Manhunt 2 Banned in the UK!

[QUOTE="gaminggeek"]I can understand regulating games and making sure that underage people don't get to watch adult content. Fine by me, make is so you have to own a credit card to get an 18 game, show ID when buying a game, whatever. I don't want violent or sexual content getting into the hands of minors more than anyone else. But that shouldn't impede my right to watch the content I want if it doesn't harm anyone else. m0zart

Yeah this goes well beyond prohibiting sale to minors. The original Manhunt was only given a BBFC 18 certificate, prohibiting sale to those under 18. I wonder how bad this game could be for it to be banned completely?

Also, is it only the sale of the game that is banned or does the ban extend to mere possesssion and/or gift-giving (I was assuming the term "supply" refers to sales distributing only). In some countries with a similar historical legal system, such as New Zealand, mere possession of Manhunt is a legal offense.

Our laws actually prohibit the sale of age restricted games to minors and there is provision for criminal prosecution for anyone doing so - of course the law is never enforced, but it's there already. Looking at manhunt 2's distinctly PS2 generation graphics and then seeingother hi-def violence get by the UK censoring system seems hypocritical to me. And it's not the motion controls banning this game as the PS2 version is banned too.

"Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game's unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer..."

I love it :lol: so if there was a break where you could walk up to acomputer and playa mini-game or ride a horse as an alternative pleasure it would be okay?

"Against this background, the Board's carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors,"

Oh I would LOVE them to explain to me what the "unjustifiable harm risks to adults" would mean to me.

So banned in:

1. The UK
2. Ireland and almost certainly...
3. Germany
4. Australia and NZ?

Whilst I can understand people's frustrations about not being able to play Manhunt 2 easily (the game has not been given a classification, so can't be sold in shops. People are more than free to import it), the criticism of the BBFC seems a bit much.

The BBFC are one of the most liberal and lenient classification boards around. They are not controlled by the government and there was no concerted pressure to have the game banned anyway (all the crowing from various areas have come after the ban). They based a decision solely on content. Rockstar had access to these guidelines during development and could have consulted with the BBFC. For the game to not even be edited suggests that the content is really grim - an impression I also got from the NGamer review. It really is a cut above every other game I've read about or played.

You also can't really compare Manhunt to Hostel or Saw. The films provide scares and squeamish moments, whereas a game provides pleasure in killing. With seemingly no real artistic merit or context for the game, Rockstar have dug themselves a hole.

So yes, while I would have liked to play Manhunt and made up my own mind on it, you don't always get your own way in life. We're part of society and the BBFC's rules are governed by our feedback and expectations.

One final point - it really doesn't help that games are still seen as a children's plaything. Parents still buy their kids violent games, oblivious to the content or just plain not giving a damn. It's like the controversy over anime and South Park in the 90s (what, all cartoons aren't for kids?!) and comics before that. And if there is one game that probably shouldn't be played by young children, it looks it is this one.

How the hell is Manhunt any bleaker or sadistic than any of the Saw films or Hostel, which are all torture porn. Although Manhunt 1 was seriously twisted it had the gameplay to make it fun and that's what most people enjoyed.

Even if the game is not so great, i'm probably going to import it from France, purely because I think this is an absolutely stupid decision.

nuttybar

Assuming there is no wide spread EU ban. Hey, I am wondering if I can even buy it in Canada.

Can someone from the UK tell me if the Saw, Hostel or The Hills have Eyes movies were banned there? And if they weren´t why the heck is OK to watch almost photorealistic snuf like movies yet not play a for video that clearly is not real?SciFiCat

Because they are films. You watch them to be scared, to be put on the edge of your seat. A game has you killing someone in a gruesome fashion. One is observing, the other is participating. Also, as we don't know the full details of what is in Manhunt 2, who is to say it is on an equal level to what is featured in Hostel or Saw?

Also, films can't be photorealistic, it being real life and all. I believe you mean to say that the special effects are very convincing.

Whilst I can understand people's frustrations about not being able to play Manhunt 2 easily (the game has not been given a classification, so can't be sold in shops. People are more than free to import it), the criticism of the BBFC seems a bit much.

The BBFC are one of the most liberal and lenient classification boards around. They are not controlled by the government and there was no concerted pressure to have the game banned anyway (all the crowing from various areas have come after the ban). They based a decision solely on content. Rockstar had access to these guidelines during development and could have consulted with the BBFC. For the game to not even be edited suggests that the content is really grim - an impression I also got from the NGamer review. It really is a cut above every other game I've read about or played.

You also can't really compare Manhunt to Hostel or Saw. The films provide scares and squeamish moments, whereas a game provides pleasure in killing. With seemingly no real artistic merit or context for the game, Rockstar have dug themselves a hole.

So yes, while I would have liked to play Manhunt and made up my own mind on it, you don't always get your own way in life. We're part of society and the BBFC's rules are governed by our feedback and expectations.

One final point - it really doesn't help that games are still seen as a children's plaything. Parents still buy their kids violent games, oblivious to the content or just plain not giving a damn. It's like the controversy over anime and South Park in the 90s (what, all cartoons aren't for kids?!) and comics before that. And if there is one game that probably shouldn't be played by young children, it looks it is this one.

Shleco

I agree that the BBFC has become more liberal in recent years but IMO they have a pretty turgid history. Some of the films they've banned in the past seem ridiculous when viewed with modern day eyes, remember the whole 80s videonasties?

Films like the Exorcist being banned for 20 years? Straw Dogs, the Accussed, The Evil Dead etc. And while America and Europe have had access to porn for a few decades now the BBFC only relatively recentely allowed this type of entertainment toinfect our shores. The history of the BBFC is like the epitome of the nanny state, we know best what you can and can't see and we are the ones protecting you from harm.

I think that there are plenty of movies which glorify in killing, the average action blockbuster does it but there are many other efforts out there over the years and these are real humans on screen, not murky PS2 pixels. I also happen to have seen the US and UK versions of something like Kill Bill and marvelled at the editing and cuts that had to be made.

You make a good point it really doesn't help that games are still seen as children's playthings, this is the main reason that violent expression is allowed in other mediums but not in games. That's the whole attitude from the people who rate these games, yet really don't understand or respect gaming. The viewpoint is skewed from the off IMO.

Yeah, Manhunt 2 should definately be banned. Murder and violence are clearly by-products of video games. Just look at the murder rates!

Friggin idiots.

For those who don't know, murder rates have decreased substanially over the past few hundred years and continue to drop.

Rockstar had access to these guidelines during development and could have consulted with the BBFC.Shleco

As far as I'm concerned, this is the worst possible scenario, and honestly, I'd rather just see the game banned. The BBFC (or any other ratings board) is not there to impose any guidelines to developers whatsoever, they are there to rate the games accordingly considering their content, so people can make an informed purchase. This is censorship, no two ways about it.

You also can't really compare Manhunt to Hostel or Saw. The films provide scares and squeamish moments, whereas a game provides pleasure in killing. With seemingly no real artistic merit or context for the game, Rockstar have dug themselves a hole.Shleco

I don't know if you've played the original Manhunt, but yes, there is plenty of context there. Personally, I found Manhunt to be a surprisingly profound experience and an interesting comment on mankind's endless thirst for violence, the illegal snuff market, and even reality TV. From everything I've read about Manhunt 2, it seems that the storyline goes even deeper than the original. Compared to Hostel and Saw on an artistic level, Manhunt is frickin' Shakespeare.

One final point - it really doesn't help that games are still seen as a children's plaything. Parents still buy their kids violent games, oblivious to the content or just plain not giving a damn. It's like the controversy over anime and South Park in the 90s (what, all cartoons aren't for kids?!) and comics before that. And if there is one game that probably shouldn't be played by young children, it looks it is this one.Shleco

I wholeheartedly agree.

[QUOTE="SciFiCat"]Can someone from the UK tell me if the Saw, Hostel or The Hills have Eyes movies were banned there? And if they weren´t why the heck is OK to watch almost photorealistic snuf like movies yet not play a for video that clearly is not real?Shleco

Because they are films. You watch them to be scared, to be put on the edge of your seat. A game has you killing someone in a gruesome fashion. One is observing, the other is participating. Also, as we don't know the full details of what is in Manhunt 2, who is to say it is on an equal level to what is featured in Hostel or Saw?

Also, films can't be photorealistic, it being real life and all. I believe you mean to say that the special effects are very convincing.

A game has you killing someone in a gruesome fashion. One is observing, the other is participating.Shleco

In my opinion, the interactivity argument is slim to non-existant. Your "participation" begins and ends by pushing a button. Who is to say which medium has a bigger effect on a person? In movies you have real people screaming in agony being butchered and whatnot, whereas on the other hand, you have a set of square polygons in what is in an instant recognized as an completely imaginary gameworld. If anything, I would argue that movies have a far bigger impact on most people considering how realistic everything looks when compared to games.

Awesome response from gaf:

They won't release it if it gets an AO rating.

If they go back and edit the game so that you have to resuce a bunch of lost puppies & kittens between brutal killings, will it then be OK since the there is a break from the violence?

That is what that article seems to indicate.

dvader654

This response from the BBFC's Sue clarkwas quite telling to me:

"We have to make a decision. If we feel it's not appropriate for cla-ssicfication then we have to make that decision - we can't cla-ssify it and hope nobody notices it."

It sounds to me like they found it inappropiate to their particular tastes and rather than put it out and "hope nobody notices it" they instead decided on an outright ban, maybe because of the whole media hooplah when manhunt was wrongly linked (as the police and courts have said) to the killing of boy.

You do know that make up and prostetics artist study anatomy and gross anatomy (dead bodies) to make their stuff realistic, don´t you? SciFiCat

Yes, and they do an excellent job of it. But the term 'photorealistic' is irrelevant. They are realistic. The word 'photo' is superfluous as it is captured on film/video. Only something like a game or CGI can have a photorealistic quality.

By the way, is that artwork of Felicia in your sig your own work? It's fantastic.

By the way, is that artwork of Felicia in your sig your own work? It's fantastic.

Shleco

Not on the Wii, they day of pushing buttons is over. Now you perform the brutal acts with the wiimote to do it in that game. A new level of interactivity is here, only on the Wii. (end nintendo commercial) :Pdvader654

Ok, then ban the Wii version. :P

Seriously though, it's the same thing.

I agree that the BBFC has become more liberal in recent years but IMO they have a pretty turgid history. Some of the films they've banned in the past seem ridiculous when viewed with modern day eyes, remember the whole 80s videonasties?gaminggeek

You make some good points, gg, and there is no denying that the BBFC have a bad past. Ferman was particularly strict in his censorship. But they have become a lot better in recent years. I just can't help but feel that stuff like decrying this decision as 'nanny state' is as hysterical as something like the Daily Mail saying 'ban this sick filth', it just goes in the different direction. The interactivity does push it to another level and it provides that different effect and emotion than to a film. Whether that's harmful or not - well, I personally doubt it. Is it gratuitous and simply for the sake of it? Have Rockstar failed to make their case strong enough to the BBFC? I just don't see them blankly as the bad guys in this.

[QUOTE="Shleco"]Rockstar had access to these guidelines during development and could have consulted with the BBFC.UpInFlames

As far as I'm concerned, this is the worst possible scenario, and honestly, I'd rather just see the game banned. The BBFC (or any other ratings board) is not there to impose any guidelines to developers whatsoever, they are there to rate the games accordingly considering their content, so people can make an informed purchase. This is censorship, no two ways about it.

Cuts and edits do happen. The Punisher game had its executions censored when it came out on the Xbox. I am not a fan of censorship either but the BBFC makes clear its guidelines and failing to observe them is unwise. Individuals can make their own art or game but we're part of a society and the rules that govern it. I cannot see Rockstar cutting their losses and accepting the ban - they will appeal and see what can be done. A few people importing it from Europe will not make up enough sales to have made the hype of having the game 'banned' worth it. More money would be made from simply having it on shop shelves.

[QUOTE="Shleco"]You also can't really compare Manhunt to Hostel or Saw. The films provide scares and squeamish moments, whereas a game provides pleasure in killing. With seemingly no real artistic merit or context for the game, Rockstar have dug themselves a hole.UpInFlames

I don't know if you've played the original Manhunt, but yes, there is plenty of context there. Personally, I found Manhunt to be a surprisingly profound experience and an interesting comment on mankind's endless thirst for violence, the illegal snuff market, and even reality TV. From everything I've read about Manhunt 2, it seems that the storyline goes even deeper than the original. Compared to Hostel and Saw on an artistic level, Manhunt is frickin' Shakespeare.

Yes, the original did provide context and was given an 18 certificate by the BBFC. If Manhunt 2 was at the same level I doubt the game would have been banned. Rockstar must have taken it up a notch and the suggestion is if there were themes to be read into the sequel along the lines of a critique of reality TV, Rockstar failed to emphasise this enough.

*Takes out a*Censor* Lolipop*

The game was too much for them to handle

[QUOTE="Shleco"]

By the way, is that artwork of Felicia in your sig your own work? It's fantastic.

SciFiCat

Good to see we've got such a talented artist on the GS boards. Does a lot of game art inspire you to draw or do you just have a particular soft spot for Felicia? The cast of Darkstalkers were such an inspired bunch, it is a real shame that Capcom just left the series to die and never made the most of it. Could you imagine a new Darkstalkers game with Guilty Gear quality visuals? Yum.

1) You also can't really compare Manhunt to Hostel or Saw. The films provide scares and squeamish moments, whereas a game provides pleasure in killing. With seemingly no real artistic merit or context for the game, Rockstar have dug themselves a hole.

2) So yes, while I would have liked to play Manhunt and made up my own mind on it, you don't always get your own way in life. We're part of society and the BBFC's rules are governed by our feedback and expectations.

3) One final point - it really doesn't help that games are still seen as a children's plaything. Parents still buy their kids violent games, oblivious to the content or just plain not giving a damn. It's like the controversy over anime and South Park in the 90s (what, all cartoons aren't for kids?!) and comics before that. And if there is one game that probably shouldn't be played by young children, it looks it is this one.

Shleco

1) Unless asystem is hooked up in some way to the pleasure centers of one's brain, I don't see how a game could provide 'pleasure in killing'. Also, I don't think its wise to confuse reality and fantasy. One isn't killing anyone in any game. Assuming one is an adult with both feet planted in reality, killing a collection of polygons in no way approximates killing a real person. Like I've said before, I've logged a lot of time into SOCOM/Ghost Recon/Rainbow 6, but I wouldn't walk up to a veteran and tell him I know how it is. As for the artistic merit argument, one man's artistry...

2) I see your point. I spend a few months in England years back and violence on English tv was noticiably tamer than violence on American tv (the tameness didn't extent to theaters). Make a game with a ton of sexual content in the US, one will arouse controversy. However, I don't think videogames should be singled out for babysafing (nor do I approve of babysafing in general).

3) Such a misperception needs to be fought and corrected, not indulged. If it is indulged, it will never go away.

[QUOTE="Shleco"]A game has you killing someone in a gruesome fashion. One is observing, the other is participating.UpInFlames

In my opinion, the interactivity argument is slim to non-existant. Your "participation" begins and ends by pushing a button. Who is to say which medium has a bigger effect on a person? In movies you have real people screaming in agony being butchered and whatnot, whereas on the other hand, you have a set of square polygons in what is in an instant recognized as an completely imaginary gameworld. If anything, I would argue that movies have a far bigger impact on most people considering how realistic everything looks when compared to games.

While films are more realsitic, the process of watching them is more passive. With a game you are actively thinking about the actions. I wouldn't say that games have an effect on mature individuals, or most people really. Pressing a button or thrusting a remote is nothing like wielding an actual weapon. Games and film are fiction and if someone is predisposed to violence, games and film are hardly likely to fuel those urges further - and not having access to them will not quench it either.

Also, with the Wii and PS2 versions both being banned, it suggests the control method is not the issue. It is the game's content that has been deemed problematic.

Finally, one thing to clarify to some of the other posters in this thread: the only reason the PSP version has not been 'banned' is because it was not presented to the BBFC.

1) Unless asystem is hooked up in some way to the pleasure centers of one's brain, I don't see how a game could provide 'pleasure in killing'. Also, I don't think its wise to confuse reality and fantasy. One isn't killing anyone in any game. Assuming one is an adult with both feet planted in reality, killing a collection of polygons in no way approximates killing a real person. Like I've said before, I've logged a lot of time into SOCOM/Ghost Recon/Rainbow 6, but I wouldn't walk up to a veteran and tell him I know how it is. As for the artistic merit argument, one man's artistry...

2) I see your point. I spend a few months in England years back and violence on English tv was noticiably tamer than violence on American tv (the tameness didn't extent to theaters). Make a game with a ton of sexual content in the US, one will arouse controversy. However, I don't think videogames should be singled out for babysafing (nor do I approve of babysafing in general).

3) Such a misperception needs to be fought and corrected, not indulged. If it is indulged, it will never go away.

CarnageHeart

Perhaps pleasure isn't the right word for it but there can be a satisfaction in killing someone in game. Of course, I expect most to make that distinction between fantasy and reality. I was just highlighting a difference between game and film. I believe the comparisons to films like Hostel and Saw are not particularly strong ones.

You also make a good point on cultural differences. Something like The Shield or The Wire would not be made over here. I will be really interested to see what the ESRB do about this game - unfortunately there will be no way of knowing if any decision they make will be influenced by the BBFC.

Also, fighting that misperception is something that both the games industry aren't willing to do - which is in my opinion their single largest failing. Hoping that just throwing out financial numbers and stats will make people take games seriously is just ridiculous and is not helping win people over. The other thing is that people just don't want to listen and will stubbornly stick to their opinions. The vicious circle continues.

[QUOTE="trifecta_basic"]Can't say I agree or disagree, Rockstar is clearly treading the needle with this game's content. As a governing body they have to ask themselves what benefits does this game have and what negatives does it have. In their mindset the negatives are going to win-out, and given the content and premise of the game that is fine by me.UpInFlames

I'm sorry, but this sort of thinking annoys me to no end. As someone who has lived under a Communist regime, I am extremely opposed to any kind of government body telling people what they should do, think, watch, or play. Rockstar isn't treading anything, this is a classic case of censorship, arrogance, and a stereotypical outlook on games (someone think of the children!). Who gives a **** about "their mindset"? Adults have a right to decide what's good or bad for them.

I believe the game's content is extreme enough where, again, Rockstar put themselves in a position where these types of actions would be taken. Plain and simple. You are only looking at this through your slanted perspective, instead you could try and maybe think why they would do this and what purposes a game like this serves. In their mind if they let this slide then someone will just make something worse. Manhunt is not on the same plane as 99.9% of other games and you know it.

There's nothing stereotypical at all about this, any kind of movie that had 1/3 of the kind of violent content Manhunt and GTA have would be banned instantly. The only reason Manhunt didn't get a AO in the US is because of Rockstar's clout with the ESRB. If Manhunt 2 doesn't get a AO then it's clear that rating is just a front to make it look like they are doing there job.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="trifecta_basic"]Can't say I agree or disagree, Rockstar is clearly treading the needle with this game's content. As a governing body they have to ask themselves what benefits does this game have and what negatives does it have. In their mindset the negatives are going to win-out, and given the content and premise of the game that is fine by me.trifecta_basic

I'm sorry, but this sort of thinking annoys me to no end. As someone who has lived under a Communist regime, I am extremely opposed to any kind of government body telling people what they should do, think, watch, or play. Rockstar isn't treading anything, this is a classic case of censorship, arrogance, and a stereotypical outlook on games (someone think of the children!). Who gives a **** about "their mindset"? Adults have a right to decide what's good or bad for them.

I believe the game's content is extreme enough where, again, Rockstar put themselves in a position where these types of actions would be taken. Plain and simple. You are only looking at this through your slanted perspective, instead you could try and maybe think why they would do this and what purposes a game like this serves. In their mind if they let this slide then someone will just make something worse. Manhunt is not on the same plane as 99.9% of other games and you know it.

1) There's nothing stereotypical at all about this, any kind of movie that had 1/3 of the kind of violent content Manhunt and GTA have would be banned instantly. 2) The only reason Manhunt didn't get a AO in the US is because of Rockstar's clout with the ESRB. If Manhunt 2 doesn't get a AO then it's clear that rating is just a front to make it look like they are doing there job.

I've never played Manhunt (all the ad campaign did was talk about how gory it was, which wasn't what I cared about) but GTA is pretty tame by Hollywood standards.

With extremely rare exceptions, AO only seems to be leveled at games with a lot of sexual content (kind of like the X rating).

Cuts and edits do happen. The Punisher game had its executions censored when it came out on the Xbox. I am not a fan of censorship either but the BBFC makes clear its guidelines and failing to observe them is unwise. Individuals can make their own art or game but we're part of a society and the rules that govern it. I cannot see Rockstar cutting their losses and accepting the ban - they will appeal and see what can be done. A few people importing it from Europe will not make up enough sales to have made the hype of having the game 'banned' worth it. More money would be made from simply having it on shop shelves.Shleco

How do you cut and edit a game which basically revolves around extreme violence? Why should the game be the one that needs to change? How about the BBFC changing its "guidelines"? Why do we as a society need to conform to a few individuals telling us what sort of entertainment is good and bad for us? Who do they really represent, anyway?

I'm not really concerned how much money is Manhunt 2 going to make for Rockstar. My main concern is that the developer's vision remains uncompromised. Rockstar might appeal, but that doesn't mean that they'll agree to edits. Recently Epic sent a clear message to censors saying that they will not change their game.

Yes, the original did provide context and was given an 18 certificate by the BBFC. If Manhunt 2 was at the same level I doubt the game would have been banned. Rockstar must have taken it up a notch and the suggestion is if there were themes to be read into the sequel along the lines of a critique of reality TV, Rockstar failed to emphasise this enough.Shleco

The BBFC shouldn't be there telling Rockstar that they failed to emphasise this or that. They are making a decision for every UK resident that this game is bad for them based on extremely flimsy reasoning. The fact that the original Manhunt was granted a rating and the sequel was not reeks of foul-play and BBFC's biased agenda. From what I've seen so far, the two games don't seem to differ that much. I guess we'll see soon enough if the BBFC'sreasoning actually has any merit.

[QUOTE="trifecta_basic"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="trifecta_basic"]Can't say I agree or disagree, Rockstar is clearly treading the needle with this game's content. As a governing body they have to ask themselves what benefits does this game have and what negatives does it have. In their mindset the negatives are going to win-out, and given the content and premise of the game that is fine by me.CarnageHeart

I'm sorry, but this sort of thinking annoys me to no end. As someone who has lived under a Communist regime, I am extremely opposed to any kind of government body telling people what they should do, think, watch, or play. Rockstar isn't treading anything, this is a classic case of censorship, arrogance, and a stereotypical outlook on games (someone think of the children!). Who gives a **** about "their mindset"? Adults have a right to decide what's good or bad for them.

I believe the game's content is extreme enough where, again, Rockstar put themselves in a position where these types of actions would be taken. Plain and simple. You are only looking at this through your slanted perspective, instead you could try and maybe think why they would do this and what purposes a game like this serves. In their mind if they let this slide then someone will just make something worse. Manhunt is not on the same plane as 99.9% of other games and you know it.

1) There's nothing stereotypical at all about this, any kind of movie that had 1/3 of the kind of violent content Manhunt and GTA have would be banned instantly. 2) The only reason Manhunt didn't get a AO in the US is because of Rockstar's clout with the ESRB. If Manhunt 2 doesn't get a AO then it's clear that rating is just a front to make it look like they are doing there job.

I've never played Manhunt (all the ad campaign did was talk about how gory it was, which wasn't what I cared about) but GTA is pretty tame by Hollywood standards.

With extremely rare exceptions, AO only seems to be leveled at games with a lot of sexual content (kind of like the X rating).

Going by the storyline, MAYBE I'd agree with GTA, but most of the sandbox features of the game, such as burning random people with a flamethrower, running over hundreds of people, killing dozens of cops all within an hour could never be translated into an hour of film.

No, it's leveled at games with LITTLE sexual content, look at the Farenheit/Indigo Prophecy debacle. The ESRB from what I seen has no visible limit whatsoever when it comes to violent content.

I believe the game's content is extreme enough where, again, Rockstar put themselves in a position where these types of actions would be taken. Plain and simple.

trifecta_basic

I can't help but feel that putting the blame on Rockstar is like blaming a spouse that is being abused in a marriage for them staying with their partner. In my eyes, Rockstar is coming off as the victim. It's one thing to educate and inform the general public of what content is in a video game and allow them to make the choice of purchasing it or not and quite the other to down right ban it. All the BBFC has done now is made Manhunt 2 even more sought after and every kid underage will desperately want to get the game.

BBFC is not protecting the public it is completely deciding what is good and bad for them. Since when is that ok?

You are only looking at this through your slanted perspective, instead you could try and maybe think why they would do this and what purposes a game like this serves. In their mind if they let this slide then someone will just make something worse. Manhunt is not on the same plane as 99.9% of other games and you know it.

trifecta_basic

i personally don't see nothing slanted about wanting to be able to make your own choices. As for looking at what purpose the game serves is irrelevant. Why should anyone think about that? I don't look at a Sonic game and say to myself, "Hmmm... what purpose does this game serve?" It's entertainment. Period.

In their mind if they let this slide then someone will just make something worse. Manhunt is not on the same plane as 99.9% of other games and you know it.

trifecta_basic

The same could be said for the BBFC if they are allowed to continuously decide what the English population is going to enjoy and not enjoy then they could just get potentially get worse. What's next? Are they going to decide what the public is going to be allowed to have for breakfast? Manhunt is on the same plane because it is a video game. Pixels, polygons and textures with sound and music rolled up into a feature of interactivity... just like Mario Bros.

[QUOTE="trifecta_basic"]

I believe the game's content is extreme enough where, again, Rockstar put themselves in a position where these types of actions would be taken. Plain and simple.

juradai

I can't help but feel that putting the blame on Rockstar is like blaming a spouse that is being abused in a marriage for them staying with their partner. In my eyes, Rockstar is coming off as the victim. It's one thing to educate and inform the general public of what content is in a video game and allow them to make the choice of purchasing it or not and quite the other to down right ban it. All the BBFC has done now is made Manhunt 2 even more sought after and every kid underage will desperately want to get the game.

BBFC is not protecting the public it is completely deciding what is good and bad for them. Since when is that ok?

How are they going to "educate" the public? That's not their job, their job is to enforce guidelines and rules in order to benefit society. There's a certain invisible line any media form(CD, DVD, Game) needs to abide by no matter how liberal the government they have is. Rockstar clearly is playing with fire and got burned, there's no "victimizing" here.

You are only looking at this through your slanted perspective, instead you could try and maybe think why they would do this and what purposes a game like this serves. In their mind if they let this slide then someone will just make something worse. Manhunt is not on the same plane as 99.9% of other games and you know it.

trifecta_basic

i personally don't see nothing slanted about wanting to be able to make your own choices. As for looking at what purpose the game serves is irrelevant. Why should anyone think about that? I don't look at a Sonic game and say to myself, "Hmmm... what purpose does this game serve?" It's entertainment. Period.

Hell, I'd like to make my choices to. You also choose to live in a place ran by a government who has authority over you, don't like it go somewhere where rules can't be enforced. I'm sure it'll be a wonderful place to live. Then maybe you'll actually appreciate the work your government is doing.

In their mind if they let this slide then someone will just make something worse. Manhunt is not on the same plane as 99.9% of other games and you know it.

trifecta_basic

The same could be said for the BBFC if they are allowed to continuously decide what the English population is going to enjoy and not enjoy then they could just get potentially get worse. What's next? Are they going to decide what the public is going to be allowed to have for breakfast? Manhunt is on the same plane because it is a video game. Pixels, polygons and textures with sound and music rolled up into a feature of interactivity... just like Mario Bros.

Eating breakfast and playing Manhunt 2 are two totally seperate issues. Please stop with the exagerrated metaphors, and actually address the issue at hand. As far as Manhunt is concerned, I've played my share of games, and Manhunt in terms of content(although it does have a well-meaning message buried in it) is the most extreme I've played. There's a difference between your everyday horror game and manhunt.

How are they going to "educate" the public? That's not their job, their job is to enforce guidelines and rules in order to benefit society. There's a certain invisible line any media form(CD, DVD, Game) needs to abide by no matter how liberal the government they have is. Rockstar clearly is playing with fire and got burned, there's no "victimizing" here.trifecta_basic

Actually, educating the public and making them aware of the game's content is exactly what their job is, not to decide what is suitable or not instead of them. If there is indeed a line every media form needs to abide by, than why are games being singled out again and again? Furthermore, what divine power enabled the BBFC to create those lines and enforce them on everyone else in the first place?

Hell, I'd like to make my choices to. You also choose to live in a place ran by a government who has authority over you, don't like it go somewhere where rules can't be enforced. I'm sure it'll be a wonderful place to live. Then maybe you'll actually appreciate the work your government is doing.trifecta_basic

If you're in love with your government so much, how about moving to Cuba where the government will make all the decisions for you. You'd have a blast.

Seriously though, going to such extremes doesn't make any sense. We're talking about entertainment here, which directly falls under free speech, the right for people to freely express themselves, and the right that adults can make the decision which game to buy or not for themselves.

Going by the storyline, MAYBE I'd agree with GTA, 1)but most of the sandbox features of the game, such as burning random people with a flamethrower, running over hundreds of people, killing dozens of cops all within an hour could never be translated into an hour of film.

2) No, it's leveled at games with LITTLE sexual content, look at the Farenheit/Indigo Prophecy debacle. The ESRB from what I seen has no visible limit whatsoever when it comes to violent content.

trifecta_basic

1) You haven't watched many action movies, have you?

2) I confess I missed the Farenheit/Indigo Prophecy 'debacle' but while videogames in the USface a lower threshold than other forms of commercial art, there is some tolerance of sexual content. If there wasn't Rumble Roses wouldn't be on shelves, would it?

Eating breakfast and playing Manhunt 2 are two totally seperate issues. Please stop with the exagerrated metaphors, and actually address the issue at hand. As far as Manhunt is concerned, I've played my share of games, and Manhunt in terms of content(although it does have a well-meaning message buried in it) is the most extreme I've played. There's a difference between your everyday horror game and manhunt.

trifecta_basic

I did address the issue at hand. My "exaggerated metaphors" are well placed considering the circumstances.

In no way will I ever accept that it is okay for any organization to decide what is "okay" for the adult public to particpate in when it comes to entertainment. Look at how heated this topic is? Everyone has their own way of looking at it. The views and perceptions of people are across the board and differentiate substantially. With that being said how could one organization tell everyone else that they can't play a video game?

You will never convince me that this is acceptable. So I say we agree to disagree.

Oh and by the way, I ate Manhunt for breakfast! :P

Im 25 years old, I pay my taxes, go to work, noone is telling me what I can and cannot do.GodModeEnabled

Consider yourself lucky you're not in England. ;)

[QUOTE="trifecta_basic"]

Going by the storyline, MAYBE I'd agree with GTA, 1)but most of the sandbox features of the game, such as burning random people with a flamethrower, running over hundreds of people, killing dozens of cops all within an hour could never be translated into an hour of film.

2) No, it's leveled at games with LITTLE sexual content, look at the Farenheit/Indigo Prophecy debacle. The ESRB from what I seen has no visible limit whatsoever when it comes to violent content.

CarnageHeart

1) You haven't watched many action movies, have you?

2) I confess I missed the Farenheit/Indigo Prophecy 'debacle' but while videogames in the USface a lower threshold than other forms of commercial art, there is some tolerance of sexual content. If there wasn't Rumble Roses wouldn't be on shelves, would it?

If Im not mistaken...Rumble Rose got an M. Pretty much solely on sexual content No nudity it sounds like even.

Now lets take Manhunt...Supposedly one of the areas takes place in an S/M parole, a strip club, and such. Now add on the most gursome ways to kill people,huge amounts of vulgar, and I am sure tons of psychological stuff.

I do believe they should bring this up to Court...Since a Movie like Hostel pretty much started off as a porno then went to a gore fest. Its obvious games are treated on a different level then movies...But heya. Coperate America for you now...or better yet the world. Actually to be honest I think America has it right. They can not ban them but they can make it be 18+. Which this game deserves to be. Anyways. I honestly see no point for the AO rating...Its 18+ but M rated is 18+ also...Whats the point?

But at the same time...Its extremely easy to see why it is AO. The first one pushed the line, this went over it.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Im 25 years old, I pay my taxes, go to work, noone is telling me what I can and cannot do.juradai

Consider yourself lucky you're not in England. ;)

Please link me up to reliable european websites that will deliver to the UK please. :evil:

Carmageddon 64 was banned for portrayal of realistic violence.

Well, more like because it encouraged you to run over people, but come on, look at the freaking graphics! And the BBFC banned porn in the UK till a few years ago.

gaminggeek

You can run over people in GTA, or even The Simpsons Road Rage, or any game where a vehicle and human beings exist can be considered encouraging to run people over.

[QUOTE="SciFiCat"]Can someone from the UK tell me if the Saw, Hostel or The Hills have Eyes movies were banned there? And if they weren´t why the heck is OK to watch almost photorealistic snuf like movies yet not play a for video that clearly is not real?Shleco

Because they are films. You watch them to be scared, to be put on the edge of your seat. A game has you killing someone in a gruesome fashion. One is observing, the other is participating. Also, as we don't know the full details of what is in Manhunt 2, who is to say it is on an equal level to what is featured in Hostel or Saw?

Also, films can't be photorealistic, it being real life and all. I believe you mean to say that the special effects are very convincing.

Manhunt has shock and scare factor to it, so did Doom 3 to some extent, however it wasnt really a torture style game. The next true game that will actually scare people will no doubt be Sadness for the Wii, the developers claim that it will target the human psyche to really prove what can scare people and I hope that actually happens. I mean they yank out peoples eyes and torture them in other ways in movies like Hostel and they are far more photorealistic then Manhunt 2 is.

What and interesting discussion! Thanks to all the posters, I read every word.
I'm content to just read but I will make a few small comments.

I have to agree that if something deserves the strictest rating then so be it.
Banning it is just that and is censorship. If you know what's in it and It's
restricted to adult purchase the ability to go a step beyond that and outright
ban is absolute power and you know how that saying goes. Banning it because
it encourages you to commit violent, sadistic and illegal acts and gives you
nothing else to do just won't cut it. If the people were zombies or vampires
you had to kill this would be a non starter. Smacking around a prostitute or
stalking and slitting a pimp's throat is just fine. The fact that you take on the
role of someone that people actually fear in real life, have no control over and
could potentially be the victim of is why the panic button has been pushed.

My second point is that Rock Star had to know they were going to be under
the microscope with this one and never had any expectations of anything other
then an M rating if they were lucky in the USA. The AO rating must have been
planned for and we will have to wait and see what they do about that.
I'm also guessing that the ban was unexpected. Nobody plans for their product
to not be allowed to be sold.

P.S. Obviously I simply must buythe gamenow.:shock:

Well I read the full exclusive magazine review last night, the wholearticle isn't even online and to put things in context Daniel Lamb wakes up in a mental institution 7 years after something went horribly wrong in human experiments. A riot breaks out and along with the crazy psychotic inmates, Hunters from the organisation are sent in to kill him and his buddy before they can find out the truth of what happened 7 years ago. Dr Lamb has to eliminate these hunters before he is killed himself, so the game is in context contrary to the BBFC ruling and even makes sense from a dramatic story perspective. I also don't see how stalking in this game is any differrent to stalking someone in splinter cell and popping a knife in his spine or stalking in prince of persia then cutting the throat.

GodMode, apology NOT accepted! :P

You know I just read the GameSpot "First Look" and it has a slightly different take on
the details but says something quite similar.
I was under the impression that the game was played as some sort of crazed serial killer,
planning your murder, stalking your victims and killing them in the most violent way
possible for extra points or something to that effect. It seems I was seriously mistaken.

Now I'm really confused by this ban.
I guess we are just going to have to wait for the game to see what all the hoopla is about.

Some excerpts from the first page of the GS article.

"Doctor Pickman, convinced the project is close to a breakthrough, takes the project
underground and keeps on plugging away. Lam follows, and in a not entirely bright
move, offers to be a guinea pig. Recipe for disaster? You betcha. A few mishaps later,
and Daniel is dispatched to Dixmore Asylum, a mental institution for the criminally
insane. The good news is he evidently served quite capably as a guinea pig. The bad
is that he's a bit on the crazy side now"....

"Cue up a fateful night and an electric storm that knocks the power out at the asylum,
letting the inmates have the run of the place, and Daniel escapes with a friend named
Leo. Now unsure if his wife and kids were real or the products of his mind, Daniel
sets out to find out just what the heck happened to his mind, which is where you come in.
Your goal in the game is to try to uncover what happened to you and what is going on
with the Pickman Project"....

"Whereas the original game had you navigating a confined area filled with people
looking to murder you, Manhunt 2 has you traveling to new, exciting locations...
filled with people looking to murder you."
Link