Rockstar wins Manhunt 2 appeal News

This is not a first post.

(always wanted to do that)

Gaaah! This is like a kick in the balls after the No More Heroes "no blood" news. Rockstar, WE DON'T CARE about your mediocre title. We want No More Heroes as intended! *cries*

Hurrah, I shall yet be able to carry out my murderous fantasties in mediocre style.

@Lemming81: yeah, but why do you want it? Have you seen footage of the game? It looks terrible!

I wish the BBFC would just pull their heads out of their collective arses and stop forcing us to live in some glorified Nanny State.

Bunch of whinging old codgers...

/rant

@BBIAJ: Of course, it's not at all like that in reality, but ok :)

*gets on the Batphone to the Daily Mail*

BAN THIS SICK FILTH!

Why pretend to kill people when you can go out and do it yourself for real?

/ borrowed from various wankpuppets in various Guitar Hero threads

Can't they just ban it for being a crap game?

God, why do you people go on and on about the game.

The importance of this has nothing to do with the game - I should think that's fairly apparent.

Sounds like the BBFC banned it out of fear of the tabloid outcry if they passed it as normal.

This is such a load of nanny state bollocks:

Cooke said the BBFC continues to believe "that a broad approach to the possible risks is needed, which goes beyond purely behavioural harm, and which also takes account of other possible effects on the sensibilities and attitudes of individuals".

Individuals who are not forced to play the game and can choose for themselves. Oh but apparently we're all weak minded compared to the BBFC who played the game for over 30 hours yet remain unscathed by it.

U know... I don't think the BBFC should ban this, but I honestly don't care if they do. This game is shite... the first one wasn't great either...

But if you made a movie that followed the same plot it wouldn't get banned, it wud just get an 18 rating. Until there is some solid research proving that games have more of an effect on the sub-conscious than movies do, I don't think they should be allowed to treat it differently.

And to make the first step in accumulating such research:
I played the first Manhunt and finished it (it got a little bit better once you got some guns) and I am still a non-violent person... I even have friends who are fairly violent (in general) and I'm sure that playing games and watching movies like this subdues them rather than aggrivating them...

So, in summary, will someone please do some proper research on this topic so we can prove to the world once and for all that games do not make people violent!

Thank you, that is all :)

EDIT: Splelign

let's all celebrate by having a killllll frenzzyyy!!!

whether people think this game is good or crap should not be relevant. Any banning of a video game would set a dangerous precedent. So people who are saying they were happy it got rejected because its crap need to look at the bigger picture.

Well i just watched Hostel part 2 last night, which of course was passed by the BBFC. Im a grown up, and if they passed that then im still confused about there original refusal of a rating for manhunt 2. There was some appaling stuff in that film, and the whole storyline is people being stalked to kill for purely sadistic reasons. Im not saying it's right, but it's the same reason they gave for not rating manhunt 2. I just don't get it.
So i welcome this outcome and will watch what happens, (still not going to buy it though)

The BBFC judgement seemed to place too much emphasis on whether the game would be played by youngsters. Surely that's the responsibility of retailers and parents?

I can see a 12 year old being traumatised by Hostel, for example, yet that was passed with no problems.

@ Eighthours,
Exactly, so kids in the home are more likely to pull out dads 18 rated games than they are there 18 rated films? Whats the difference? I now if i was trying to see things without daddy's permission i can watch a film in say 2 hours, i cant finish a game in that time.

they banned it because you are an active participant in the violence rather than a voyeur in the case of hostel etc

Congratulations!

@ paulf,
Im sorry but that doesn't wash with me.
Im not participating in the violence im only seeing what the devolopers
want me to see, a bit like a film directer no?

I don't really care whether manhunt 2 will be released or not cos manhunt 1 was crap but there was no need to ban the game in the first place. If a game is rated 18 then legally only adults can play it anyway. It's up to parents to make sure kids play suitable games not the censors. Instead of just banning games they should just educate parents on why they should pay more interest in what games their kids are playing.

@ lavalant,

To be fare the BBFC have been really good in the last 10 years or so in saying ADULTS should be able to decide for themselves what is appropiate for them, thats why we have 4 bars on films for language/ sex nudity/ violence/ drugs.
The rating says it all but you can then scrutinise the content by those 4 bars and decide for yourself

@polymorph personally I don't think it should be banned, i think the point they made though was the game involves you killing people in gruesome ways, yes is it something someone else has created for you to view. However it is your actions that initiate the violence and that violence is encouraged.

"Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game."


of course the irony is now that it is going to get released more people will probably play it due to it being banned in the first place

Yawn.

I'll be glad when this is all over, just so people will stop comparing it to sodding Hostel 2.

@ paulf,
Im not trying to start an arguement, but is that not the plot of most "horror" films?
Someone gets killed right at the start of the film, then you have a choice, support the baddie who kills people cause hes just a phyco, or support the "STAR" who at the end of the film will just slaughter the baddie?
O.K. it may only be one scene but its mostly the most graphic one.

Have you seen the film DAN???
i JUST THOUGHT THAT SOME1 CUTTING OFF SOME1S COCK AND FEEDING IT TO THE DOGS WAS A BIT GROSS.

The only thing that Hostel 2 has in common with Manhunt 2 is that they both feature gory violence. Contextually and narratively, they're completely different - and that's what the BBFC is talking about. Movies also have about 100 years of cultural understanding behind them. The level of gore may vary, but society has a fairly solid frame of reference for what "horror film" entails. Games aren't even close to that yet, so the BBFC is playing it safe. With that in mind, the fact that they've only "banned" two games ever shows that they are far from "fuddy duddy".

So defending Manhunt 2 by saying "there's gory stuff in films" is a fundamentally weak argument, since there has never been a film that would compare to what the Manhunt 2 "audience" experiences.

*sigh*

@JSPOOLE

You don't know that for sure. Where's the evidence that long term exposure to violent videogames doesn't cause harm? No where. Because excessively violent games haven't been around that long. Carmageddon in '97 (first game ever to be deemed violent enough to ban), the first GTA in '97, no 3D GTA until 2001 (when all the zOMG violent videogamez nonsense started). No Manhunt until '03. And yet time and again you see people saying 'Videogames don't hurt no one'. We won't know that for sure for another 10 or 20 years, yet. Especially in terms of youth-orientated violence (if we assume that videogames are easier for a kid to get hold of, either through illegal (shops selling to underage kids) or legal (parents getting it for them) means).

To counter my own point before anyone else does, we also don't know that it DOESN'T cause harm. Could be playing Manhunt 2 18 hours a day, 7 days a week for 6 months causes no lasting or actual harm to the brain or psyche, and the whole thing is, in fact, the metaphorical storm in a tea-cosy. But can anyone honestly say, 20 years down the line, that someone saying "Oops, turns out your games AREN'T that bad, after all. Sorry you couldn't play Manhunt 2 all those years ago. We made a mistake." is WORSE than someone saying "See? We told you those violent games would cause increased violent behaviour, and we were right. Now people are running around killing each other even more. Just so you could play your stupid games." I mean, seriously. If the nay-sayers are wrong, all that happens is you don't get to play violent videogames. Big whoop. I can think of more productive things to do with my time (I don't DO those things, but, you know, I can THINK of them :P ). However, if WE'RE wrong, we create a whole bunch of anti-social killers.

It's at this point I would like to make clear that this post is mostly speculative, and deals with extremes (on the one hand, games do nothing to us, on the other they cause the downfall of mankind). It's likely that the truth is actually somewhere in the middle. Or somewhere on the side of 'games aren't that bad'. I'm using extremes in this case to try and stimulate some thought. Plus it's good to get some best case/worst case scenarios out in the open.

(Also, I realise I @'d this to JSPOOLE, but really it's just a general piece. Not meant to be raggin' on you, or nothin'. Just engagin' in healthy debate to challenge my own ideologies and stuff)

Edit: I should also point out I might not necessarily believe in the stuff I wrote. I do believe it's too early to say whether long-term exposure to violent videogames is damaging, but I err on the side of 'that's totally stupid', basing my opinion on the fact that I'm not totally crazy. But then I think that crazy people don't think they're totally crazy, either. It's not like they go 'Oh yes, that's the point where I went totally crazy.' I suspect it sneaks up on you. Anyway, this edit is approaching ridiculous proportions, so it'll end now.

Jesus christ, enough of the free publicity already!
Rockstar, your game is shit. Please just accept that and move on.

I did mention long-term exposure. Quite a few times. In fact, my entire point was we're not at the stage in the entire existence of videogames to determine whether or not long-term exposure to violent videogames causes increased violence.

The PS2 has been around since 2000. That's only 7 years. It's arguable that violent videogames of the nature we see around us everyday weren't around before then, so discussion of previous consoles is meaningless. As I pointed out, the 'trigger-points' for excessively violent media (as dubbed by concerned parents and tabloid papers, anyway) started with Manhunt and GTA III, which were in 2003 and 2001 respectively. That means, for the sake of this discussion, violent videogames (as defined by the amount of contraversy they create) have been around for 6 years. This is not a long time. This is a short time. So when I say 'You can't say what long term exposure to violent videogames does to people' I mean 'You can't say what LONG TERM exposure to violent videogames does to people'. I'm talking about the effects of constant exposure to violent videogames over a period of 20 years. We haven't had violent videogames that long so it's IMPOSSIBLE to say whether or not it does harm. That's the crux of my point.

Hell, I've been playing games for nigh-on 20 years now, and I don't have a violent bone in my body. But I've only been playing violent videogames for 6 years (using my definition above). I don't know FOR CERTAIN what I'll be like after another 14 years of playing violent videogames.

And that's saying nothing of the people that are GROWING UP with these games. I'm lucky enough to have seen gaming grow from very tiny roots, so I know what it's all about. I even make games for a living, so I know better than most that it's a bunch of pixels and lines of code and is harmless. But because I've been around gaming forever, I don't know what it's like for people growing up with these violent videogames everywhere. For all I know, my extended years of gaming give me a protection from the psychological effects of violent media that new gamers (or young gamers that inevitably get their hands on them) don't have.

So, no. You don't know for 100% sure, because you can't see into the future. For all any of us know, the first gamers could start snapping tomorrow, or next week, or 5 years from now. Just because it doesn't happen the second a game is released, doesn't mean it's never going to happen. That's all I was pointing out.

Also, this isn't about causal effects. I didn't say 'videogames caused violence' (or if I did, I didn't mean to, and probably only said it once). I said 'videogames INCREASED violence'. The whole 'there was violence before videogames were invented' argument is pointless, because violence inside nature is a given. It's pretty much everywhere, both for peoples and for animals. It's whether there are scientifically provable increases in violent behaviour since the creation of violent videogames.

PS: Hopefully this clears up the numerous misconceptions you had about my 'logic'.

"You act like games are a brainwashing device that automatically switches wills off. "

Good Jesus! I merely pointed out that saying 'Games don't hurt no one' is bollocks, because the long term effects aren't known. That's not some radical, right-wing claim. It's just simple fact. It's not even disputable. I mean, all I said was 'We don't know what the future holds.' It's not that big of a deal. The fact that you keep twisting it is kinda annoying, really.

"I think it's really lame how you try and justify violent behaviour."

Please see: "I should also point out I might not necessarily believe in the stuff I wrote. I do believe it's too early to say whether long-term exposure to violent videogames is damaging, but I err on the side of 'that's [editor's note: that, in this context, meaning: violent videogames cause violent behaviour] totally stupid', basing my opinion on the fact that I'm not totally crazy." Which I wrote in a post above. You read that, right? Or did you just see "This person isn't agreeing with me, so I'll just assume that the argument I invented in my head is what he said." When, in fact, it wasn't.

"Here's another hint...every time a mental, violent person blames games, does it ever cross your mind that, hey, maybe nasty lil mentalist murderer MIGHT be lying to try and pass the buck and take heat off himself? No, you trust him implicitly to tell the truth because a guy like that is stand up and honest right?"

I didn't once say that anyone who blames violent behaviour on videogames is right. Please don't make up things. I can't have a discussion when people reply to things I haven't said and ideas/opinions I don't have. Plus, you can't have derived that I think that way from my post, because my post was purely speculative and based on prolonged effects in the future, not short-term effects in the present. So that means you made it up.

"Plus every generation has had it's violent games. They tried to ban old amiga games like Texas Chainsaw massacre, Halloween, etc back in the 70's and 80s, because they were ''bad influences''. The technology is better sure, but the tired old bullshit argument is the same, and a whole generation of gamers who played those games didn't turn out violent despite the fact they played these ''evil'' games."

One can argue that those games simply weren't up to the graphical fidelity of today. Plus, Chainsaw Massacre was rubbish, both as a game (not important to this discussion) and as means of displaying violent imagery (very important to this discussion). Strangling someone with a Wii Remote (as in, using the same motions required to strangle someone) and seeing the reactions in glory gory detail is not the same as being decapitated by an 8-bit Leatherface. In the same way a stick drawing of a guy getting stabbed in the eye isn't as bad as seeing it in a film.

"In fact I would bet my life that in a decade or two, you will be proven wrong"

Seeing as, as already has been pointed out, that that's not ACTUALLY my defined belief (I stated that fact a couple of times), I won't be proven wrong. Because I just presented an opposing viewpoint. I could say it's great to stick knitting needles up your nose, but it doesn't mean I believe it (or practice it). It's just an opinion. Though I imagine I could, if pressed, give several reasons why it's a good idea.

I think it's great that you can be so confident. I really do. But it's just the same as the people that say 'I believe 100% that videogames cause all evil'. There's no basis of fact behind it. It's just a passionately held belief because... it's a belief. Me, I stopped believing in things without evidence a while ago. Which is why I'll never come out and say 'Yes, violent videogames are completely safe' OR 'Yes, violent videogames are completely evil'.

Bummer. Always thought the BBFC were correct in it's original decision.

The Crusades were a religious battle, World War II and ideological battle. They are not linked to increases in individual violence. I bet if you talked to anyone who faught in World War II whether they were violent people, they'd say 'Of course not'. They fought in a war because they were told to, or were protecting their country or way of life.

In order to save from writing another long post, I shall simply put:

There is a HUGE difference between individual violence (individuals killing other individuals) and army violence. World War II may have been violent, but the individuals fighting in the war generally weren't. Plus, when dealing with wars, there is no single factor that dictates violence. You can't say 'Hitler made people violent, that's why they went to war.' Or, 'We were so outraged by the treatment of Jews we just had to go over there and kill people.' Wars are fought because of political, social and even economic reasons, that have little, if anything, to do with personal levels of violence.

And, a quick look on ye olde BBC website suggests that violent crime is up 5% this year over last. It was stable in 2006, but up 9% in 2005. And up 11% in 2004. That's just a quick look, and probably somewhat misleading (it's based on quarterly info, I think), but it sure as heck doesn't show violent crime going down.

Now, if the BBFC are concerned that the ratings system isn't being followed as intended - they can do something about it. Educate, inform. Make changes to it if need be. But censorship because they think someone under that age may get hold of it was always a lame excuse poorly covering up a very real problem - that is parents and adults not giving a shit about the content of what their children/siblings/nephews and neices watch, read and play, not paying attention (or simply not caring) about the ratings system.

Now, can we simply push this very mediocre game aside for a few days and focus perhaps on that problem? I fear not, sadly, but still. It's a shame that Manhunt 2 crap will drown out any and all discussion of an issue which should be addressed. It deserves a topic all its own.

@JSPOOLE

"The problem is our law is way too liberal and pussified, with no true punishment."

I'm not sure if that's true in all cases, I think 'normal' people are very fearful of the idea of being locked up. Besides, harsher penalties does not = less crime. You get the lethal injection in the states (death being a pretty harsh punishment imo) but crime is still rife. I do agree with most of your other points though.

They said Clockwork Orange had to be banned.

"They" said nothing of the sort. Stanley Kubrick withdrew A Clockwork Orange from UK release himself. But, please, don't let silly things like facts get in the way.

@ DanWhitehead

Damn straight.

Let's get this sorted once and for all:

1. This game is *not* comparable to Saw/Hostel/Other Hack-and-Slash-horror films, because:
a) Those films place you more in the position of the victim, rather than the perpetrator. Manhunt 2 places you in the shoes of the perpetrator. Totally different effect, making the whole 'Which one is more violent?' question/excuse totally invalid.
b) You do not control the violence in the films - it's a rollercoaster ride. Some say that makes it 'worse' as you are forced to contemplate and watch certain things, others say that because you know it's an experience with a finite, visible end it makes it 'better'. Regardless, still means you cannot compare the films to Manhunt 2 as like for like.

2. The violence in the Saw and Hostel films is punctuated by periods of different occurences - sex scenes in the original Hostel, for example. The violence in Manhunt 2 is unrelenting, sadistic, cumulative, encouraged and rewarded. Again, the two media are not directly comparable.

3. 18-rated games are easier for kids to get hold of then 18-rated films. Retailers, parents and cinemas are all geared up for not sellling to kids - it still happens, but the 'culture', if you will, of not doing it is basically there. The same cannot be said for games. Until such time as the games retailers and parents are brought up to snuff (/sniggers), I fully believe that something has to be done to mitigate any potential problems.

Does this mean that retailers and parents can just sit on their arses and do nothing and let the BBFC ban their way through video games for the next decade? No, of course not. What it means is that parents and retailers have to work twice as hard to get their bloody act together - but we don't stick our heads in the sand and cry out "Nanny state" like we suffer from some weird Daily Mail-inspired tourette's syndrome.

@bioreit

"Until such time as the games retailers and parents are brought up to snuff (/sniggers), I fully believe that something has to be done to mitigate any potential problems."

Therefore until "retailers and parents" sort it out, all games apart from Pokemon and Mario MUST be banned. Or else what exactly is your solution?

By the way, many parents let their kids watch 18 cert movies aswell, retailers are NOT soft on selling to kids either, I worked in HMV many years ago when I was a student and was told that if I sold an 18/15 cert movie OR game to anyone under age, I would be personally liable and would face a 5k fine and the full force of the law. I was made to sign a form stating that I fully understood the severity of the issue. I know that this is also common practice in GAME stores as I have friends who work/worked there.

I also doubt you've played MH2, I have and I was unimpressed and actually thought it to be rather tame. All in all, I think you're talking about an awful lot of issues that you seem to know very little about...

I think it's silly to associate crime to video-games. Even more when this comes from ppl who do play games. Games suck a great deal of your life. Do you really believe criminals play +200 hours of GTA, then they go out for a bit just to deal some drugs and carjack some cars, just before heading home they pop a hoe in aley (just for the fun) - then back to GTA for a tad more?

And I totaly disagree with bioreit, or if he proves to be right, let's be honest and say "this industry is not for Adults, do something else".

Manhunt 2 and other violent GAMEs train youths how to stalk and kill others....
just like the GAME of chess trained youths prior to 1918 in military order and tactics to kill and capture others during WW1...
Im sure the fact that people have been killing people since the begining of man has nothing to do with anything.... its the casual pastimes cultures have.
We`re still waiting to see the snowball effect of the YoYo craze....

yawn

A killer/violent person will kill or be violent regardless of what games they play. Backround, upbringing, poverty, socail status, mental health, Im positive those are FAR more important topics than violent games. Problem is none of those topics can be easily tarred and brushed as a quick fix.

Since nobody - least of all the BBFC - has said that videogames turn people into murderers, this whole tangent is rather pointless. This debate would be a lot more fruitful if people actually took the time to understand what the BBFC is, what powers it has, and how it applies them. All modern societies regulate or monitor the content of their entertainment to some degree or other, and it doesn't take much comparison to see that Britain is one of the most liberal in its attitudes - certainly moreso than the US, which actually has a Constitution guaranteeing free expression.

@ miiiguel

What exactly do you disagree with? Because you talk about there being no link between violent behaviours and playing videogames, but I never mentioned that.

All I said was that the games industry has a bit further to go than the movie industry, both in terms of becoming taken 'seriously' by parents and in terms of the retailers and producers doing enough to educate and regulate themselves.

That's it.

If you disagree with that sentiment, then please, elaborate why, rather than making it seem as though you disagree with me over some link I never made...

"Britain is one of the most liberal in its attitudes - certainly moreso than the US, which actually has a Constitution guaranteeing free expression."

Really, but the US did get the game and we didn't, that's why people smell something fishy and claim media pandering. Also, I'm not saying you're wrong but (just out of interest) exactly what have we got in the UK media-wise that gets banned in the states?

The US got the game in a censored form, though. And there are many, many movies that pass uncut in the UK with an 18 certificate which end up slapped with the NC-17 rating in the US, which effectively means no advertising, no mainstream DVD sales, no theatrical exhibition. Check out This Film Is Not Yet Rated to see just how prudish and draconian the MPAA is. The BBFC is a pussy cat by comparison.

And then there's the fact that American TV is absolutely castrated in comparison to Britain, or that the slightest hint of blasphemy or sexual content sends the US networks into a tizzy.

Manhunt 2 is the first time in recent memory that the BBFC has made a big stink about anything so all this talk of living in some censorious "nanny state" doesn't really hold water. When you look at it in perspective, we've been denied the chance to saw people's heads off in a game...but that's about it.

@ DanWhitehead

"Manhunt 2 is the first time in recent memory that the BBFC has made a big stink about anything so all this talk of living in some censorious "nanny state" doesn't really hold water."

Exactly. And it isn't even the start of doom and gloom for other games either. As I've said before on other comments threads, after the banning of Carmageddon in 1997 by the BBFC, loads of games were passed, fully intact. Here's a brief list of the games released after the ban and before the successful appeal:

Postal, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil 2, Quake II, Goldeneye, Starcraft, Final Fantasy VII, Fallout, Total Annihilation, Age of Empires, Curse of Monkey Island and Gran Turismo.

If the BBFC was going to turn into a "Nanny state", drunk on its own power, as so many claim, how about we go by past actions, eh? Rather than convicting them by some form of vigilante-jury, finding them guilty of behaviour they have never exhibited, nor shown any inclination to exhibit?

Of course, that would call for common-sense, rationality and, above all, empathy and compassion.

We are a very open, liberal-minded country. I do understand the BBFC's concerns over Manhunt 2. I don't buy the whole "You're the perpetrator so it's not OK" line because I'm not sure it really makes much of a difference. You're the bad guy, you do evil stuff, big deal. We've seen good guys in other titles do worse.

Ad then there is that whole issue with ratings, something I'd LIKE to see is a big ad campaign on TV and in the papers/magazines educating and informing parents about the age ratings system. To be fair, it's long overdue...

Empathy and compassion? It's not tiny Tim the poor frail one legged boy who can't afford Christmas dinner, it's a bunch of media pandering panzies! All who disagree with me deserve to have their heads sawed off.

Funny, because I voted to ban the BBFC just the other week for a consistant tone of stupidity with lack of alternative pleasures.