Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Manhunt 2 Rejected By BBFC Again, Rockstar Appeals Again 86

Posted by Zonk from the round-and-round-we-go dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.

Manhunt 2 Rejected By BBFC Again, Rockstar Appeals Again More

Manhunt 2 Rejected By BBFC Again, Rockstar Appeals Again

Comments Filter:

  • Well then... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday October 08, 2007 @01:41PM (#20902099) Journal

    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.
    Frankly, if they're reducing visual detail "in some of the execution kills", I'm not buying the game anyway! Certainly not when I can instead go the mall and watch iPod users' pants catch on fire.

  • F&*! the nanny state (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Neon Aardvark ( 967388 ) on Monday October 08, 2007 @01:47PM (#20902177) Homepage

    Not the kind of game I would normally be interested in, but this ban makes me want to obtain this by other means, and donate a fair price to Rockstar (if this is somehow possible).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 7Prime ( 871679 )
      Hold on, how is this a Nanny-state situation? I love how the fact that a private rating organization whose decision affects the decision for private console manufacturing companies to release games, and the decision for private retailers to sell the game suddenly constitutes a "Nanny state". If you extend the "Nanny" to mean private corporations, than I will agree with you, but you do realize that there is absolutely no government involvement here.

      What you're seeing is Capitalism at its most uninterrupted..

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by plague3106 ( 71849 )
        No, not uninterupted at all. This private ratings organization only came about because otherwise the GOVERNMENT was threatening to do so. If the government hadn't said otherwise, its likely ratings wouldn't have been adopted at all.

        This is how any ratings systems have come to be; whether for movies, music and now video games.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by 7Prime ( 871679 )
          You do realize that if the government hadn't demanded one, than Wal-Mart and other "morally obligated" retailers would have demanded the same thing, and then we're back to the same exact outcome (which is what we have here in the US). The fact is, one way or another, a society that condones the enforcing of values on other individuals (and show me a society that doesn't) will make it happen one way or another. Better the government does it than private business, because at least the government is more quick

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by lubricated ( 49106 )
            It doesn't matter how the nanny state came to be either by overpowerful corps or government or whatever. These guys have a product and they can't sell it in a country.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by 7Prime ( 871679 )
              Probably the most objective and pragmatic statement I've heard all day, thank you. You've highlighted the problem completely, freeing the blame from one particular group. Now it's up to "US" to decide what we can and should do about it, if at all.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by RxScram ( 948658 )
                Why is it up to the United States to decide what we can and should do about it? Isn't the U.S. in enough trouble already?

                <ducks head and runs>
              • I've become way to cynical to do anything about it, I just want to know how to profit from it.
          • At least if it was only the companies, you would have been justified in saying it's Capitalism at its finest. When there's a government entity involving itself, the purity of capitalism is diluted.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by 7Prime ( 871679 )
              Yeah, well, I'll admit my ignorance of the inner-workings of the British information control scheme, but the outcome is identical to the US, which is completely privitized, so it's not really all that important, is it?

              When will people understand that power is power, regardless of whether it's in the private sector or the public sector, and too much power in one area leads to a few people with iron fists. Pure Capitalism deligates too much power to the private sector, and pure Socialism deligates too much po

          • You do realize that if the government hadn't demanded one, than Wal-Mart and other "morally obligated" retailers would have demanded the same thing, and then we're back to the same exact outcome (which is what we have here in the US). The fact is, one way or another, a society that condones the enforcing of values on other individuals

            A private shop refusing to sell an item is not enforcing anything, no more than if McDonald's declined to include hard-core gay porn as prizes in Happy Meals.

          • You do realize that if the government hadn't demanded one, than Wal-Mart and other "morally obligated" retailers would have demanded the same thing, and then we're back to the same exact outcome (which is what we have here in the US).

            Bull. People would buy the content at other, amoral, stores, and WalMart would lose out big time. Then it would rethink its policy.

            Its not the majority of society that is trying to force their values on others, its a very loud minority.

            Even if what you think is true (its not)
      • What you're seeing is Capitalism at its most uninterrupted... do you like it, Ms. Rand?

        Umm, I fail to see how the British Board of Film Classification is in any way a capitalist entity. What do they sell? What do they produce? What are their quarterly net profits? What do they stand to gain or lose in the market by banning this game?
        • Well, I don't know about the Britis counterpart, but in the US we have the ESRB. The ESRB gets paid a fee by the publishers to review and rate the game. Any games not reviewed would be "unrated" and Wal-Mart would not sell them (althought for some reason unrated DVD's are fine).

          The ESRB's interests are also very much tied into the industries. Since Wal-Mart sells the most games, if they won't carry many distributors won't either, and so the game industry tends to shy away not getting their games rated.

      • Re:F&*! the nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)

        by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Monday October 08, 2007 @02:17PM (#20902561)
        Hold on, how is this a Nanny-state situation?

        Because the BBFC are a government body whose job it is to tell adults which films they're allowed to watch and which games they're allowed to play.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by 7Prime ( 871679 )
          Good for them. Better them than Walmart, who will do the same, anyway. At least government leaders can be theoretically voted in and out.

          Don't you get it? Society demands censorship. Blame your neighbor, not big government, not big corporations. Does that make it "right"? I don't really think this is really a question of right or wrong. But censorship is an innevitable part of any society, if you don't like the current trends of censorship, then fight it, by all means.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by VJ42 ( 860241 ) *
          Actually, the BBFC is a Private company [bbfc.co.uk]. I'm not sure about games, but IIRC when it comes to films, local authorities (being the bodies that licence cinemas) don't even have to accept the BBFCs classification recommendations.

          Not that any of this makes it an any more acceptable decision; and I'll be emailing them [bbfc.co.uk] to let them know what I think of their nanny-stateist approach.
          • TBH, I don't really care what they rate the game(s). I do care that console manufacturers prohibit certain ratings on their platforms, that stores refuse to carry unrated titles, and that not enough people to make a difference seem to care. If we want to change that, we need to A) make more noise and inform more people than the opposition, and/or B) convince the relevant parties that we are a larger portion of their market than those who wish to maintain or tighten the current restrictions.
      • What you're seeing is Capitalism at its most uninterrupted... do you like it, Ms. Rand?

        If by "capitalism" you mean "the console manufacturers that don't want and don't need the grief that comes with being identified with a game like Manhunt 2," then she likes it just fine.

        their platform, their choice.

        if you don't like it, you can pick up your marbles and play elsewhere.

    • Not the kind of game I would normally be interested in, but this ban makes me want to obtain this by other means, and donate a fair price to Rockstar (if this is somehow possible).

      The Dutch have ok'd it, and they're the same region as the UK. A solution presents itself.

    • I remember when my bootleg of THRILL KILL turned up in a jiffy bag on my door step.
      60 seconds later (including bootup) I realized the game was a steaming pile of shite. Nothing like censorship to wet my loins though.

      How much public coverage of 'thwarted free-speech' will it take to get this game to #1? My money's on a pre-Christmas final release - nothing says "Baby Jesus Birthday Cheer" more than graphic dismemberment.

  • Just my $.02... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cleon ( 471197 ) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <24noelc>> on Monday October 08, 2007 @01:49PM (#20902191) Homepage
    At this point they really ought to just release the game for the PC as free software, and use the strategy guides, web sites, forums, etc to generate revenue.

    As an added bonus, it would be a huge middle finger to the jackasses who think it's acceptable to "ban" a video game.

    If they keep on appealing, it's just going to be a bigger money pit--and it probably won't get them anywhere. Time to cut your losses, guys.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by morari ( 1080535 )
      I agree that they SHOULD just release the game, completely uncensored, on the PC. Though they'd never do so for free. Rockstar has tried to make the claim that their games are art, but the simple fact that they'll bowing to censorship to reach the largest audience possible shows that they really just care about the money. Personally however, I couldn't care less about playing their games, they're usually not of the highest quality. That said, I'd hate to see this kind of ratings board bullying hold actually

  • Rockstar (Score:4, Insightful)

    by n0dna ( 939092 ) on Monday October 08, 2007 @01:49PM (#20902193)
    Selling Crap through Controversy.
    • Perhaps. Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed GTA: San Andreas. Not because of all the Hot Coffee crap, but because it was a game I had fun playing. Cruising around town with that weird old rockstation on the radio(and Axl Rose on the mike) and just checking out the scenery. Most of the missions were so completely over the top that it was more funny than violent. Money well spent, in my opinion.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
        GTA sells for being a good game but most of their other "successes" were only out of controversy. I guess that's why GTA is their bestselling series.
    • I'd rather them be controversial and push the envelope then succumb to the pressures of soccer moms everywhere.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 7Prime ( 871679 )
        When you put it like that, I can't help but agree with you. Still, I think it's a flaming pile of dung and should never see the light of day.
    • I didn't enjoy Manhunt, the original, but it's a far cry from crap. Crap is something like the output (I hesitate to call them "games") of Derek Smart. Try Universal Combat and then get back to me on what makes a game crap.

    • Selling Crap through Controversy.

      Rockstar defines "adult content" as the psycho killing spree which is Manhunt 2. Torture porn as video game entertainment. While the intense, visually splendid, and morally ambiguous Bioshock - an adult game by any reasonable definition - is released to rave reviews and sells 1.5 million copies with scarcely a hint of moral outrage from anyone.

  • Strange (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jmpeax ( 936370 )
    It blows my mind that the BBFC is allowed to ban things at all - they're like some kind of elitist gatekeepers who are able to dictate what entertainment adults can and cannot enjoy. It's so insane.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by 7Prime ( 871679 )
      How is that so strange? People have controlled the flow of information for millenia. It's human nature. In fact, it's one of the sanist and most understandable things out there. You might not agree with it, but SOMEONE is going to control the flow of information, the only question is 'who'?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hatta ( 162192 )
        So you've finally grown to love your chains. Good for you.

        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by 7Prime ( 871679 )
          Here's a reality check:

          Civilization = bondage

          If you don't like civilization, fine, abandon it. The fact that you choose to be a part of civilization means that you've agreed to relinquish some level of power. That's not going to change until you throw off the bonds of civilization and become a one-man society. The only question is "which powers"? Some states value physical safety above all else, some value ecconomic fairness (in various deffinitions). That's what civiliation IS. The very fact that you are c

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by jmpeax ( 936370 )
            You call that reality? How about:

            Civilization != Appointing an elite organisation to ban art because they feel it could adversely affect the masses

            This isn't about abandoning civilization. This is about making civilization not take powers away from us it doesn't need to.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
              But which does it need to take? Censorship like this isn't there because the govt wants more control, the govt really doesn't care how violent your videogames are (they might care about things that oppose them politically but they haven't banned the Sun yet so that's not happening). This censorship came because the PEOPLE wanted it to be. In a democracy the only real way to determine what laws should exist is to look at what the people want and in this case the people want censorship. YOU may not want censo

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by jmpeax ( 936370 )
                I think at one time, people may well have wanted censorship based on religious beliefs, for example. However, you ask people now whether they're OK with being told what entertainment they can and cannot enjoy, in any context, and they won't be OK with it.

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
                  I think that depends on how you word it because that changes what they think you're going to forbid. "Are you okay with your access to media being restricted?" would give a much more negative response than "Do you think games about brutally murdering people should be sold in stores?".

                  • Re: (Score:1)

                    by jmpeax ( 936370 )

                    [...] more negative response than "Do you think games about brutally murdering people should be sold in stores?"

                    Really? Even if you reminded them about films like Saw, and if you also made it clear that an organisation would have access to these things and be judging them to be "too violent" or "too callous" for them to handle? I think people would react quite negatively to that. For all the things that people blame on bad influences like video games, they never see themselves as being able to succumb to such "influences". The idea of some committee having jurisdiction over deciding what's best for adults is ludicro

          • Civilization crumbles and dies because someone can play a crappy game? Whoa, Nelly, I guess Jack is right!

            We're talking about a game here, ok? Not that someone wants to own a nuclear warhead and insists in sleeping on the trigger. Care to explain how limitation of access to information harms civilisation?
            • Rats, that happens when you construct two sentences at once. Let me rephrase that last sentence:

              Care to explain how the limitation of access to information stabilizes civilisation? How does allowing this information (i.e. a bloody game) to get into the hands of adults bring civilisation to its knees? By "suggesting" something like this should be done? If people really feel like what's being done in the game is the right thing to do, "civilisation" has far, far worse problems.

              • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

                by 7Prime ( 871679 )
                Heh, well, you're right on one account, there are FAR worse problems, and in the grand scheme, this amounts to little or nothing. But blatent violence as shock value is just another form of social control, as it triggers our deeply seeded animal-like fascination with death and dominance, basically it attempts to undo everything that civilization stands for. Sure, one game isn't going to singlehandedly cause the distruction of the human race as we know it, but shouldn't we actively be trying to reject forms

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Opportunist ( 166417 )
                  I'm quite aware that Rockstar uses shock as a selling point. Their games ain't much more than shock and awe. They ain't the first to use a shocking concept as a way to publish their content, and I'm fairly sure they won't be the last ones. If it's a consolation for you, I don't have any of their games.

                  The point is, though, that it's still about freedom of speech. It's like with the Playboy (or was it Hustler?), I don't care about their opinion, but I want them to be able to voice it. Yes, even if it's not a
      • There is only one person who should be granted the permission to "filter" information: Me. And only for one person: Me.

        The same applies to you and everyone else. You, and only you, should be the person deciding what information is "good" for you and which is not.
  • I'm pretty sure BBCF is the one that decides whether manhunt is 'Acceptable' for a rating.
    • Says who?

      I'm dead serious and not trying to be provocative, but honestly: Who died and made them king, and me a peasant, needing them to dictate what's "good" and "acceptable" for me?
      • If the industry didn't do it, the Government would've done... the industry chose to do it's own dirty work.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by iainl ( 136759 )
        George VI died and made Elizabeth II Queen. The BBFC is a part of the British State. It's also a far, far superior organisation than the "violence fine, as long as it's from a major studio" MPAA.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
        England has a royal family, I guess you could look their ancestors up and decide who you deem dead enough for your purposes. That aside, obviously the government that was voted into power by the people. Which was probably driven by the religious morals hamemred into them by the church. So in closing, Jesus died and made them king.
        • What a sad day for religion. Until now, we assumed Jesus died for our sins. Now we know that he died so we won't get to see sins.
  • All this talk about how graphic it is makes me want to play it all the more.

  • what the hell? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Monday October 08, 2007 @02:02PM (#20902361) Homepage
    Wait wait wait...they are saying it is still unsuitable for an 18 rating...that implies that THEY are deeming it "unfit" for anyone, up to and including adults of consenting and legal age.

    Who the fuck are YOU to tell ME what is innapropriate in terms of SIMULATED violence?

    Realize that some people actually enjoy simulated violence and that you are not their mother. Fucking hell.
    • Why is this flamebait? It's a true feeling expression of someone's outrage that someone else believes they know better than they do as to what is and isn't appropriate for them....

      It's just like claiming someone is a terrorist just because they happen to have a recipe for something akin to napalm, or a fuel-air explosive....

    • They are the organization put in charge of rating games and have the backing that un-rated games may not be sold, given to them by the politicians and perhaps ultimately the voter (who either voted for the politician because he thought that was a good idea, thought something else was a good idea and didn't think this important, voted because well his dad voted for this party, didn't vote, voted for the guy that lost)

      Anyway, that is who they are.

      A simple google could have told you that much more clearly.

      P

    • Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday October 08, 2007 @02:56PM (#20903015)
      Even if they were my mom. I'm past the age of "legality" for anything there is. I can take a mortgage and ruin my life, I can sign contracts to pyramide schemes, I can join our army and let some idiot punch a hole into my head, I can return the favor and turn him into a fine, red mist, I can sign with pharma corps and let them use my body in any kind of testing, in short, I am legally permitted to destroy my life in any way I deem fit, but I can't play a game?

      WTF?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Bios_Hakr ( 68586 )
        In the US, you can't legally use drugs. You also can't drive without a seatbelt. If you knowingly partake in a pyramid scheme, you can be held criminally liable. If you violate the "laws of war" you can and will be prosecuted for murder.

        You most certainly do not have the right to destroy your life in any way you see fit.

        However, in this case, the solution is simple: digital distribution.

        Rockstar should partner with Steam and allow the game to be downloaded with credit card verification. UK stores lose

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by Dunbal ( 464142 )
          If you violate the "laws of war" you can and will be prosecuted for murder.

          So when does the GW Bush trial begin?

          1. No formal declaration of war
          2. No concrete political objective to end the "war"
          3. Unnecessary prolongation of the "war".
          4. Classification of non-uniformed combatants as "terrorists" and claiming they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions since they are "unlawful combatants". Yet the military obviously can recognize them enough to shoot at them.

          Atricle 44 of Protocol I:
          3. In order to promote

    • I don't know if the rating system works in the UK like the ESRB system here in the US. If it does, then Rockstar's problem isn't that it's not getting the rating, but that retailers won't carry the game if it doesn't. Obviously that undercuts the profit of the game, so Rockstar makes no money and thus no games.

      So, (again, assuming the system is similar between countries) no one is telling you what is inappropriate. However if retailers don't carry the game, you can't buy the game in a brick and mortar

    • Because the game teaches you how to effectively become a mass murderer. Duh! Just drive into any garage to change your paint (unless you're in a taxi or LEV) and you can get away with anything.

      But seriously, the idea that teaching people how to be effective killers is somehow equivalent to creating a mass murderer is absurd. True, there was the ex-Marine clocktower killer, but the overwhelming majority of the military do not go on killing sprees. Hell, most rifle hunters are effective killers, but lik

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 )
        Because the game teaches you how to effectively become a mass murderer.

              So does the army, pal.

  • Tired game ideas (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ThirdPrize ( 938147 )
    Lets face it Rockstar are the GWAR [gwar.net] of the computer games industry. Using 'supposed' shock tactics to look a bit rebellious and hip in an attempt to sell units. GTA was good, Bully was a bit sick and this just seems a bit sad. It's like the team behind the film Scarface doing a cheap straight to DVD nasty afterwards.

    My real complaint is that ever since Tekken first ripped someone's spine out and dangled it in their face, games have been trying to out gore each other . It doesn't really add much to the g

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by biovoid ( 785377 )

      ...Bully was a bit sick...

      Huh? At worst it was "Revenge of the Nerds", and at best it was a decent GTA-style sandbox-with-missions game set in a boarding school with much less violence and no hookers.

  • I realize that Rockstar has to worry about actually selling copies, but the libertine gamer in me wants Rockstar to love their appeal, say "fuck it" and release the game via download or whatever, with all the censorship removed. They should add in the hot coffee minigame for good measure.
    • According to Wikipedia it was the Vienna branch of Rockstar that developed it (or at least started the development). Not in the UK, but within the EU. I imagine Rockstar could get into all kinds of trouble for doing what you suggest. (Pity.)
  • Its all part and parcel of the culture of denial at large in Britain at the moment. Its aim to have a Calvinist state where our purity will save us...

    BBFC denies adults things because we can't be trusted. We must be children.

    The salt has been removed from our food because we can't be trusted to measure it for ourselves. The BBC news seems obsessed about smoking, salt and childhood obesity.

    Brown tells us all the problems of britain are all our fault. Its too much salt. Too much video game violence. We should

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close