Slashdot Log In
Manhunt 2 Banned In Britain
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:02 AM
from the wii-controls-make-it-that-much-squickier dept.
from the wii-controls-make-it-that-much-squickier dept.
westlake writes "Rockstar's Manhunt 2 has been banned in the U.K. for what the British Board of Film Classification calls its 'unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying.' 'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.' The company has six weeks to submit an appeal. The last game to be refused classification was Carmageddon in 1997. That decision was later overturned via the appeals process."
Related Stories
[+]
Manhunt 2 Ban Fallout, Game Rated AO By ESRB 384 comments
In the wake of yesterday's announcement of a UK ban on Manhunt 2 , Rockstar has registered its disappointment at the BBFC's decision. The company simply stated that they '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.' Meanwhile, here in the US, the ESRB has given the game the dreaded AO rating, for adults only. If you're unfamiliar with this seldom-seen designation, it's essentially the 'kiss of death' for a title at retail; a number of popular videogame outlets refuse to carry titles with that rating. MTV's Stephen Totilo has a lengthy and considered discussion of these proceedings. "For 'Manhunt 2,' signs pointed to the title being both less and more extreme than the first. Gone from press previews were mentions of snuff films and Directors. Instead, a more traditionally violent video game premise: one man's struggle to stay alive in an insane asylum gone mad."
[+]
Politics: Take Two Shelves Manhunt 2 350 comments
If you've been following this story so far, it shouldn't come as a shock that Take-Two has shelved Manhunt 2 for the moment, while they decide what to do next. The company is considering its options, and still fully supports the game as a 'work of art'. "Take-Two Interactive Software has temporarily suspended plans to distribute Manhunt 2 for the Wii or PlayStation platforms while it reviews its options with regard to the recent decisions made by the British Board of Film Classification and Entertainment Software Rating Board ... We continue to stand behind this extraordinary game. We believe in freedom of creative expression, as well as responsible marketing, both of which are essential to our business of making great entertainment." Analysts have already started weighing in, with some seeing this as unfairly targeting the GTA-maker for previous 'sins'.
[+]
Manhunt 2 Rejected By BBFC Again, Rockstar Appeals Again 86 comments
Gamespot is reporting that, for a second time, the UK's British Board of Film Classification has declined to assign a rating to Rockstar's Manhunt 2. And, again, Rockstar is appealing that decision. "As for why the edits weren't to the BBFC's liking, the board stated that the 'reduction in visual detail in some of the execution kills' was still not enough to bring the title in line with an 18 rating. The director of the BBFC, David Cooke, also said the organisation had suggested further changes to the game be made, although some requests were ignored. Rockstar responded with a statement shortly after the announcement, stating that it would also be appealing this decision, and that the extra changes it was requested to make were 'unacceptable.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
How dare they! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How dare they! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I love hearing about banned games... (Score:5, Insightful)
Great advertising.. (Score:5, Interesting)
GamePro gives it 8/10.
IGN rated 9.5/10.
British Board of Film Classification calls its 'unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying.' 'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.'
The idea is dumb. (Score:3, Insightful)
Any newscast will be covering events at least as horrible if not worse than anythin you will find in a video game. The difference is, when you hear about someone getting brutally murdered on the news, a person actually died.
I've always felt those that say videogames/movies/whatever that are too violent are the sick ones, for they apparently cannot discern fantasy from reality.
Re:The idea is dumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
The key here is "entertainment-related". So where do you draw the line when games cross from entertainment into objectionable content? Which of the following do you consider harmless fun if depicted in a video game:
killing monsters
killing people
killing cops
clubbing baby seals
sadism
extreme brutal violence
sex
porn
kiddie porn
snuff
For me, there are a few things on that list that I have no problem with if they are banned. There is no entertainment value to be gotten from them except for people who need help.
Parent
Re:The idea is dumb. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Will it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another question is: is this appropriate? I can truly understand that the politicians don't want to promote violence in games, but it's one thing to not like something and a complete other thing to ban/censor something.
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the best way to make children want something is to tell them that they cannot have it.
Parent
Re:Will it help? (Score:4, Interesting)
Suppose
1) you really believe exposure to violent games leads to a more casual attitude towards violence. I think there's evidence both for and against that theory right now, so it's not an unreasonable belief, if still unproven. And
2) You don't consider video games to be a protected form of expression -- that they're just toys, rather than artistic vehicles. Hey, they're called "games" for a reason. Maybe this is not a popular perspective on Slashdot, but again, not totally unreasonable.
Sure, the kiddies are going to download this via torrents, but Rockstar won't make any revenue from these downloads. If Rockstar doesn't profit from this game, they won't produce violent ones in the future. If you believe these things to be true, then a ban is a very effective way of influencing the future content of games.
Parent
Wasn't there problems with Manhunt in Britain too? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wasn't there problems with Manhunt in Britain t (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Wasn't there problems with Manhunt in Britain t (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet still both parents of the victim hold the game responsible - even though the only person involved who owned or had played a copy was the victim! They have not explained why their 14 year old child was allowed this 18 certificate game when they thought it was so deplorable - however they have the nerve to accuse Rockstar of being irresponsible. Given by their own admission, they were blatantly aware their 14 year old had this 18 certificate game and used to let him play it, that's somewhat ironic. I fully expect they even bought it for him.
Of course, the press (The Sun, The Mirror, GMTV, The BBC) didn't bother to correct their stories when it transpired they had been grossly misreporting the story for months (even after the police had been very clear in saying what the press was reporting was incorrect).
Parent
BBC bias is largely to blame. (Score:5, Informative)
Whilst the BBC report mentions that the police have come forward to say that the game had no impact on the killing, it's sad that they omit the very fact that frees the game from any blame, that as mentioned above, the victim owned the game. To me this suggests that they were clutching at straws to find an example of why the game should indeed be banned, and when unable to find one figured they'd use the next best thing and omit the facts that would negate the use of this example.
Of course, it was only yesterday we were hearing about how the BBC has a serious bias problem in it's reporting, so it really comes as no suprise. It's just a shame that only a day later they insist on proving their fault with the fact they once more publish half truths and bring up an irrelevant murder to try and justify the ban.
I'd argue, that the whole reason Manhunt 2 has been banned is not because there is a problem with the game as such, but because the BBFC felt it had no choice due to the public uproar various anti-video game media establishments like the BBC have produced - you only have to look at this weeks Panorama for a top notch example of the problem. How could the BBFC allow a game to be published, that as far as the general public know is responsible for a murder? It's hard to blame the BBFC on this one but easy to see that the British media is the real problem here.
The Nanny State Strikes Again ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody needs the government to tell them what games to play. They're just games, and what people do after playing the game is THEIR responsibility. No video game is going to MAKE someone commit a murder. It's FANTASY and a healthy way to release aggression in a harmless way. Sigh.
I love Britain, and have visited many times; but they look like they are heading down the slow road to Hell.
Re:The Nanny State Strikes Again ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Off topic and unrelated, but here it is at it's base. By your statements, I'd expect that if someone suggested handing guns out to all students it would be OK. And that we shouldn't worry about what might happen, rather, just put the kids that inevitably do commit murder in jail.
Maybe we should do the same with drugs, make them freely available to all, throw the abusers in jail or let them wither away in the streets, they made a choice and get their just deserts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of the current British police state...way too Orwellian for comfort...however, give it up already. Gun control is not inherently a bad thing. On the contrary, unrestricted access to firearms is definitely a problem.
No, guns don't kill people. People kill people...with guns. How many people have died in bar fights because a gun was pulled when what SHOULD have happened if anything were for the parties to drag their beaten asses home and live to learn from their mistakes. Just one simple example. I don't give a shit if you want to hunt, target shoot, whatever, go nuts. But if your motives are purely such, how can you possibly argue against doing so with proper legal controls in place? Why must you insist on being able to buy a concealable handgun with no other merits other than to kill?
Irregardless of how you live where you do, why must you further condemn every other country that disagrees? Other countries that have much MUCH lower death and injury rates due to firearms? Psychopath actually is a very fitting term for people that do.
Parent
Re:The Nanny State Strikes Again ... (Score:5, Informative)
These stats are a bit dated, but still suggestive:
Gun deaths per 100,000 population
US Homicide 4.08 Suicide 6.08 Accidental 0.42 [1999]
UK Homicide 0.12 Suicide 0.25 Accidental 0.01 {1999] [*slightly simplified] Some Facts About Guns [gun-control-network.org]
There were 765 homicides in England and Wales in 2005/2006. The numbers are small enough that the work of a single serial killer or a lone terrorist incident can be visible on the charts. 'Homicide' - Long-term national recorded crime trend [crimestatistics.org.uk]
Parent
Re:The Nanny State Strikes Again ... (Score:4, Funny)
We're trying hard, I tell you but, gosh, darnit, you Americans are hogging the fast lanes in your SUVs.
Parent
Better than Clockwork Orange? (Score:3, Interesting)
They just don't understand (Score:4, Informative)
But that's what makes it FUN!
Irresponsible Parents (Score:4, Insightful)
Ratings on games are ignored far more (and by a larger age gap) than ratings on movies. Probably because of the word 'game'. Even if the stores hold up the game's rating at the point of sale, the parents will still go and buy their kid the game for them.
This is the situation in the murder case - the parent's bought their 14 year old sun an 18 certificate game. Aside from that irresponsible act, it had nothing to do with the child's death unless he was goading on a drug addled thug with themes from the game.
99% of kids of 14+ can handle 18 films and games without an issue I'd hazard a guess. However that other 1% can cause a lot of issues, hence the ratings.
I'm totally against bans however. I think the game should be made available, but not via the usual routes. Sell it in sex shops, so adults can buy it, but they'll stop and think about why their getting their 12 year old kid something from a sex shop. If they're happy to buy their kid things from a sex shop, then quite clearly the game isn't the issue at fault anyway.
Carmageddon (Score:4, Interesting)
Best scoring system
Best audio
Best gameplay
Very possibly the best game ever! I think my entire floor in the dorms got addicted to this game (yes, it was an all male floor at an engineering school). I never would have guessed that senseless exaggerated violence with a buggy rubber band physics system could have been so much fun.
In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Banned for whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, why can even movies be "banned"?
Because this movie, unlike any other gory action movie, will inspire murderers and they won't be inspired by anything else either?
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:4, Insightful)
p. It doesn't help the family-friendly image of the Wii either.
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Informative)
Long answer (disclaimer, I am *not* an expert). The PAL variants vary only in sound encoding and this ONLY affects transmitted material- and only with actual analogue PAL.
This is a situation where using "PAL"/"NTSC" as synonyms for 50Hz/625-line, and 60Hz/525-line displays is misleading. Digitally-transmitted and recorded material is not in PAL or NTSC, or SECAM format. (In fact, strictly-speaking, PAL only refers to the colour encoding, not the frame rate or resolution!!)
Yes, the refresh/resolution specs of our digital systems normally reflect the old analogue systems for compatibility, but they're not "PAL" or "NTSC". Remember that games, etc do not use analogue PAL/SECAM video.
Since (AFAIK) PAL and SECAM countries mostly use the same frame/refresh rates, that should be all that matters when it comes to playing back digitally-recorded and generated material. At worst, the system you are playing the game on should be compatible with your TV system (for composite video???) but this will usually be the case anyway. At best, people will be connecting via RGB SCART, so only the refresh/resolution is an issue, and that's the same in both cases.
As I said above, regional lockouts and so on would be more of an issue.
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:4, Informative)
First off, you have to defeat region coding. If you get a modchip you've got that done. If not, you have to get a EU copy (or close to EU). France doesn't use SECAM for a long time now, so no worries about that. Besides all games are 'set' to either PAL or NTSC (and if youre talking about variants, then only care if you get a Japan game - they have a modified NTSC there called NTSC-J). As the parent mentioned, the variants mostly relate to the sound, and we don't care about that since most of us use the RCA plugs to get our sound.
Now, if you are getting an import from an US country the console will _NOT_ output NTSC. And before you jump me saying that you did just that and your tv says its NTSC - i know, and the TV doesn't see the difference (well, most TVs don't) because the frequency decoder and the color decoder are usually separate subsystems.
PAL consoles playing NTSC games output PAL-60. What this means is the refresh is 60Hz (interlaced) but in PAL colour. Why should you care? If youre using a tv tuner (like a myth box) you better should because not a lot of TV tuner cards do (and even those that do don't usually have driver support for that strange mode). Setting your card to NTSC will give you a b&w picture. I have fought this for about a month when i arrived at this very resolution, then i had to catch the developer for the cx88 linux module to implement that mode (well, it theoretically was there, but it never worked and no-one tried, so yeah, Hi Mauro
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its not going to work (Score:4, Interesting)
It isn't called the war on some drugs for nothing, you know...
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the deal here? While I don't have a problem with limiting access to children, why the fsck are they messsing around with content a GROWN ADULT might wish to play?? The US is starting to lean this way too which saddens me.
What's next....banning books that have too much violent, sadistic content? Sure its not as flashy as the video game, but, it still promotes the same messages....
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Funny)
Pretty sure everyone would be up in arms against that one. I'm not a fan of the bible myself, but I hear I'm an exception...
Parent
They already do. (Score:4, Interesting)
They already do. Even in the U.S., it's possible to produce "child porn" using a word processor and your imagination, at least according to the Justice Department. The way the obscenity statutes are written, if something isn't artistic enough, it can be banned as obscene, on its content and regardless of medium alone.
I thought arresting people just for text was something we'd left in the past, but a few years ago there was a case about some woman (I think it was a woman) who was arrested for operating a website that had stories, of a sexual nature, featuring 'underage' participants (meaning the fictitious characters in the stories were underage). They were judged to be obscene, and thus illegal, even though no minors were ever involved in their production.
The argument for banning actual underage pornography is pretty clear -- you have to eliminate the market for the stuff, to prevent children from being sucked in and abused in order to produce it. No argument for me (or pretty much anyone else) there.
However, the evidence for banning 'simulated' pornography, either computer-generated rasters, or text descriptions, seems very spurious. Okay, so there may be some evidence that the availability of even certain kinds of simulated pornography encourages violent behavior. But to begin with, the evidence seems thin and mostly driven by emotion and rhetoric, not rational argument. Second, that entire line of thinking is a terrible idea, because it undermines the concept of absolute individual responsibility.
Once you start letting people escape absolute responsibility for their actions, by blaming it on pornography, or violent video games, or movies, or just "society" in general, you've lost. Even if you can demonstrate that the availability of porn/games/movies/whatever motivates certain already-sick people to action, that's still not a justification for banning them from everyone. (If anything, it suggests that we need to do a better job ferreting these people out before they can act, and dealing with them.) If a small uptick in crime and violence are the price we have to pay for individualism, then we need to suck it up, because that's the basis for our entire civilization.
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
How about you stop being a fucking pussy, and take some responsibility for the degradation of society by being perpetually afraid of everything and expecting the "government" to protect you from your own shadow? Games don't create violence. They simply reflect society's values, as all art does. Violence is inevitable when people are more willing to be a victim than to do something proactive to stop antisocial behavior. Start telling people that their kid is a brat, and that they're a jackass. Maybe if they hear it enough, they'll start to believe it.
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Incitement and conspiracy are not covered by free speech laws because these are cases where the speech is intended to cause specific action, causing the act of speech to be considered an action and not (simply) a statement. As in many cases, a person's intent is an essential element in making a legal determination.
The doctrine of free speech is generally understood to make lawful any statement that cannot be shown to have specific illegal intent (e.g., incitement) or content (e.g., copyright, obscenity). The burden of proof in this way of seeing things is on the person wanting the speech to be stopped; it must be proven that there is illegal intent or content to the speech. In your way of seeing things, the burden of proof is on the speaker, who must prove that there is "some value". Next you'll be telling us that people are "innocent until proven guilty" provided they can prove their innocence first.
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if you look at history, authoritarian government is much more violent and dangerous that petty street criminals. And authoritarian governments usually do a poor job of controlling street crime for what it is worth.
So you are really making a deal with the devil. Enjoy the "safety" that fascism brings.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Funny)
Well except my dealer won't come out at 6am and usually doesn't have stock by Tuesday, but that's soon corrected by Wednesday.
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
What about what I find offensive? The platitude ridden crap we get now is more offensive to me than some "snuff" game with no artistic merit. I love how these "small minded idiots" are branded as such based on no other criteria than creating something you disagree with. You may think you are voicing the opinion of reason, but its statements like yours that are more censorship favoring than anything else I tend to hear.
How about personal accountability for the media you consume?
How about making choices for yourself instead of assuming your opinion is the opinion?
How about understanding that majority opinion has been shown to be full of shit more than once?
Parent
Re:Its not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Good god. "Freedom of speech" isn't an "excuse." It's a fucking right! I'm hoping that either a) you grew up under a repressive regime and just haven't recovered from it or b) this is a very nicely, subtly constructed troll. Anything else marks you as a tool, in at least a couple senses of the word. If it's option B, then I'll just say, "Well done."
Parent
Re:No such thing as natural rights (Score:4, Interesting)
The only people who want to "debate" human rights are the people who are interested in taking them away. The people who support free speech aren't interested in debating what free-speech means, because free speech is the natural human state by default. I have free speech until someone threatens to take it away. People want to initiate debate about rights because they want to find some convoluted reasoning for taking away the basic freedoms and abilities that people have by their very nature.
Parent
Re:No such thing as natural rights (Score:4, Interesting)
And none of your arguements have any bearing over freedom of speech, which is information and not bound by any real scarcity. Speech can't infringe on anyone elses rights.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The possibility exists that some unstable person will get a hold of these games and go ballistic, but similar arguments have been made about all media over the years. It's the "corrupting our youth" fallacy. Even
Re:What is the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, I think you have your priorities backwards... we should be concerned about the validity of measures taken to repress freedom, not concerned about the validity of one way in which people choose to express it.
Parent
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm honestly not sure I care. I don't want my society being made into some sort of padded room for the "fragile" people. If some people can't take certain forms of entertainment, then they, or their caretakers if they're not competent to care for themselves, need to steer themselves away from it. It's that simple.
If you're offended by something, or worse, if something makes you more likely to do something bad/violent/criminal, then you have a responsibility to keep yourself away from it. People do stupid shit when they're intoxicated, but they don't get a free pass because they're drunk -- they chose to ingest alcohol, and are still responsible for their actions. Similarly, "the videogame made me do it" isn't an excuse, either. (Actually, it's far less of one than even the alcohol is.)
Society shouldn't be censored for children or the mentally ill.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be the definition of psychotic. [google.com].
Re:Fun with Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
You are attacking a straw man, because insofar as slashdot reaches consensus on anything, it does not support censorship of music.
We are not defending the game companies. We are opposing censorship.
If it didn't work for them with Manhunt, they wouldn't be repeating the formula with Manhunt 2.
Violent games aren't the only kind that make money. But there IS money to be made in that market.
Why should violence be a requirement for good sales for them to be allowed to sell it?
Parent