Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Rockstar Fights Back Against BBFC

Posted by Zonk on Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:27 PM
from the with-angry-words-words-that-hurt dept.
Government Entertainment Games Politics
Rockstar has launched its appeal against Manhunt 2's rating rejection in the UK. At the first hearing on the matter, Rockstar representative Geoffrey Robertson took the British Board of Film Classification to task: "Robertson went on to accuse the BBFC of being 'simply ignorant of the gaming experience' and 'throwing adjectives with hyperbolic abandon at the game ... Their reputation is not at stake; if it were we could show how, over the last century, they've been derided for some of the most stupid decisions in censorship history ... But we're not going to go down that road.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Rockstar Fights Back Against BBFC 47 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
    • And meanwhile, by churning out the same scrotum-popping torture porn that they've been accused of....

      fap...fap...fapfapfapfapfapfap

      Is it really Rockstar's fault that there are a ton of people who want to buy scrotum-popping torture porn? If no one bought it, they wouldn't make it.
      • How the bloody fuck is this a troll? It's a valid statement, idiot mod.
        If no one wanted their product, they wouldn't make it.
    • When people want something done, they do what it takes to get it done. Well, productive people anyways.

      If this is something Rockstar can leverage, then why not? I mean if they want something done, and this isn't a lie, then why not take advantage of it?

      Suppose you wanted something, lets say a pair of shoes. Now the question is, do you Steal them, buy them at a discount center or on sale somewhere, - buy cheap knockoffs shoes made by child slave labor in some foreign country that your sure you never heard of
        • The point is, no matter how you see them or their image, it doesn't matter as long as they didn't break a law. They set out to do something and are in the process of doing it. No matter what it takes. And it doesn't matter what you think, as long as they don't break a law.
      • buy cheap knockoffs shoes made by child slave labor in some foreign country that your sure you never heard of or at least cannot pronounce the name correctly if you have, or get gouged at retail prices?

        The name brand is probably made by child slave labor in the same country, so what's your point? That we can all make "fun of you" for not realizing this?
        • Your the second "what's your point" reply I have got. Evidently I didn't word my post clear enough.

          The point is, that it doesn't really matter who has legitimacy, you are attempting to do something and as long as you don't break the law when getting it done, you have accomplished your objective. Similarly, Rockstar's blasting the ratings things is only an attempt to some end that they want to accomplish. Any objection to their methods to achieving a goal, unless something is illegal (or should be) is somewh
    • So, how, exactly, did they lie to the ratings board about GTA Vice City? the Hot Coffee mod? it wouldn't have been a mod, if they were allowed the first amendment freedom to publish the game as it was written. When will you self-righteous pious hypocrites quit dictating your moral values to the rest of the world? I understand if they want to slap an adults-only label on the title... but what I do with MY video game console in MY home is really none of ANYONES business but my own. These same pious hypoc
      • I didn't say that i thought the rating was right, I didn't say whether or not censorship is right (as it is, I personally beleive as long as the user is forewarned about the content, anything should be publishable) I was merely saying, rockstar's behaviour within what is the current framework of ratings, not only seems to be a situation of pot calling the kettle black, but that it was doing this in a way to annoy the people who's approval they need. I mean, there's no reason rockstar should've made a commen
      • The "Hot Coffee" mod was for GTA San Andreas, not Vice City.
        • Doh. oops... but still, how exactly did they lie? I would love to know how they should be punished for lying to these agencies. I would also like to know when the British decided that democracy in their country didn't include freedom of expression. I know their system is different than that of say, the US or even that of the other Commonwealth Countries, but still, I had though that freedom of expression was a basic tenant of democracy... and how is it that if I want to buy pornography in the UK, it is p
          • If you agree that the mod was a lie, it was a lie because the content was included in the game and Rockstar didn't say so to the ratings boards. On the other hand, the content wasn't easily available at all, so that's why they might have thought it wasn't necessary to warn of it.

            The reason this doesn't fall under "Freedom of expression" is that the porn wasn't explicited. Porn movies and mags don't conceal their content from rating boards or censors. Indeed, with titles such as "romantic rectal reamings 4"

    • Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sigma 7 (266129) on Monday November 26 2007, @01:13PM (#21481639)

      Smooth, frankly, after rockstar got caught lying to the ratings boards with GTA:VC,
      Citation needed. In particular, there's no way you can reach the hidden content without attempting to mod the game - and furthermore, the rating change was from 17+ to 18+ (one year.) Just remember that the ESRB at the time did not factor game modifications into account even if it was a minor 1 byte change in a file that's not easily modified.

      Oblivion was also re-rated by the ESRB as well, with the 'T'een rating changed to 'M'ature. The developer's [gamespot.com] response claimed that they already advised the ESRB on the violent content (although they disagree that red pixels and "inaccessible" content should bump a rating from 'T' to 'M'.)
    • Smooth, frankly, after rockstar got caught lying to the ratings boards with GTA:VC, they should at the very least be treated very harshly.

      I'm sorry? What are you referring to? The only thing I'm aware of is the scandal around "Hot Coffee" for GTA:SA. And although the content was technically "on the disk", it wasn't accessible in any form without downloading and installing a mod. Functionally not any different than not including it at all.

      PLUS who, after rockstar's recent history of incompetence, would start
      • Yes, becuase it being released in SA rather than VC completely negates my arguement [/sarcasm], and "it wasn't accessible" if it was on the disk and distributed it should have been shown to the ratings board like everything else. And the history of incompetence is the release (over p2p, pirating etc.) of manhunt 2 unmodified. Then the closure of one of their offices and jsut trying to pretend the office never existed etc. Then of course the fact they mis-judged how the BBFC would act in the first place. So

  • From TFA:

    Rockstar today launched its appeal against the BBFC's decision to refuse Manhunt 2 certification, accusing the board of putting its reputation above the interests of gamers.

    I should hope that the BBFC puts its reputation above that of gamers, movie goes or anyone else for that matter.

    The article talks of the BBFC's use of hyperbole but if you read their press release [bbfc.co.uk], they say:

    Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in a

    • "In fact I'd accuse Mr Robertson of hyperbole suggesting the BBFC is the British Board of Videogame Censors as a quick search of their records [bbfc.org.uk] shows that Manhunt 2 is the only game currently listed as rejected."

      Isn't that the point? Manhunt 2 whilst being a crappy game is certainly no more violent than various other films and not really worse than some other games out there.

      The BBFC has banned Manhunt 2 because to this day the media is still blaming Manhunt for the death of Stephen Pakeerah de
  • If the game is not harmful to gamers then how will letting it through harm the reputation of the BBFC? Isn't their job to keep the populace from seeing harmful things?
    • This kind of thinking truly makes no sense to me. Some people don't want to see it, so they just make it illegal for anyone to see it? How does that make any sense?
      • Some material is judged to be dangerous, especially material that serves to incite hate or violence. I suppose Manhunt was above that threshold. At that point it becomes "protecting the wellbeing of society".
          • So you're saying that a book can never incite violence or hatred, no matter what was said?
            • We're saying that if people are incited, it's their problem. The government can't just censor everything that could incite violence.

  • Classification (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Carrot007 (37198) <Carrot007NO@SPAMthewibblereport.co.uk> on Monday November 26 2007, @01:16PM (#21481669) Homepage
    All the BBFC ought to be doing is Classification.

    As such everything should come under one of their classifications, even if that is R18.

    They are not about censorship, that should fall down to one of two places. a. the content owner self censoring in order to gain a certain certification or, b. the government, for not allowing illegal things.

    Other that that please certify things and leave it up to the consumer.

    • Fair enough but how do you propose to deal with something such as this where the objection is the fundamental premise of the game? It's not like Rockstar can cut the offending part.

      • By giving it a R18/"Adults Only" rating. Say "It's horrible and we hate everything it stands for," and then give it the most restrictive rating possible. What is so hard about that? I mean why even HAVE that rating if you aren't going to use it?
  • Just imagine the next one they release in a couple of years time (ha, i know). Hi def graphics with photo realistic body and face textures. Nintendo will have released their WiiAxe and WiiCleaver by then and you will be able to watch the blood spray from a victims jugular using the most realistic fluid modelling physics engine money can buy. It will be indistinguishable from real murder except no one really dies. or do they?

  • Rockstar today launched its appeal against the BBFC's decision to refuse Manhunt 2 certification

    It is this sort of thing that annoys me; that the the BBFC refuses to grant it any classification and on those grounds I agree with Rockstar. Now, please hold while I wash that taste out of my mouth.

    Moving on, while I feel that most of Rockstar's titles are over-hyped "shock" titles they are certainly able to be classified. While I personally enjoyed the GTA series, I would not want it in the hands of my children (were I to have any I was responsible for) unless I knew they could handle it BUT that would b

    • I can't believe I'm saying this, as I hate the whole nanny state thing, having worked in video game stores though - the vast majority of parents have no idea about a games content even if it is rated 18. I quite agree that it should be my decision as a parent but in a situation where many parents don't vet the games they are playing, your decision to prevent your child playing it is irrelevant when they visit their friends whose parents never bothered to check and bought it anyway.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Krinsath (1048838)
        And short of requiring licenses to pro-create, there's not much you can really do to stop parents who don't pay attention. However, these parents have been a constant since before technology and video games were even thought, so clearly society hasn't found a way to fix that particular problem in the past few centuries.

        I agree with your point that many parents are oblivious, and that even one such parent can destroy the diligence of an entire neighborhood's worth of them, however it does go back to staying

      • the vast majority of parents have no idea about a games content even if it is rated 18.

        Nothing can help kids whose parents don't give a shit about them. Those aren't the people that complain about violent video games.

        The people who complain about violent video games want the games banned for EVERYONE. They are usually the same people that want to ban rap music, pornography, Harry Potter and Dungeons and Dragons. These people believe that "violent" or "sexual" media is fundamentally bad and they want it banned. "For the children" is just an excuse.

  • Manhunt 2 was nothing but a chance to cash in on the fleeting success of exploitation flicks like Saw and Hostel.

    The PR machine - in overdrive as usual - touted how the game used the Wii controller to immerse the player in his role as the psycho killer.
    The censors only had to stand by and watch as Rockstar dug its own grave.

  • Why do they give rockstar so much free publicity?
  • Really? Which one?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.