse #135 5 years ago

    I have strong feelings towards toast.

  • Freek #136 5 years ago

    Dungeons and Dragons was supposed to turn generations of kids into Satan worshipping baby killers. Never happend. Besides being a game there was an entire social aspect to that experience.

    It's the same thing over and over and over again. Younger generation adopts something the previouse generation doesn't understand so it must be bad.
    And every time it blows over again untill some new hype replaces it.
    For some reason we just never learn.

    And this is also a bloody good read. With actual data from the US about youth violence. If video games turns us into killers it certainly isn't showing up the crime figures.


    Even more interesting is the fact that Manhunt doesn't show you anything you diden't already know. Rockstar didn't invent serial killers or murdering people.
    We did that, all by our selfs. It's part of who we are as a species.
    But maybe that's ultimately the reason for all the hype. Lets try and ban the entertainment so we can pretend it isn't happening in the real world.
    Edited by 2 at 20/06/07 @ 21:09

  • Daymare #137 5 years ago

    Leaving philosophical views aside (and the difference in those is exactly where the confict derives from in this debate, 'cause there are little *Facts* accounted here), it all boils down to this:
    People who'll really want to play the game Will (be able to) get it, since, thank God, game is banned only in certain countries. And parents who don't closely monitor what their kids play won't be able to just walk into a store (in UK) and buy Manhunt 2 "by accident". So, who actually "won" here? I guess "we" all did (kids and regular Joe's of the (UK, Ireland,...) public are protected from harm this game might have done to them and to the society in general) and nobody (people can Still get it and among them there might be psycho's who only need one last straw), right? As usual:)
    Oh, and there's a little possibility that Rockstar will change the game and/or change their future "policy" about their games. Would that be good? Who Can Really tell:)


    Edited by 1 at 20/06/07 @ 21:22

  • jebus #138 5 years ago

    @Eldritch
    Rockstar have been trying to push the envelope with regards to violence for many years now. Seems like, for some people, they've finally crossed the line. And I can't say I'm sad about that.

    Yeah I'm with you on that.

    I think that as developers (I am one myself) there is a certain responsibility to be taken for the content of your games. Just as film makers should take a certain responsibility for the content of their films.

    I mean even with an 18 rating you know for sure that people under that age are going to be playing it one way or another.
    I think that the BBFC are spot on generally. I obviously haven't played the game but the first one was pretty grim so I can only think that this was much much worse. They are not heavy handed generally as has been proved by their track record.
    Rockstar court this kind of controvesy and personally I'm glad it's bitten them on the ass for once, the hit to the pocket may make them realise that they need to grow up a bit.

  • malloc #139 5 years ago

    This is NOT shovelware designed to get publiciting for Rockstar prior to GTA. No NOT at all and they certainly did NOT do the same with the original Manuhunt which sold terribly and would never had deserved a sequel.

  • Amazing Bryan #140 5 years ago

    The thought police are telling us to think and not to think. It's ok for our Governments to bomb and kill people on other countries, but it's not alright for us to do it with simulated killing in a computer "GAME".

    "In an insane world, a sane person would appear insane."

  • Anthony_UK #141 5 years ago

    After seeing the original get a 9 in Edge, i bought it purely to prove to myself that edge had sold out.

    It hadn't The original manhunt as violent as it was, still remains as one of my favorite games of all time. The atmoshpere, the pacing (Ie just as your beinging to get bored of the whole stealth thing, they chuck shotguns and swat teams into the mix) and the whole way they murder various members of your family during the course of the game, which has your wrestling with thought as to if these people actually deserve what they get.

    Basically this wasn't another 'thrillkill' there was a truely classic game hidden beind all the bad newspaper headlines and bad reviews

    I just hope that the sequel was banned because Rockstar had done the easy option and overglorified the killing and forgetting about the whole story element. If so then fair dues, they deserve the ban.

    If on the other hand, if the game is just as good if not better than the original, then theres something seriously wrong and sadly the daily mail's of this world have finally won.

    As for the wii version, seriously they were never going to get away with that one anyway were they!!!

    I'll still be getting hold of this one way or the other though!

  • WJF #142 5 years ago

    I broke my finger in primary school playing a game called Manhunt

    I think the kid who made it up learnt the phrase from TV....

  • cobracotton #143 5 years ago

    wow you guys are geeks, at the end of the day its a video game, it shouldn't be "banned" people should make they're own choices, what ridiculous conversations you lot are having. one word Perspective!
    Edited by 2 at 21/06/07 @ 01:34

  • EmiliasHorse #144 5 years ago

    Just woken up cobra?

    There there, be nice.

  • cobracotton #145 5 years ago

    your right, I revised it... time for a cup of tea... honestly tho I dispair how can you all disolve into he's a Peedo she's a Peedo private messaging crap, granted you have an opinion but I call for perspective again its a game!!!

    as Napolon Dynamite would say

    Idiots!


    Edited by 1 at 21/06/07 @ 01:36

  • Daikon #146 5 years ago

    Guy escapes from psych ward. Commits horrible murders.

    Sounds familiar?

    It should, as I just described the plot of Halloween, the 1978 John Carpenter movie.
    Neither this movie nor its numerous bloody sequels were banned in the UK.

    What we have here is a clear case of BBFC discriminating simply because Manhunt 2 is a game instead of a film.
    This, ladies and gentlemen, we call double standards.

  • bioreit #147 5 years ago

    New development:

    [link url=http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/adults-only-m anhunt-2-homeless-270768.php
    ]http://ko taku.com/gaming/top/adults-only...[/link]

    Seems like America's rating of Manhunt 2 as 'Adults Only' has led both SCEA and Nintendo to say that, at least in its present state, Manhunt 2 will not be released on their consoles.

  • spongebob #148 5 years ago

    Guy escapes from psych ward. Commits horrible murders.

    Sounds familiar?

    It should, as I just described the plot of Halloween, the 1978 John Carpenter movie.
    Neither this movie nor its numerous bloody sequels were banned in the UK.

    What we have here is a clear case of BBFC discriminating simply because Manhunt 2 is a game instead of a film.
    This, ladies and gentlemen, we call double standards.

    This is by far the most stupid comparison I've seen. No offense to the poster, but really, what where you thinking?

  • Grogmonkey #149 5 years ago

    Is there any kind of anti-censorship group for the UK? I had a breif look to see if I could find anything, but there certainly doesn't appear to be an easily accessed hub for a campaign for the removal of censorship (or, at least, the removal of the concept of 'banning' something). Do those that are vehemently opposed to censorship know of an organisation geared towards actually changing anything, rather than just bemoaning 'the Nanny State' (a found a couple of sites that were all 'this am lame!', but nobody that was actually trying to convince anyone to change the law)? I would be very interested to see how a discussion on the rights of adults to choose the media they consume would go down in parliament. It'd be nice to get some kind of referendum on this issue.

  • septimus #150 5 years ago

    "to issue a certificate would involve a range of unjustifiable risks, to both adults and minors".

    LMAO.

    Nanny state here we come.

  • bioreit #151 5 years ago

    I really like the dichotomy of the previous two posts ^

    Grogmonkey I could have a reasoned discourse with, arguing the merits of many different approaches to a complex issue.

    Septimus I'd probably just want to smack.

  • Segnit #152 5 years ago

    I'd say the the forum is divided around 50-50 on the this issue, which is fair and balanced... and that's the hardcore! You can bet that joe public will adopt a more pro-ban attitude because (for the most part) they aren't educated about games. But still, there is the risk that games do affect some people negatively and this is just a necessary precautionary action.

  • knocker #153 5 years ago

    It's been done to death really. I'm not convinced that many of the 'anti-censorship' bunch would be in favour of a total removal of censorship. Likewise I'm not sure that pro-censorship folk want a nanny state controlling every aspect of their lives.

    As has been pointed out this is entirely subjective - most people demand the right to do the things *they* want to do. But they aren't always so keen to extend that right to others.

    I can't go into a shop and buy various flavours of porn, suicide bomber monthly (good news: circulation figures are down again!) and an increasing number of laws protecting religions from criticism.

    So if there is censorship - where do we draw the line ? I expect everyone will have a different answer to this. I would be more interested in hearing people's views why *any* censorship is a bad thing.

    I have to admit I am against censorship in principle - but would far prefer the current situation to a complete free-for-all.




  • knocker #154 5 years ago

    @segnit

    "But still, there is the risk that games do affect some people negatively and this is just a necessary precautionary action."

    Who says ? Do you have any serious studies to back this up ? If so (again) where do you draw the line ? Any games involving killing ? how about games which encourage you to drive really really fast ?

    Risk is becoming such a lazy excuse for banning or bringing in legislation.

  • Kryon #155 5 years ago

    "But still, there is the risk that games do affect some people negatively and this is just a necessary precautionary action."

    So do films apparently yet they are still released. I'm sorry but I feel this has come about because the BBFC do not believe parents are competent enough to realise that this game has an 18cert and is not suitable for their children so they take it into their own hands in dissallowing it, there for holding it back from all of us. If a movie of MH was made it would not have been banned (even if it featured the exact same content as the game). This is blatant ignorance on the part of the BBFC. By the way, the child porn argument was totally pointless...

  • zuljin #156 5 years ago

    @Segnit
    "I'd say the the forum is divided around 50-50 on the this issue, which is fair and balanced... and that's the hardcore! You can bet that joe public will adopt a more pro-ban attitude..."

    Actually no. The BBC polls show that the majority of people that voted, are against the ban (~60 against - ~40 for). And these are average people that read the news (so I'm guessing no 13 yr olds skewing the statistic). Not quite representative of a whole country, but still better than "I'd say...".

  • knocker #157 5 years ago

    @Kyron

    "By the way, the child porn argument was totally pointless..."

    Why ? I am wary of raking this up again ... just curious.

  • Segnit #158 5 years ago

    Thanks for the heads up zuljin. That's an interesting and an unexpected result for sure.

    Kryon, i really do not appreciate it when folks compare games to movies. It's really not fair. Games are more immersive and interactive. Also games can contain virtual representation of books, can contain clips of real movies, can contain music clips and nearly all other mediums too boot. Video games are used to train pilots to fly and teach drivers to race (Ask any F1 driver). Movies are an inferior medium, especially when compared to games.

    Do movies have no psychological effect on humans whatsoever? Of coarse they do... they affect your thought process by a tiny bit. Times that by 50,000 movies one can watch in his lifetime and it's not hard to see that movies can influence people to think in certain ways etc.

    Is it absurd to imagine that games, which encompass all entertainment mediums into 1, can have a bigger influence then movies?

    And as the research is ongoing... i think it's not out of reason react cautiously to this whole fiasco.

  • Kryon #159 5 years ago

    "Why ? I am wary of raking this up again ... just curious."

    Children are harmed in it's production, that is why. No one was harmed to produce ManHunt. It's a totally idiotic comparison in my view.

  • Daymare #160 5 years ago

    "Movies are an inferior medium, especially when compared to games."

    I sincerely hope you mean that only in a sense that (you think) one is more engrossing than the other...

  • Kryon #161 5 years ago

    "Is it absurd to imagine that games, which encompass all entertainment mediums into 1, can have a bigger influence then movies? "

    Movies - you sit and watch.

    Games - you sit and watch, while pressing buttons on a pad.

    Neither influence me to any detrimental degree. I'm an adult.

  • Segnit #162 5 years ago

    Daymare, I'm quiet sure that i did explain all the reason why i believe games are an infinitely superior medium. Did i not? Games have the potential do do EVERYTHING better then movies. It's a very straight forward statement I'm making so should be a relatively easy point to shoot down... i hope (not).

    Games you are active while movies are passive. Kyron if you want to rationalize gaming as simply pressing buttons then go ahead. I wont open a pointless debate on that view.

  • Daymare #163 5 years ago

    These comparisons made about movies and games I read here are extremely amateur. Your opinion/preference on one medium or another is not everybody's opinion/preference, thank you very much. How movies/games do or don't influence you doesn't necesarry express how they influence others and the society in general.

    You also have to put the "which is more engrossing" thing into wider perspective. Sure, first thought would be, aha, games are interactive medium, I interact, I'm doing something, so it's more engrossing and it's influence goes deeper. But you're frogetting that movies as a medium (and an Art form!) are more then 70 years older and far more widespread then games at this moment. So which has more influence? We Don't Know, Nobody Really Knows.

  • Daymare #164 5 years ago

    Segnit, just because you don't know much about movies, doesn't mean they're inferior to the medium you seem to adore.

  • Daymare #165 5 years ago

    And, saying one medium is better then the other is, just, plain, stupid.

  • knocker #166 5 years ago

    @Kyron

    "Why ? I am wary of raking this up again ... just curious."

    "Children are harmed in it's production, that is why. No one was harmed to produce ManHunt. It's a totally idiotic comparison in my view."'

    Um. That's simply not true. Children aren't necc harmed - or even involved in it's production (check the law). Does that make the comparison less idiotic ?

  • Segnit #167 5 years ago

    Daymore, i have an opinion. It is my own personal opinion so please don't get offended. What gives weight to my opinion though is that i backed up the reasons why i think the way i think.

    Do movies have certain advantages over games? Yes they do.
    You are right, movies are more accessible, I'll give you that much!

    But my strong opinion on the matter is the following "Can games...":
    ...do audio? Check.
    ...do music videos? Check.
    ...aid Socialization? Check.
    ...have Art Galleries? Check.
    ...have a Shakespeare book? Check.
    But most of all... can games do movies?

    They absolutely can do movies... watch the C&C movie clips. Watch the original Resident Evil movie clip. Watch Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid.

    Games can nearly do EVERYTHING MOVIES CAN DO AND MUCH, MUCH MORE.

    That's just my opinion of coarse. I did back up my opinion and i do think i am right obviously.

    This is a non debate debate. This shouldn't be discussed. Those who treat games as an equal or even similar to movies are holding the short end of the stick. Manhunt 2 is a game and therefore cannot be rated as a movie. Movie ratings are a world apart from game ratings. They are not the same.

    If you think (I am not talking you Daymore) that Manhunt 2 should be treated similar to movies, then at least make a case rather then rant.

    Games are better then movies in almost every regard.

    Manhunt 2 is a game and is thus subject to harsher criticism then movies, not least because gaming as a medium is young. Which means that its long term effects are as yet unknown.

    Movies are passive while games are active.

  • Kryon #168 5 years ago

    "Um. That's simply not true. Children aren't necc harmed - or even involved in it's production"

    'child porn' where no children are involved does not constitute child porn in my book.

  • Kryon #169 5 years ago

    @Segnit, after all your ranting (some of it almost sounds believable) the problem is, I feel the passive nature of movies could possibly be more detrimental than the active nature of games (we have no proof either way but the BBFC released a statement agreeing with this). Watching a movie you sit for two/three hours with nothing to occupy your mind except the story & atmosphere of said film. No worrying about where to get your next green herb or that your time limit is running out, no worrying that you only have half a clip left etc, so the film gets your full undivided attention in that way. All I can say is that if you are right in your views, how come everyone else except you would find watching the Saw trilogy/ Hostel more disturbing/disgusting (perhaps in a good way) than playing a game?

  • knocker #170 5 years ago

    The lines between various media is being blurred - and will continue to get more blurry as time goes on. Is it too much to ask that TPTB adopt a consistent criteria across the board ?

    As for movies being passive, or in someway inferior to games - that's just plain weird. I've seen films that made me sad, angry, thoughtful. Not just in a fleeting way as games can - but in a profound way which can make you think about things differently.

    Of course, if you can point me to gaming equivalents of Come and See, Grave of the Fireflies or One Flew over the cuckoos nest for complex emotional involvement - I'd be grateful.

  • knocker #171 5 years ago

    @Kyron

    'child porn' where no children are involved does not constitute child porn in my book.

    Well as 'your book' differs substantially from the accepted legal definition* you are right. But then you can always be right if you have your own special view of the world :-)

    It does make discussing things rather difficult for the rest of us though.


    (protection of children's act 1978 amended - if you want to learn something new)

    Editted to add a smiley - as though that will make me seem any less of a pompous c'nt !
    Edited by 1 at 21/06/07 @ 15:34

  • Segnit #172 5 years ago

    I appreciate your mature and flexible comments Kyron.

    Anyhow you said: "...how come everyone else except you would find watching the Saw trilogy/ Hostel more disturbing/disgusting (perhaps in a good way) than playing a game?"

    To that i answer:
    You are just merely speculating on that comment. We don't actually know what people would be more disturbed by. You can always speak for yourself obviously, but that's about it.

    But what i can tell you is that BBFC seem to think that Manhunt 2 is so disturbing that they have effectively banned the game from release while the same can't be said for Saw or Hostel.

    On a slightly different tangent... i think it's a matter of (relatively short) time before games look like movies; so there is little point in taking the argument in the direction.

    Basically what i am saying is that games are a future proof medium that will only get better with time. It's fast growing medium but still at it's relative infancy. It's an unknown territory and thus cannot be approached recklessly.

    I am not suggesting anything radical here. I am just suggesting that we take responsibility and approach the situation with caution.

  • Daymare #173 5 years ago

    /cracks nuckles

    Segnet, you have one thing right - what you're saying is only an opinion. And a poor one, if I might say so.

    "But my strong opinion on the matter is the following "Can games...":
    ...do audio? Check.
    ...do music videos? Check.
    ...aid Socialization? Check.
    ...have Art Galleries? Check.
    ...have a Shakespeare book? Check.
    But most of all... can games do movies?
    They absolutely can do movies... watch the C&C movie clips. Watch the original Resident Evil movie clip. Watch Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. "

    What you're showing here is complete misunderstanding/unappreciation of mediums for what they are, not to mention that the whole aspect of a medium as an Art form goes completely over your head.

    Movies are MOVIES. Video games are VIDEO GAMES. Got that? Games don't "do" Music, they don't "do" Literature, etc., they are Video Games. A new medium. What They Really Do is incorporate other Art forms into itself and Use it for their own means. Since you listed what games "do", you forgot to mention what Movies "do" (if I put it your way) - that is, actually, most of the things you've mentioned. Movies are also a combination of other Art form in case you didn't notice. They have Literature, Theater, Music, etc., all forming into another medium and another Art form. No idiot would say that Movies, because they "do" other Arts, are superior. Only a person who doesn't appreciate art nor mediums themselves might say that. If a game is showing Mona Liza painting, it's not "doing" the painting (it's actualy simulating it) and it's defenitely not therefore a substitute for fine arts! It's not superior in any way. What Video Games brought to the table (among some other things) is interactivity. That is their most important aspect. That aspect alone made games into a new medium, but saying it's superior is like saying Movies are superior than Music because they "do" music too. Just because Games incorporate some stuff form the Movies (not nearly all, 'cause that would make them Movies + interactivity, right?), they are NOT superior. If you like Games more then Movies, so be it, you have all the rights, but don't go tellin' other people nonsense formed on the basis of your preference.

    "Games can nearly do EVERYTHING MOVIES CAN DO AND MUCH, MUCH MORE."
    Games CAN'T do everything movies can, why not, read the upper paragraph again (and again, if needed).

    "This is a non debate debate. This shouldn't be discussed."
    You got that right, it should be completely obvious, why Games are Games, why Movies are Movies and why Music is Music.

  • bioreit #174 5 years ago

    @ segnit

    +1 for putting good points across

    @ knocker

    I agree with you about films having more of an effect than games (usually). Like the BBFC said, a film directs you, forces you to effectively sit on a rollercoaster and feel what the producer and director want you to feel. I have never once cried at a game, but I have definitely cried at many films.

    However, for the BBFC to then refuse a classification of Manhunt 2, but not one for films such as Hostel or Saw, speaks volumes to me about the content of Manhunt 2.

    The BBFC has matured considerably in the last ten years - I'm just left with the wish that some of the gaming community, including the games developers, could boast the same....

  • Segnit #175 5 years ago

    Daymare, did you make your post hard to read intentionally?
    Anyways i gotta patch up at the office here. I'll read what you said later and hopefully respond.

    You are a very reasonable guy and i appreciate that :)

  • Daymare #176 5 years ago

    I do apologize if I sound a little importunate, it's just that I get kinda defensive for what is dear to my heart. Movies:) Which is why you back up Games in similar matter I presume:) I'm really not dissin' games, I love them, I appreciate them, I think about them - it's the latest medium that will one day be reffered as an Art form (not just by us, "geeks";). Its' theory is still criminaly underdeveloped - just how many "serious" books are there analyzing Games? Compared to tons of books on all the other mediums/Art forms, very few, and that needs to change.

    But we really shouldn't mix them together, mediums/Art forms. It's like forgetting our past - we would never evolve.
    They should be valued on their own terms.
    IMO:)
    Edited by 1 at 21/06/07 @ 15:54

  • Kryon #177 5 years ago

    Knocker could you please enlighten me as to what childless child porn is, Give an example of child porn that involves no children in any way.

    Remember we are not talking about pseudo-photographs (even though these still involve images of real children) a pseudo-photograph is classed as an indecent image and can still be deemed illegal but is not classed as child pornography. I think perhaps it's you who needs to learn about the protection of children's act...

  • knocker #178 5 years ago

    The law does not distinguish - even if you do !! Extract fom the act itself.

    "
    Section 1 of this act, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, creates various offences of taking or distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of a child under 18 years of age. It states:

    1(1) It is an offence for a person -

    To take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or to possess such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.'
    "

    To be clear : you make pseudo-pics, you will be treated exactly the same as you will for the real thing. Which is why it's part of the children's act *not* the obscene publications act.

    (now I'm gonna have to explain to my lawerly mate why I've been asking him all these dodgy questions - cheers ! :-D )


    This is waaaaay off topic now. So probably worth moving this discussion to PM - for everyone elses sake at least.

  • Kryon #179 5 years ago

    At the end of the day pseudo-photographs still involve real childrens images being used (se even this does actually involve children ), so I put it to you again, give an example of child pornography that in no way involves children? By the way, I feel that any form of child porn 'fake' or not is still potentially harmful to children.

    Comparing a violent video game to child porn (in any form) is just ridiculous.