Forum Roundtable: Manhunt 2 banning

[Fierce_LiNk]

Ok, guys, haven't had one of these in a while. A forum roundtable.

 

The rules: NO SWEARING.

Keep your answer to the point. No one word replies, but no overly long essays either. Aim to keep it simple and to the point.

These will be going up on the mainsite, so be sensible.

Watch your spelling.

Do NOT reply to other people's posts. Read the question below, leave a statement, and then leave this thread.

 

 

What is your opinion of the recent banning of ManHunt 2? Has censorship gone mad, or have the BBFC made the correct decision?

 

GoodLuck.

[Stickman]

I think this is a awful choice...it is a violent game, yes. But it should never be sold to kids anyway...banning it is just plain sad. I think this has been banned, and think that GTA and NO more Heroes could be banned also...

Also, what happened to my petition

[conzer16]

I'm still undecided.

 

The IFCO and the BBFC are both well within their remits to enforce such an order but is it in the public interest to censor the game or is it just that the two bodies disliked/were shocked by the extreme content of the game...

 

As I said I am undecided, but in the meantime I have created an online petition for the IFCO to reverse their decision.

 

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Manhunt2/

 

Sign away lads if you feel it should be reversed.

[The fish]

I get the impression that a lot of people think they've banned it for the hell of it.

They ban very, very few games, so there is going to be something very, very bad about this particular one to warrant the ban. I highly doubt it was anything to do with the murder that the victims parents tried to blame on the game, mainly because the police believe the motive was robbery, and that it was the victim who owned Manhunt, but not the murderer.

 

In my own opinion, the recent rise in violent crime Manchester, Luton, and especially London, as well as other places, is not going to be helped by this game, if it is released. I know the media always over-react when it comes to real-world violence and violence in games, but in the case of Manhunt 2, I think it could actually have a (negative) effect.

Of course, it wouldn't have an effect on most people, but on those who already see murder as acceptable for getting out of a problem, its certainly not going to make them see otherwise, to say the least...

 

To repeat my main point again: there is almost definitely a genuine reason for this ban.

[Jamba]

The root of the issue to me is responsibility. The concern about the effect of having potentially harmful material in the public consumer-space means that somebody must be accountable for its effect. The BBFC seems to be trying to take away this issue by banning it outright but I think this draconean approach fails to deal with the issue in the long term. At the end of the day people should be responsible for their own actions. Individuals should be aware that when they buy any kind of media this may effect them and if they have children it should be their responsibility to censor it from them.

 

A group like the BBFC should not have to do this for us. In the case of Manhunt 2, I do not disagree with it being unclassified but am entirely against it being banned outright. I see it as an unacceptable intervention which leaves us having part of our lives dictated to us. It goes against our freedom to make the decision for ourselves, a lack of which (in my eyes) has recently made the climate in Britain worse. They need to trust the public to make their own minds up, even if mistakes are made.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Just to re-iterate something:

 

These replies will be going up on the mainsite. DO NOT reply to other people's posts, and do not follow on from other threads. Explain things as well as you can. Only one post per person in this thread.

[Owen]

It's good that the BBFC are on the ball, but it is just a game. I believe more films should be banned as they use real-people in sometimes even more horrific situations, take Texas Chain-Saw Massacre, Saw, Hostel. All disgusting. These to the viewer are much more realistic as well.

 

Overall? Slightly OTT banning this in my opinion.

[Kav]

The problem with comparing this to films is that we take on the role and initiate the killings ourselves in games! Whereas in film, we watch the role of the killer... a game is worse than a film!

 

I dunno, I'd like to play the game and wouldn't like it to be banned outright, but I do see their point!

 

 

...in work, hence the short post!

[D-Day]

This whole issue made me watch the Rambo 4 trailer again... and although I am a great Rambo fan, the gore in that movie is extremely high, yet we know that it will not be banned from our viewing in the cinema. Mel Bibson's Passion of Christ and Apocalypto, two great movies, yet neither of them in the least bit modest in the violence factor... yet, both of them easily made their way into the mainstream through cinema, with the latter gaining a fair bit of advertising.

It seems to me like its the battle against computer games scenario again. If computer games are being blamed for certain mishaps, can't movies induce the same effect? People are free to make decisions on their own. If it isn't going against man-made laws, why try to inhibit peoples freedom, especially in such a controversial era.

[ThePigMarcher]

A disgraceful decision that shows that the BBFC are still behind the times when it comes to censorship and its role in the protection of society.

 

This game presents no danger to the well-adjusted adult that the game is marketed at.

 

A child obtaining a copy is another issue that is nothing to do with the BBFC , and the same can be said if a not-so-well adjusted adult gets the game. These are different issues that need addressing and banning games such as this will not redress that balance.

 

Such censorship usually fails anyway , it creates a demand and therefore makes those that are more supsectable to such media more likely to obtain their kicks elsewhere.

 

Individual freedom of choice and the responsibility that comes with it is slowly being eroded by those who THINK they know better and it is a sad state of affairs to be in.

 

 

OOPS - probably got a bit too long

[Fierce_LiNk]

PigMarcher, that's perfect length.

[Goron_3]

if the incident with the first game hadn't happened, this would get released. Grrr what a dumb decision; it's very violent yes, but seriously, its a game.

[gaggle64]

Now, if it had been Jack Thompson or some half witted US Senator in an election year banning Manhunt, there may be some grounds for a degree of outrage. This however, is a very professional turn down by the BBFC, a body that even suggested recently that many game ratings may be too high. Rockstar have always prided themselves on pushing the envelope, a noble aspiration, but the line does have to be drawn somewhere and I don't think anyone is more qualified to call where then the BBFC. Obviously I haven't played the game myself so I can't comment on it's content myself, but I do trust the BBFC. No doubt Rockstar will appeal against the decision, I trust the BBFC will treat them fairly and consider their position, and I look forward to the public debate that will no doubt ensue.

[Aimless]

The fact of the matter is that the BBFC have seen the game and all the people rebuking the ban have not. The games industry is the contemporary whipping boy for society's wrongs — much as film, music, and comics before it — and these constant attacks have made those that enjoy the medium very defensive of their hobby. Perhaps blindly so.

 

The BBFC website states the following: "Under the Video Recordings Act, most video games are exempt from BBFC classification. However, they may lose this exemption — and therefore require a formal BBFC classification — if they depict, to any significant extent, gross violence against humans or animals, human sexual activity, human urinary or excretory functions or genital organs, or techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences."

 

We know from previews that Manhunt 2 features all of the above, so it is little wonder that the BBFC saw it as a cause for concern. In that sense I would say that, based on what we know of the game, the BBFC are wholly justified in their decision to ban the game.

 

That does not, however, mean I agree with the banning because as a general rule I feel adults should be allowed to make their own decisions — however inept they might be at doing so. But from the reasons the BBFC have given and information available on the game itself, I do not see this as a case of 'censorship gone mad'; the decision looks to be fair and free of hypocrisy.

[Dcubed]

While it is certainatly in the BBFC`s right to refuse to classify any game or movie, they do so very rarely and I doubt that this decision was taken lightly. That being said, I call into question their method of reviewing games, supposedly a group of individuals from different backgrounds play sections of the game for about an hour or so each using cheat or debug codes. Because of this I doubt that the reviewers got a chance to see much of the game`s storyline.

 

Considering that their big concern was that there was no real reason for the violence I call the BBFC`s decision into serious doubt here!

 

Personally I am of the belief that all censorship is wrong (unless it`s done because of animal cruelty or actual real murder, rape etc...) regardless of medium and I always hate to see anything get banned or censored. Ratings are there to protect younger people who are potentially vunerable to certain content. Adults should not be subject to such protection.

[mariosmentor]

This is just the BBFC hanging onto this 'fad' that videogames are bad for everyone in everyway possible.

 

They link it to terrorism, murders even dangerous driving.

 

They don't seem to understand that it's individual responsibility that drives people to crimes, with them everything must have a reason. It's the exact same way that alcoholics blame everything on alcohol, people blame minor health problems for inability to look for work. Everybody needs to blame something for life's imperfections and for violence it seems videogames recieve the blame.

 

Some people are violent by nature, and thus some of them play violent videogames and then some more go on to commit violent crimes.

 

But those same murderers have may have seen Saw, Hostel or any other grisly slasher movie. Why should games be held more acountable for the depravity in modern society moreso than any other medium?

 

If Hitler had played a videogame they'd try to blame it for the holocaust.

[tapedeck]

The BBFC have these basic guideline rules:

 

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?

 

In the context of Manhunt 2, points one and three are highlights. Yet there are two-sides to every story. As gamers we understand the connotations, actions and development cycles behind Rockstar's decision to release this piece of software. Yet the BBFC are more worried about little Timmy getting his hands on the game, resulting in Timmy becoming a mass murderer. So, rather than just banning the software outright (IE mocking the effort, vision, creativity and man hours put into the product) why not sell it behind the counter - With ID being needed for purchase.

 

Use Manhunt 2 as a positive. Change the way gamers buy specific adult themed software. Not having a freedom over our own choice is how rebellion starts, not from an adult based videogame.

 

One further note:

 

Suda 51 must be taking notes..Afterall, he claimed 'No More Heroes' would be more violent that Manhunt 2. It will be interesting to see what becomes of that piece of software. Maybe the developers will look to Manhunt as an example of what they can and cannot do. It'll be interesting to see what 'No More Heroes' turns out like.

[Dyson]

I personally think that the banning of Manhunt 2, in this case, is justified. I hold a very personal view that the media constantly gets the wrong side of Video Games and blames them for anything remotely linked to a game. In this case, it is not the media that has messed up; it is the creators of the game.

 

There is a moral line in the ground that should not be crossed when it comes to the amount of violence in a game. Manhunt 2 has obviously crossed it, and I think that the rating board has done the right thing.

 

However, I think I should point out that if the game was allowed to be sold in the shops, I wouldn't mind. I don't think the banning is a bad thing, however, I don't think allowing it to be sold would be a bad move either. And, for the record, I don't think that the Wii's motion detection and gestures had any part to play in this banning, and shouldn't in the future. The game wasn't banned because you're acting out murderous movements, it was because of the content, and I eagerly await the newspapers' writeups of the story, and prepare to foam at the mouth when they claim it was a murder simulator.

[Cookyman]

Manhunt has been an unfortunate victim of bad timing in my opinion. With the debacle of the Resistance Fall of Man game using Manchester cathederal hitting the news and Panormama's investigation into "is tv bad for your kids?" it really didn't stand a chance. What really annoys me though is their reason for actually banning the game itself

The video game Manhunt 2 was rejected for its "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying", the British Board of Film Classification said.

Now doesn't Sam Fisher from splinter Cell do the same thing - ok maybe not as uber violent as Manhunt but he does stalk and kill enemies.

 

Another reason for it being banned is

Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness

I take it the BBFC haven't heard about creating an atmosphere! Whats wrong with a game being bleak it sets the tone and makes the game more immersive.

 

The BBFC are here to classify games they should not have the right to ban them for the reasons given - Hostel 2 is out next week and I imagine a lot of the film will consist of brutal stalking and slaying and I imagine it will also be bleak and yet it's not banned it has an 18 certificate. There is a complete lack of consistency here.

[4q2]

From a basic point of view, banning actions like this are splittng games into a 'good violence', 'bad violence' scenario.

 

The reality of the situation is killing is killing and the BBFC is making a retarded statement by allowing any content that allows you to kill another human being in a virtual format.

[LazyBoy]

This has nothing to do with the game for me. In fact I probably wasn't going to buy manhunt, it's not my type of game. Yet this still angers me to my core. The fact that someone is telling me what I can and cannot play, someone who has no accountability to me, is not only absurd, but I consider it a threat to my freedom and everyone elses.

 

This nanny state that has become so prominent over the last decade must be stopped before the Orwellian enviseged soceity becomes more than a well quoted novel. It probably sounds like i'm overreacting, but this kind of censorship, any kind of censorship should be stopped now before....well i'm sure your imagination can do the rest.

[Razz]

I believe that obviously for a game to be actually rejected a rating, that something very wrong, and unnacceptable is present with this game. So much so that it warrants a rating rejection. Personally I think that if they banned it, It's for good reason. But I feel sorry for those who were looking forward to this.

[theguyfromspark]

It's a difficult situation but without the ratings system issued by the BBFC the general public probably wouldn't allow any titles that are only suitable for adults as they could be legally bought by a minor. With the BBFC in place we can obtain games with more adult theme such as resident evil 4 without too much backlash from parents and the like. The downside is the occasionally, one game will be deemed too explicit and will be banned. But it's a small price to pay for the general acceptance of 18 rated games in the market.

[Gizmo]

In many ways this is what Rockstar wanted. With the publicity gained from here, there will be plenty of teenagers eager to get this on an import. National news stories on the BBC only help the game - "Any publicity is good publicity."

Think: Holland and their relaxed attitude to smoking. Over here, smoking is a "cool" thing to do, because your not supposed to do it.

 

By banning it, the BBFC have simply created an image of "cool" around this game, and teenagers who want to 'rebel' will get ahold of this game anyway. If it was simply released with huge warnings on the packaging, 18+, then game stores could legally sell it to those who give ID. Parents who are dragged to the store to buy the game (Like when I dragged my mum down to buy me a Tony Hawk 15+ game a few years ago) they will be thoroughly warned before buying.

 

When this was first announced, I was really frustrated. It made we want the game more; with a release so close to Resi Evil, I wasnt even planning on buying the game for a few months (though I always had the intention of getting it at some stage). This morning, I was planning on finding some way around the ban and buying it. But after reading alot of stuff about the reasons behind the ban - sex scenes, testicles being chopped off, and other gruesome things - I've decided that I now no longer mind the ban as the ban. I do mind as a principle, but after finding out all that I no longer have any desire to play it. I'm 15; and the 18 rating other countries are giving it seem to be fitting for once.

[mcj metroid]

That whole ridiculous Machester church thing probably fuelled this as well.

 

GRR