Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Rockstar Appeals British Ban on Manhunt 2

Posted by Zonk on Wed Aug 01, 2007 05:11 PM
from the we're-not-dead-yet dept.
1up is reporting (via MCV) that Rockstar has decided to appeal the BBFC ruling on their uber-violent Manhunt 2 title. The 'next step' is to get a hearing scheduled, which will allow the game to be demo'd and arguments given. "Rockstar Games had been given six weeks to appeal the decision, and with that opportunity about to expire, the company lodged its formal appeal yesterday ... The appeal was filed with the Video Appeals Committee, which can overturn the BBFC decision. As noted in our first article about the ban, the VAC overturned the BBFC's ban of Carmageddon back in 1997, giving Rockstar a glimmer of hope in its current situation."
+ -
story

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'.
[+] News: Croal vs. Totilo - The Manhunt 2 Letters 42 comments
N'Gai Croal (of Newsweek) and Stephen Totilo (of MTV) once again match wits in a textual format, this time over the Manhunt 2 controversy. In Round One, the two reporters discuss the process of playing the game for the first time, and wonder what the experience must have been like for the ESRB raters. Round Two sees them take things up a notch, discussing what exactly it is about the game that's so violent. Round Three ... has them questioning the nature of gaming itself. As always, these are two smart guys with some interesting insights into the medium. Well worth your time. From N'Gai's final letter: "It's difficult to 'read' or derive much meaning from a game. That's why in our three Vs. Modes, we ultimately don't spend very much time talking about or analyzing the experience of playing a game, because it's hard to do so without turning our emails into "I went here. I did this. I picked that up." Which is, after all, what games are. So if the essence of a game is located in what we do, is a walkthrough--go here, do this, pick up that--the most truthful way to write about the experience of playing a game? I hope not. But it's something we should consider. Once again, if the essence of any game is located in its action, reaction, interaction, and the rules which circumscribe those three elements, what does the narrative do?"
[+] Take Two Vows To Publish Manhunt 2 116 comments
Despite Manhunt 2's bad reception in both UK and US, Take Two has publicly announced that it will publish the game at some point. Backing the title as art, once again, the company vowed to see the game released in some capacity or another. "The chairman added that Take-Two subsidiary Rockstar Games, which publishes Manhunt and the Grand Theft Auto series, sees itself as a producer of games rated M for Mature. However, Zelman did say Take-Two would stand by its game, even if it bore the dreaded AO for Adults Only rating. 'We don't see ourselves in the Adults Only business,' he told analysts listening to the call. 'Having said that, if we find ourselves in the Adults Only business, it would be because we have a title that we consider art and entertainment, that we consider if appropriately labeled AO, and that we would like to bring to market.'"
[+] Manhunt 2 Ready For Release, Politicians Angered 66 comments
After much hemming and hawing, Take-Two appears to have secured an 'M' rating for Manhunt 2 from the ESRB. The title is now due in stores around Halloween. The reversal of fortunes for the much-maligned title has prompted a number of conspiracy theories and outright outrage from groups 'fighting' videogame violence. Well-known commentator on the subject and California State Senator Leland Yee is demanding more transparency from the ESRB as a result of this decision. From GamePolitics' coverage: "Parents can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating. The ESRB and Rockstar should end this game of secrecy by immediately unveiling what content has been changed to grant the new rating and what correspondence occurred between the ESRB and Rockstar to come to this conclusion. Unfortunately, history shows that we must be quite skeptical of these two entities."
[+] 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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MeanderingMind (884641) * on Wednesday August 01 2007, @05:19PM (#20077781) Homepage Journal
    I'm wondering what the arguments are going to be. Any bets on more Ebert-esque debates on the status of video games as art?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Given what the first Manhunt was like, the debate will be pretty short. Manhunt kinda...sucked. Snuff-film violence for the sake of violence is no substitute for interesting gameplay. It was similar to Splintercell in that stealth was emphasized, and nothing like Splinter Cell in that the elements composing the gameplay were heavily dumbed down or not included. The major feature was a "grainy" filter when doing an execution, as seen from the spectating audience.

      Some might be fascinated by the violence at fi
      • However, we aren't talking about the original Manhunt, we're talking about Manhunt 2. Unless you are N'gai Croal or a contemporary of his who have actually played the game, I'm not sure your (or I) are qualified to classify this game as "art" or "not-art".

        I'd agree that the original manhunt wasn't particularly artful. However, it is entirely possible (considering what I've read by journalists who have played the game) that Manhunt 2 might be artistic in a demented, horrific fashion.
        • I agree, I had posted an addendum to my post noting exactly that, but it looks like it was nixed for posting twice so quickly.
    • I'm wondering what the arguments are going to be...

      Given everything I've learned about Rockstar Games from the media, I'd assume their argument would have to be:

      Unban our game or we'll fucking kill you and rape your daughter then kill your wife with your daughter's bloodied still breathing body and then steal your car and drive it into a station full of police-puppies and make them all explode you fucking coffee-fucking assholes.
      • I am waiting for "The hackers put the blood and gore in the game" Our original game was about raising puppies, cute little harmless puppies, those evil hackers made it about violence and murder...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Do they even have laws protecting free speech in England? As bad as the U.S. seems to be getting, at least Manhunt 2 is legal here. I just wish various nice European cars were legal here as well.
        • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)

          by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @05:43PM (#20078079) Homepage
          Yes. Britain, as well as the rest of the EU, follows the EU Convention of Human Rights [coe.int]. Article 10 of that states:

          1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
                2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
          I believe this is exactly what SCi did with Carmageddon. Basically it requires that the BBFC prove that Manhunt 2 will cause one of those things listed in item 2. Which seems pretty much impossible to do seeing as there's no conclusive evidence linking playing computer games with real life criminal activity.
          • Oh yeah, IANAL etc...
          • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by RexRhino (769423) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @05:57PM (#20078253)
            Wow... #2 pretty much eliminates any garantee of freedom of speech at all!

            So they can ban speech "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."... Talk about catch-all.

            So basicly the poster is right. There is no garantee of freedom of speech in England. Virtually anything can be argued to fall under one of those categories.
            • Well the whole document describes fundamental rights that can be accepted and applied to over 30 countries, so it had to be pretty general.

              It's important to remember that the onus is on the accuser/censor/banning body/whatever to show that the offending material falls into one of those categories. So if the person whose freedom of speech is being impeded challenges it (as Rockstar now are) it's should actually be pretty damn difficult for the BBFC to prove that it does cross one of those lines.

              Again though:
              • Well the whole document describes fundamental rights that can be accepted and applied to over 30 countries, so it had to be pretty general.
                Which is one of the chief reasons the EU is such a joke. If you have to water down a legal document guaranteeing rights so Polish politicians can pick on homosexuals with impunity and British officials can ban video games, then I think what you've got is a worthless piece of paper.
                • Well odds are British officials won't be able to ban video games (as Carmageddon established and hopefully Manhunt 2 will reinforce) so it does have some value.

                  I don't know if there's something specific you're referring to in Poland. I believe protection of homosexuals would be covered by Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination). Whether it's correctly enforced or not is another matter, but if so that's a problem with the EU and that particular national government, not with the Convention itself.
            • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Atlantis-Rising (857278) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @06:47PM (#20078803) Homepage
              Except the opposite is entirely true. At least the guarantee of freedom of speech presented is true and valid insofar as it is written; namely, it is legally plausible for the judiciary of the EU to follow that law, every time, without fail.

              Contrast this to the First Amendment, which has never been enforced as written and which will never be enforced as written, as it provides no room for compromise of any kind, as with most of the Bill of Rights.

              While you are correct in that it is a catch-all, it is not as wide a catch-all as you are suggesting it to be. Only a few of those exemptions can be widely applied, and even then, they must undergo judicial scrutiny to be applied.

              With the First Amendment, the judiciary can come up with whatever exemptions it feels like- and does.

            • Except, the same applies to the US. You have slander laws that inhibit free speech. National security laws, public safety laws, protection orders, fraud laws, perjury laws, disorderly conduct laws etc. At least with this it is defined clearly and articulately, if still somewhat open to interpretation.
        • Barely. Because of the rating, they can't get the game manufactured for any console.
  • by Cervantes (612861) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @05:35PM (#20078001) Journal
    Ah, the Carmageddon banning. So many memories. :)

    For the uninitiated, they decided to ban the original Carmageddon because one of your goals was to run down pixelated pedestrians in a uniform-but-still-gorey shower of blood. So, to appease those who would protect our values by not letting us run over people in a video game, they changed it so all the pedestrians became zombies, and their blood splatter was now green.

    Because, as we all know, it's much less damaging to our youth to imagine that the entire world is infested with the walking undead.
    • I thought Germany had zombies with green blood and UK had robots. Or was it the other way around?

      Anyway... that saved lives... well, not really.
  • by westlake (615356) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @06:18PM (#20078495)
    As noted in our first article about the ban, the VAC overturned the BBFC's ban of Carmageddon back in 1997, giving Rockstar a glimmer of hope in its current situation."

    Carmageddon was staged as a cartoon.

    The pedestrian targets and obstacles never allowed to become too real.

    Manhunt 2 is unmistakably derived from the sadistic and malign torture porn flicks - exploitation films - like Saw and Hostel.

    If you can't see that distinction - if you can't make that distinction - then the critics of video game violence have won their point.

    • by searchr (564109) <searchr AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday August 01 2007, @06:35PM (#20078675)
      "Manhunt 2 is unmistakably derived from the sadistic and malign torture porn flicks - exploitation films - like Saw and Hostel"

      Really? Well both of those movies, Saw and Hostel, received "R" ratings in the U.S., considered restricted for 17 and up.

      So why shouldn't Manhunt 2 receive the comparative rating (for games) of "M" for Mature, which is also identically restricted to 17 and up?

      And whether or not you personally feel those movies were "maligned", they were actually quite popular with the intended audience that CHOSE to watch them. Why should your personal judgement override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it?
      • And whether or not you personally feel those movies were "maligned", they were actually quite popular with the intended audience that CHOSE to watch them

        Malign [webster.com]

        1 a : evil in nature, influence, or effect. malignant.
        2 : having or showing intense often vicious ill will. sinister. [webster.com]

        The audience has faded to black. The genre summer box office poison. Captivity [imdb.com] grossed $2.6 million. Rockstar tried to catch the wave and missed.

        . Why should your personal judgment override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOIC

        • by searchr (564109) <searchr AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday August 01 2007, @07:16PM (#20079067)
          "The intended audience has violent proclivities. Games with this level of realistic depictions of ultra-violence feeds those neuroses. An AO rating is perfectly appropriate."

          "violent proclivities"? welcome to the human race. Watch a football game lately? How about boxing? Those are actual really-real people beating each other to a bloody pulp, resulting occasionally in actually-actual death.

          Yet those spectacles are approved for all ages.

          Elevating FICTIONAL violence as more harmful or indecent than ACTUAL violence is nonsensical. Unlike you, I can't speak for every single person who views or plays violent media. But I can speak for myself. I'm a well-educated, well-adjusted, non-violent adult, who often enjoys viewing or playing fictionalized media with dark and/or violent content. So far, my "neuroses" have gone hungry. My "violent proclivities" remain buried, and mostly likely fictional.

          I can't stand football or boxing, though. Too violent. And actually realistic. In a really-real way.

          If you don't like it, don't play it or watch it, and be a parent to your children and take responsibility for what they play and watch. But leave MY responsibility to ME.

          [PS: "AO" rating effectively does not exist, since retail chains won't carry an AO game, in the same way that movie theatres won't show an "X" rated movie. Since it's thus financially impossible to release an AO rated game, that rating effectively blocks a game from being released. Which may be fine for your nanny-world, but in my really-real world, I'd rather make that choice for myself.]
          • Watch a football game lately? How about boxing? Those are actual really-real people beating each other to a bloody pulp, resulting occasionally in actually-actual death.

            I can't remember any instance of a football player dying from physical contact on the field. It may have happened once or twice, but it would be a freak accident, not a result of regular contact. Oh, and btw, have YOU watched a football game lately? Because "beating each other to a bloody pulp" is kind of against the rules.

            As for boxing,
            • by westlake (615356) on Thursday August 02 2007, @12:43AM (#20081577)
              I can't remember any instance of a football player dying from physical contact on the field. It may have happened once or twice, but it would be a freak accident, not a result of regular contact. Oh, and btw, have YOU watched a football game lately? Because "beating each other to a bloody pulp" is kind of against the rules.

              The violence of the college game came within a hair of destroying American football in 1905 - 23 deaths - and 1909:

              In a match between Harvard and West Point, the Army captain, Eugene Byrne, exhausted by continual plays to his side of the line, was fatally injured. Earl Wilson of the Naval Academy was paralyzed and later died as a result of a flying tackle. And the University of Virginia's halfback Archer Christian died after a game against Georgetown, probably from a cerebral hemorrhage suffered in a plunge through the line. "Does the public need any more proof," wrote the Washington Post, "that football is a brutal, savage, murderous sport? Is it necessary to kill many more promising young men before the game is revised or stopped altogether?" At both Georgetown and Virginia, football was suspended for the remainder of the season, and the District of Columbia school system banned it altogether. Even Col. John Mosby, the old Confederate raider, used Christian's death to rail against football as "murder." Inventing Modern Football [americanheritage.com]

        • The intended audience has violent proclivities. Games with this level of realistic depictions of ultra-violence feeds those neuroses. An AO rating is perfectly appropriate.
          So instead of having to be 17 in order to purchase the M-rated game, we should get really tough on this type of senseless garbage and make it AO-rated so that only those who are 18 can purchase it. </irony>