Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Manhunt 2 NOT to be released in the UK

2456722

Posts

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    japan wrote: »
    Doesn't Germany have some really wacky criteria for restricting games? I seem to recall something about not being allowed to portray violence against people (they have to be robots, or zombies, or something).
    I know they had to change the soldier-guys (forgot the name) in HL2 to robots to be allowed there. Not that it was a big change or anything.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • -SPI--SPI- Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    12gauge wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Glal wrote: »
    *the only exception are those with Nazi symbolism, and even then it might simply be forced off displays

    No that's legal and carrys a pretty hefty fine from what I remember.

    No Nazi symbols in games, as games are not considered art. No exceptions - EA got in deep shit because the packaging of Medal of Honor had screens from the english version.
    Wait. Who do you fight in the german version of medal of honour? Robots? The Nasties?

  • ZiggymonZiggymon Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    The problem i see is that if its banned in the UK, Australia and most likely Germany, these are the 3 biggest markets within the PAL region and i doubt Take Two will think its profitable to release it if the major markets within the PAL region are all banning it.

    I have REZ for the Dreamcast PAL for sale £35. Other Excellent retro games for sale PM for details
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    except unlike previous videogames who only feature violent themes this game features violent murders that you perform like for like with the Wiimote.

    Which, is not a scapegoat it is a legitimate reason for it to be banned.



    nb: it is also banned in australia.
    So you're saying it's a murder simulator, Jack?

    I agree with your sentiments. It is, the entire situation, just bullshit. I know its not a murder simulator and people are gonna be just as influenced by movies or TV or music.

    But I dont want to give ammo to these people who advocate Jack Thompsons kind of views on videogames. The game seems to be designed to create controversy from the ground up. It doesnt look fun, its nothing amazing. I wasnt going to buy it anyways.

    I just dont want that kind of game and the conotations of incidents in the public to tarnish video gaming as a whole.

    What Im saying is, would we really miss this game anyways if it was banned completely?

    scarab you have mental problems
  • JammersJammers Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Leitner wrote: »
    All this is coming off the back of that thing a while back where that manhunt-obsessed psycho kid killed another one with a spanner.

    The joy of tabloids. What actually happened was a manhunt obsessed killed got killed by another kid.

    I strongly disagree with this censorship. I may well be writing to my MP if I can find out how to contact her.

    http://www.writetothem.com/
    Just put in your post code and off you go.

    Xbox Live - Jammers007
    Nintendo Network ID - Jammers007
    3DS - 1418-6751-8378
    Steam - Jammers007
  • 12gauge12gauge Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    -SPI- wrote: »
    12gauge wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Glal wrote: »
    *the only exception are those with Nazi symbolism, and even then it might simply be forced off displays

    No that's legal and carrys a pretty hefty fine from what I remember.

    No Nazi symbols in games, as games are not considered art. No exceptions - EA got in deep shit because the packaging of Medal of Honor had screens from the english version.
    Wait. Who do you fight in the german version of medal of honour? Robots? The Nasties?
    You fight Nazis without swastikas basically. Less blood maybe too. But still humans (who remembers the abomination that was Soldier of Fortune 2 German Version ? They just replaced all human skin with metal and removed the blood, half life 1 also had robots instead of marines).

    davidoc0.jpg
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Didnt a game also have to change the red blood to green goo to be released in germany?

    Probably Earth Defense force.

    scarab you have mental problems
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    I agree with your sentiments. It is, the entire situation, just bullshit. I know its not a murder simulator and people are gonna be just as influenced by movies or TV or music.

    But I dont want to give ammo to these people who advocate Jack Thompsons kind of views on videogames. The game seems to be designed to create controversy from the ground up. It doesnt look fun, its nothing amazing. I wasnt going to buy it anyways.

    I just dont want that kind of game and the conotations of incidents in the public to tarnish video gaming as a whole.

    What Im saying is, would we really miss this game anyways if it was banned completely?
    I don't think that is for the BBFC to decide. If it's a retarded stupid game, then it won't sell well (Postal2 comes to mind), otherwise, o-tay.

    You're not giving the loons ammo by banning all games that depict excessive violence, you're just doing what they want you to.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • 12gauge12gauge Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Didnt a game also have to change the red blood to green goo to be released in germany?

    Probably Earth Defense force.

    That's the oldest trick in the book - a shitload of games had/have that.

    Edit: if anyone is interested - all games marked "indiziert" until 2005: http://forum.tcgs.de/showthread.php?t=59518

    davidoc0.jpg
  • AntibodiesAntibodies Used to live in a psychic city. Never knew what would happen in a day. Chicago, ILRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    But I dont want to give ammo to these people who advocate Jack Thompsons kind of views on videogames. The game seems to be designed to create controversy from the ground up. It doesnt look fun, its nothing amazing. I wasnt going to buy it anyways.

    I just dont want that kind of game and the conotations of incidents in the public to tarnish video gaming as a whole.

    What Im saying is, would we really miss this game anyways if it was banned completely?

    I can empathize with this to an extent, really the less objectionable content there is to be found in videogames that might be controlling/influencing the vulnerable minds of the youth- the better. But there has to be better ways to keep these sorts of things out of their hands rather than cutting away entire facets and genres of a medium just because they are less harmless than others. Once one type of allowance has been made, surely others will follow until we are reduced to the most casual and empty of games.

    I find it odd how most people who trash the game have no interest in it, nor have they played the first. Though I am pleased to see how many have stood up against the banning/censorship of the game despite having no interest or even a dislike of the game. Truly the principle at work is more important than the game itself.

    XBL: thetinwoodsman
  • Shakey1245Shakey1245 Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Something of a conflict of interest with this one. I'd love to sit here and shout "This is wrong, freedom of speech" ect but I know almost for a fact that despite the best efforts of BBFC and the staff of games outlets across the country a percentage of either ill informed, ignorant or just plain stupid adults will buy this 18 rated game for thier child under the belief that "games are for kids".

    The BBFC shouldn't tell us what we can and cannot play BUT I don't want any child playing this and I know it will happen.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Antibodies wrote: »
    I can empathize with this to an extent, really the less objectionable content there is to be found in videogames that might be controlling/influencing the vulnerable minds of the youth- the better. But there has to be better ways to keep these sorts of things out of their hands rather than cutting away entire facets and genres of a medium just because they are less harmless than others. Once one type of allowance has been made, surely others will follow until we are reduced to the most casual and empty of games.

    I find it odd how most people who trash the game have no interest in it, nor have they played the first. Though I am pleased to see how many have stood up against the banning/censorship of the game despite having no interest or even a dislike of the game. Truly the principle at work is more important than the game itself.
    I wouldn't mind some games to be banned on the principle of too stupid to be allowed within a 100 mile ratio of me, but I rather have the market work that out, instead of Big Brother.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2007
    It doesn't sound all that worse than the Punisher except for the individual executions. And I certainly don't play it for teh same repetetitive attacks. I play it for the story and experience.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Leitner wrote: »
    Glal wrote: »
    *the only exception are those with Nazi symbolism, and even then it might simply be forced off displays
    No that's illegal and carrys a pretty hefty fine from what I remember.
    I meant the only exceptions to "they don't get banned".

    Anyway, a write-up on the whole thing. Although the original Manhunt does seem to be the only game that ever got banned for non-Nazi issues (among the grand total of ~5).

  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    It doesn't sound all that worse than the Punisher except for the individual executions. And I certainly don't play it for teh same repetetitive attacks. I play it for the story and experience.

    The BBFC are usually all about the context things happen in. E.g. they passed the 15 minute rape scene in irreversible because it was an integral part of the story, and because it didn't glamorise it. Had that exact same scene been in a different film it might have been cut.

    It's kinda funny that the BBFCs refusal to pass it can almost be seen as them basically saying there's no real merit to the game.

  • runwiledrunwiled Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    You have to understand that the BBFC is not some facsist, censoring body that strives to deprive us of all that it can, to make us suffer. The BBFC is a regulatory body whose remit is to classify various forms of media and decide whether or not the material contained therewithin is suitable for the general public. As the article mentions, it is exceptionally rare for games to warrant a recommendation that they not be released.
    That being said, let's also consider the truth that ratings often mean squat. How many children do we know that have played GTA when they were clearly too young to buy it? Do you think the authorities don't know this happens? Of course they do, so let's factor in that people under the age of certification are going to be watching this material. This game, if released, would be played by youngsters.
    Secondly, it's not the violence alone that got this game banned. It's the fact that the game comprises of almost nothing but violence, and not violence in a defensive or justifiable manner. It is apparently just violent for violence's sake. It is sadistic and you are encouraged to behave thusly. With nothing else to break up the gameplay, I can imagine this becoming a very heavy experience and let's not forget that not everyone is as jaded to the world as us internet goons. We may be able to tune out stuff like goatse and dismembered corpses and not worry about it, but not everyone out there is like us. This is to protect the general public, it's not designed to stop you from getting your jollies.
    So it seems that the game not being released probably has more to do with the fact that is lacks any substancial content outside of this 'murder simulation.' I imagine the BBFC factored in that the public probably wasn't missing much once you took out the brutality of the game, and decided that it wasn't worth risking controversy. I think calling this censorship and implying that this is somehow centered around depriving gamers of their passion is a little naive. We get plenty of other titles that have exhibited gross violent content and sadistic aspects. It's just that in this case it got pushed a little too far and revolved around nothing else.
    I wouldn't be surprised by an appeal and I wouldn't be surprised if the game still saw release, but this initial decision is still justifiable. Maybe it'll turn out to be a pretty crap game anyway, which really does have little substance outside of the fact that you can shiv people with your wiimote.
    That being said, Carmageddon was awesome, even when they did turn the people into zombies...in fact that might have made it more awesome.

    To synopsise for those who are lazy:
    -BBFC needs to protect public at large and not just you.
    -Game's content is apparently lacking in any artistic merit, or merit enough to warrant unadulterated sadistic violence contained there within.
    -There are plenty of other good games out there.
    -We probably aren't missing much.

    mpmdoodsig.jpg
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2007
    As I understand it, the main character in Manhunt 2 isn't a murderer and isn't all that happy to be doing it but is doing it largely in self defense after having his head very much mentally worked over.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • -SPI--SPI- Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    It doesn't sound all that worse than the Punisher except for the individual executions. And I certainly don't play it for teh same repetetitive attacks. I play it for the story and experience.

    I remember the punisher having all the really gruesome interrogation kills happening offscreen for them most part and being obscured using a stark black and white filter. I'm pretty sure it did anyway. While manhunt displays it at the focus of the action from what I've heard.

    Although to be honest, I can't really form a valid opinion on the subject of manhunt 2 without first playing or at least seeing gameplay footage of the game myself. Otherwhise I'll be as bad as the politicians that comment about violent or sexual films they've never even seen, which pisses me off no end.

  • RohanRohan Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    I wonder if this affects the Irish release of the game? If not, then all you UK'ers should be able to order it from over here.

    ...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.

    Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    That being said, let's also consider the truth that ratings often mean squat. How many children do we know that have played GTA when they were clearly too young to buy it? Do you think the authorities don't know this happens? Of course they do, so let's factor in that people under the age of certification are going to be watching this material. This game, if released, would be played by youngsters.
    That is true of gory movies. It could also mostly be prevented by better informing parents about what the rating system means and the content that the game has. This would be better because it would have more of a long term effect when it comes to preventing children from getting violent video games. Putting a fucking huge warning label on it would also advertise the fact it is violent to anybody who isn't retarded.
    Secondly, it's not the violence alone that got this game banned. It's the fact that the game comprises of almost nothing but violence, and not violence in a defensive or justifiable manner. It is apparently just violent for violence's sake. It is sadistic and you are encouraged to behave thusly. With nothing else to break up the gameplay, I can imagine this becoming a very heavy experience and let's not forget that not everyone is as jaded to the world as us internet goons.
    No one is forcing them to play the game. They can turn it off. I'm pretty sure that most of the violence in the first manhunt was in a defensive manner. You were being hunted down and had to survive. This is also what the rating system is for in the first place.
    So it seems that the game not being released probably has more to do with the fact that is lacks any substancial content outside of this 'murder simulation.' I imagine the BBFC factored in that the public probably wasn't missing much once you took out the brutality of the game, and decided that it wasn't worth risking controversy.
    Have you played the game? You can't know if it doesn't have any substantial content outside of a "murder sim".

    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.

    This is censorship.
    broadly, any government restrictions on speech or writing; more precisely, government restrictions on forms of expression before they are disseminated

  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.

    This is censorship.

    They do actually play the games though.

  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    For those saying that we're not missing much as the game appears to be crap, the first review up from (I believe Ngamer) gave it a glowing review and said it was an excellent game.

    I was planning on renting it and seeing what it was like, I didn't think much to the first one but I know several people who really got in to it.

    Banning this game is purely ridiculous.

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Rook wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.

    This is censorship.

    They do actually play the games though.

    Yep. A panel of players plays the games and makes decisions based on their experience of the game.
    This is quite a good interview about their policy (although fairly old):
    http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arbpzamo.htm

    and for anyone complaining about the relative treatment of games vs. films:
    http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/24/british-ratings-board-violent-video-games-less-harmful-than-mov/

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    As far as I'm concerned, no piece of media is "unsuitable for the general public." That concept is both upsetting and insulting. Censorship - which this most certainly is, no matter what you feel about Manhunt 2 or the BBFC - is always wrong. There isn't suitable research or evidence to back up any claim that releasing this to the general public - adults included - carries any risk or inflicts any harm. The day we have a global consensus on the psychological effect of supposedly violent media, and the detrimental physical results of those psychological effects, then we can all re-debate this. Until then, any such decision by any regulatory body is an immoral form of censorship.

    steam_sig.png
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.
    Well if the BBFC are able to ban a game, clearly it is their job to do so in certain instances. Otherwise why qwould they be awarded those powers. I further highly doubt the BBFC's policy is to watch a video of the most extreme portions of the game entirely out of context and base decisions on that. If you think that nobody should have the power to ban any game, that's fair enough, but it's not a gripe with the BBFC, who as far as I can see, have done nothing wrong here that any of us can tell without having played the game.

    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • runwiledrunwiled Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.

    But if that were the case I don't think the game would have been banned. The BBFC is not unreasonable, and we're pretty fortunate in this because we rarely have any game denied to us. On the part about the BBFC deciding whether or not violence is justifiable, I think that is their job. Not necessarily within the context of the game, but whether they can justify its release. Is it worthwhile? Will it just stir up trouble? Are the merits of the game enough to balance out the extreme tone? Apparently not, and let's be honest, you can get away with quite a lot in media these days.
    On the subject of keeping people better informed of the ratings, you'd be fighting a losing battle. People don't care enough to look into. Remember those explanations at the beginning of rented video tapes? Now the back of the packaging explicitly states the content of the media, and most shops have a little placard near their products which also provides a break-down of product ratings. I know I've seen these in every GAME I've been into, for example. There's only so much they can do, and if people choose not to listen, then yes, the onus should be on them, but it's the regulatory bodies that get it in the neck. Such is the way of the world.

    mpmdoodsig.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Rook wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.

    This is censorship.

    They do actually play the games though.

    I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but this is the best I could find:
    Examiners are now hired on a five-year contract, as opposed to being permanent. They are required to watch 5 hours 20 mins of media per weekday.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.
    Well if the BBFC are able to ban a game, clearly it is their job to do so in certain instances. Otherwise why qwould they be awarded those powers. I further highly doubt the BBFC's policy is to watch a video of the most extreme portions of the game entirely out of context and base decisions on that. If you think that nobody should have the power to ban any game, that's fair enough, but it's not a gripe with the BBFC, who as far as I can see, have done nothing wrong here that any of us can tell without having played the game.

    I believe that no group should have the power to ban a game, and the BBFC is responsible for wielding the power they have. The idea that they have the power to ban and thus are morally absolved for executing that power is not a good one. They shouldn't have the power. It's not their fault that they have it. But they shouldn't use it either. It IS their fault that they are using it.

    steam_sig.png
  • runwiledrunwiled Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.

    This is censorship.

    They do actually play the games though.

    I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but this is the best I could find:
    Examiners are now hired on a five-year contract, as opposed to being permanent. They are required to watch 5 hours 20 mins of media per weekday.

    You're getting confused. The BBFC rates all media products, not just games. So whilst they might have to watch a lot of film and television material each day, it's also part of their review process to actually have hands-on time with interactive media as well. They're not idiots, they understand how the form of the media affects its content.

    mpmdoodsig.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    runwiled wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.

    But if that were the case I don't think the game would have been banned. The BBFC is not unreasonable, and we're pretty fortunate in this because we rarely have any game denied to us. On the part about the BBFC deciding whether or not violence is justifiable, I think that is their job. Not necessarily within the context of the game, but whether they can justify its release. Is it worthwhile? Will it just stir up trouble? Are the merits of the game enough to balance out the extreme tone? Apparently not, and let's be honest, you can get away with quite a lot in media these days.
    On the subject of keeping people better informed of the ratings, you'd be fighting a losing battle. People don't care enough to look into. Remember those explanations at the beginning of rented video tapes? Now the back of the packaging explicitly states the content of the media, and most shops have a little placard near their products which also provides a break-down of product ratings. I know I've seen these in every GAME I've been into, for example. There's only so much they can do, and if people choose not to listen, then yes, the onus should be on them, but it's the regulatory bodies that get it in the neck. Such is the way of the world.

    I don't see why a private, commercial body should be able to decide what is right for the consumer.
    Besides, gory shit will be just as shocking to a kid whether or not it is justified in the context of the film.
    How is the battle a losing battle? More people who have played video games are growing up and know that there are some gory videogames. Any idiot who read the tabloids knows that Manhunt is violent. This is a mute point as the ratings board decided that it was to violent for adults.

  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited June 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.
    Well if the BBFC are able to ban a game, clearly it is their job to do so in certain instances. Otherwise why qwould they be awarded those powers. I further highly doubt the BBFC's policy is to watch a video of the most extreme portions of the game entirely out of context and base decisions on that. If you think that nobody should have the power to ban any game, that's fair enough, but it's not a gripe with the BBFC, who as far as I can see, have done nothing wrong here that any of us can tell without having played the game.

    I believe that no group should have the power to ban a game, and the BBFC is responsible for wielding the power they have. The idea that they have the power to ban and thus are morally absolved for executing that power is not a good one. They shouldn't have the power. It's not their fault that they have it. But they shouldn't use it either. It IS their fault that they are using it.
    Well, I never said it was morally justifiable. I said that it is indeed part of their job to do so. I reckon that it is morally justifiable, but that's probably too big of a discussion for this thread.

    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • runwiledrunwiled Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.
    Well if the BBFC are able to ban a game, clearly it is their job to do so in certain instances. Otherwise why qwould they be awarded those powers. I further highly doubt the BBFC's policy is to watch a video of the most extreme portions of the game entirely out of context and base decisions on that. If you think that nobody should have the power to ban any game, that's fair enough, but it's not a gripe with the BBFC, who as far as I can see, have done nothing wrong here that any of us can tell without having played the game.

    I believe that no group should have the power to ban a game, and the BBFC is responsible for wielding the power they have. The idea that they have the power to ban and thus are morally absolved for executing that power is not a good one. They shouldn't have the power. It's not their fault that they have it. But they shouldn't use it either. It IS their fault that they are using it.

    Ah...see now you're moving from a specific instance into a general commentary on censorship in the media today. Whilst an interesting topic, it should probably not be discussed here as we're only talking about a very limited instance. A topic such as that would probably be better served in another forum, as it's only going to stir up trouble in here. Unless that's your intention. I would hope it's not.

    mpmdoodsig.jpg
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.

    This is censorship.

    They do actually play the games though.

    I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but this is the best I could find:
    Examiners are now hired on a five-year contract, as opposed to being permanent. They are required to watch 5 hours 20 mins of media per weekday.

    http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/stories/20070417.html
    “The BBFC classified just under three hundred video games last year. Most games in the UK are classified under a pan-European voluntary system, but those with adult content are required to come to us. We take this part of our responsibilities under the Video Recordings Act very seriously. Our examiners actually play the games for up to five hours, assessing all levels of the games and considering all the key issues. Players and the parents of young players can be sure that all aspects of the game have been taken into account before reaching a classification. We require key issues to be flagged and aids such as cheat codes to be supplied to us. We take context into account, and examine works in a way which is as thorough and penetrating as anywhere in the world.

    Also have a read through of what they require for a videogame submission. They really do take their job seriously
    http://www.bbfc.co.uk/customer/cust_procDigi.php

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    It is not the BBFC's job to decide if a games' violence is justifiable. There job is to rate games by watching a video of the most violent portions of the game. For all they knew, the rest of the game could consist of people talking about why that kind of violence was wrong.

    This is censorship.

    They do actually play the games though.

    I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but this is the best I could find:
    Examiners are now hired on a five-year contract, as opposed to being permanent. They are required to watch 5 hours 20 mins of media per weekday.

    How about the BBFC itself?

    Highlights from the link:
    Examiners are required to sample game play throughout the game, not just at the beginning. A method must be provided to facilitate this whether that is cheat codes, a debug menu, save games etc.
    Gameplay footage can be helpful in reaching a classification decision. If provided, please ensure that it is concise and is limited to the contentious elements of the game. Such footage should not normally exceed 60 mins running time
    (emphasis mine)

  • TubeTube Working As Intended Administrator, ClubPA admin
    edited June 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Shit, now I wont be able to buy the game I had no intention of buying anyways.


    Also, to all those who are like 'why is the government thinking for me' you should think long and hard about this game and what its release would mean.

    Jack shit?

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Shit, now I wont be able to buy the game I had no intention of buying anyways.


    Also, to all those who are like 'why is the government thinking for me' you should think long and hard about this game and what its release would mean.

    Jack shit?

    Look at all the violent murders that this game has caused! Oh wai-
    “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, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.”
    What harm would it cause to adults?

  • Mr BubblesMr Bubbles David Koresh Superstar Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    How does the BBFC differ from the MPAA? Isn't that the body that hands out game ratings in America?

  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Shit, now I wont be able to buy the game I had no intention of buying anyways.


    Also, to all those who are like 'why is the government thinking for me' you should think long and hard about this game and what its release would mean.

    Jack shit?

    Look at all the violent murders that this game has caused! Oh wai-

    I don't think you have to murder someone to have caused harm.

  • TigTig Registered User
    edited June 2007
    And this happens just as NGAMER (a long-running UK magazine) gives Manhunt 2 a 92% rave review.
    They go as far as calling the game "an essential a play as Zelda and Resi 4". O_o


    Now there's going to be hoards of game-starved Wii owners looking for it in GAME.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Mr Bubbles wrote: »
    How does the BBFC differ from the MPAA? Isn't that the body that hands out game ratings in America?

    The MPAA can't prevent a game from being released. They can prevent it from getting rated which means that most stores won't sell it.

Sign In or Register to comment.