People are too uninformed on a particular product and thus are likely to make an incorrect decision on it. It is the mandate of the BBFC to provide guidelines and ratings for products that the public can trust. Dont start an argument on censorship, it never ends.
Then they should inform them. You wouldn't ban a movie just because parents are often uninformed about certain movies. This is the whole point of the ratings system. To inform. If they don't know that a product rated 18 isn't suitable for 12 year old Jimmy, then they can't be informed.
I dont see what the problem with this is, we give up freedom everyday without giving it a second thought. The government decides what substances we can and cant legally consume, what age we can have sex at, where we can smoke etc etc which by everyones logic here are things that we should be smart enough to decide for ourselves. The fact is these things are done for the greater good of society.
How will this game do harm to society? The reasons for statutory rape laws are obvious. The government can decide what substances we can't legally consume because the bad effects of drugs are obvious and often deadly. The most a videogame will do is scar a few children. These children would probably know about the violence beforehand and know what to expect unless they thought Manhunt is about Barney. A few children being very frightened isn't likely to cause problems for society as a whole while doing an unknown amount of damage to an unknown amount of children who have parents willing to buy the game.
I don't think you guys gave me the proper credit for how clever my previous post was.
A bit to melodramatic for me, but hey. Honestly, they should just release the game with strict age requirements (same as a porn rating if they deem it necessary) or just put those kind of games on the index like in germany (which does NOT mean that it's banned), but to outright forbid the sale? I mean, I am not interested in this game (nor was I interested in the first part) and think that both games should not come near children but if adults want to play that game let 'em.
The decapitation, and head on belt part was in the first one. I thought it was so silly and unnecessary. You used them as things to throw at dudes so that they get distracted.
This discussion is pointless because anyone who reads the PA forums is what you might consider a hardcore gamer.
Clearly the BBFC is banning this not to protect hardcore gamers but the wider public. So all this 'I wont be affected by this game' nonsense is irrelevant because you are a very small minority in the BBFCs mind.
Just cause the only people who will buy this game are hardcore gamers doesnt mean the only people who can buy it are hardcore gamers. This is why I support the BBFC protecting consumers in this way, and why anyone who holds the opinion that 'this isnt a murder simulator wagh wagh i hate all this censorship bullshit' must understand that you are right, to an extent, but you cannot account for 100% of the potential buyers of the product, whereas the BBFC must do this.
It's not pointless, and this has nothing to do with being a hardcore gamer, or even a gamer at all. You don't have to be a gamer to oppose censorship in the games medium. Your comment is laughable and wrong; this has nothing to do with PA, and you'll find that a majority of human beings would likely take umbrage to this decision if posed to them objectively. I've found that most people severely dislike censorship or, euphemized, "choosing what is best for society" as relates to any artistic or entertainment medium.
A prohibition order has been made by IFCO in relation to the video game Manhunt 2. The Order was made on 18th June 2007 under Sec 7 (1) (b) of the Video Recordings Act 1989 which refers to ‘acts of gross violence or cruelty (including mutilation and torture)’.
IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context, and the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence is unacceptable.
The context seems to justify the overall level of violence to me.
I never played the original Manhunt, but after http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=24161 this thread I want to. I had no idea there was so much psycho-drama going on as you played through the game. The ads just made it seem like a gorefest, not that I don't like a good gorefest once in awhile.
But if the second one gets good reviews I'll probably pick it up when I get a Wii. You can't just play sunshine and rainbow games all the time.
I don't care if you can rape babies and cut the heads off of women and fuck the bloody stumps, it still shouldn't be banned.
Might I look at people buying it a little funny? Sure. But I still don't think there's any reason to think that the release of this, or any game, poses a risk to society as a whole.
I don't care if you can rape babies and cut the heads off of women and fuck the bloody stumps, it still shouldn't be banned.
Might I look at people buying it a little funny? Sure. But I still don't think there's any reason to think that the release of this, or any game, poses a risk to society as a whole.
Yeah I might draw a line at that.
Extreme violence? Sure. Child pornography? No. And racism or homophobia etc without a valid context (ie the extensive use of slurs like "Gook" and so forth in a game set in vietnam such as Vietcong or whatever) or some kind of artistic redeeming feature (which isn't really a problem, I've yet to see a controversial game that is completely devoid of artistic merit or validity) I'm on the side of censoring that.
I'm not. I wouldn't buy it, but if no one is physically being harmed in producing it and no one can provide concrete evidence that people are harmed by such things being brought into existence, then the censorship of said things, baby rape or not, is a bad thing.
Strong and robust rating systems sure, with the appropriate ratings provided to even the most heinous and depraved games around so there's no way it ends up in a young impressionable youth's hands via a retailer. When they start banning completely fictional, pixelated violence in the name of protecting the public though, is when I think people should be concerned. I know some people probably roll their eyes, but where do you draw the line?
The BBFC can't actually ban something from what I understand. They recommend that it should be banned and usually all the local authorities follow suit and ban it. But a local authority could choose to go against the BBFC recommendation and pass it for sale in their jurisdiction.
That, however, is very unlikely.
Same with censorship within media as well - the BBFC simply recommends that certain scenes be cut should the film company want a specific certification. It's still up to that company to decide whether they want to make the cuts or not.
I don't care if you can rape babies and cut the heads off of women and fuck the bloody stumps, it still shouldn't be banned.
Might I look at people buying it a little funny? Sure. But I still don't think there's any reason to think that the release of this, or any game, poses a risk to society as a whole.
Yeah I might draw a line at that.
Extreme violence? Sure. Child pornography? No. And racism or homophobia etc without a valid context (ie the extensive use of slurs like "Gook" and so forth in a game set in vietnam such as Vietcong or whatever) or some kind of artistic redeeming feature (which isn't really a problem, I've yet to see a controversial game that is completely devoid of artistic merit or validity) I'm on the side of censoring that.
It depends on your definition of child porn. It doesn't count as child porn in the USA if it is simulated and not real. Unless the racism and homophobia advocates violence towards those people, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed.
In the context of the game, the violence works as you are an escaped inmate from an insane asylum.
The BBFC can't actually ban something from what I understand. They recommend that it should be banned and usually all the local authorities follow suit and ban it. But a local authority could choose to go against the BBFC recommendation and pass it for sale in their jurisdiction.
That, however, is very unlikely.
Same with censorship within media as well - the BBFC simply recommends that certain scenes be cut should the film company want a specific certification. It's still up to that company to decide whether they want to make the cuts or not.
Under the Video Recordings Act, most video games are exempt from BBFC classification. However, they may lose this exemption - and therefore require a formal BBFC classification - if they depict, to any significant extent, gross violence against humans or animals, human sexual activity, human urinary or excretory functions or genital organs, or techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences.
Wouldn't this mean that Manhunt must legally get a rating by the board to be sold?
it's not a game i was likely to ever own or play, but the fact that they're banning games (and not just slapping an 18 rating on it, as i would've expected) is a big disappointment. How would the content compare to a film like, say, Hostel, or The Hills Have Eyes (again, not seen either, but all the hype surrounding them was about violence and visceral gore).
And i wonder how much of the decision was to do with the psycho kid that played Manhunt obsessively (many, many hours, daily), who was unbalanced, then took a friend out to the woods to murder him. He was too young to play it, his parents let him, even acknowledged he wasn't normal, then still blamed the game for the death.
And i wonder how much of the decision was to do with the psycho kid that played Manhunt obsessively (many, many hours, daily), who was unbalanced, then took a friend out to the woods to murder him. He was too young to play it, his parents let him, even acknowledged he wasn't normal, then still blamed the game for the death.
The kid who owned manhunt was the kid who was killed. Check the facts. Manhunt was cleared of any blame in court.
A pretty important point you all seem to have missed:
According to the BBFC, Manhunt 2 is far, far more violent, dark and so on than Manhunt 1. They considered Manhunt 1 perfectly acceptable.
Given that the BBFC are, on the whole, more liberal and reasonable than the game ratings system in the US, and no-one here has played the game to comment on it, I'm inclined to at least wonder if they know what they're talking about.
I'm not in favour of banning things, but I'm pretty sure they have a duty to consider banning things that meet certain criteria, not a power to ban. There's a world of difference.
The Rule of Rose affair has me far more annoyed than this one.
well, shoot, that's what i get for reading the Express (i hate it with a passion). The story i remembered reading was that it was the kid who did the killing who owned and played it obsessively. I will, indeed, check facts more in future.
Under the Video Recordings Act, most video games are exempt from BBFC classification. However, they may lose this exemption - and therefore require a formal BBFC classification - if they depict, to any significant extent, gross violence against humans or animals, human sexual activity, human urinary or excretory functions or genital organs, or techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences.
Wouldn't this mean that Manhunt must legally get a rating by the board to be sold?
I think so, yes, although from what I understand local authorities can still overrule that rating. I'm assuming BANNED is considered a rating.
well, shoot, that's what i get for reading the Express (i hate it with a passion). The story i remembered reading was that it was the kid who did the killing who owned and played it obsessively. I will, indeed, check facts more in future.
It's not your fault, the reporting of the incident in newspapers was grossly inaccurate. Basically take anything you read in a newspaper here with a pinch of salt.
A pretty important point you all seem to have missed:
According to the BBFC, Manhunt 2 is far, far more violent, dark and so on than Manhunt 1. They considered Manhunt 1 perfectly acceptable.
Given that the BBFC are, on the whole, more liberal and reasonable than the game ratings system in the US, and no-one here has played the game to comment on it, I'm inclined to at least wonder if they know what they're talking about.
I'm not in favour of banning things, but I'm pretty sure they have a duty to consider banning things that meet certain criteria, not a power to ban. There's a world of difference.
The Rule of Rose affair has me far more annoyed than this one.
Where does it say that? It just says it is different from recent high-end videogames and is more violent than the first one. It doesn't say if how much more violent it is.
This being banned isn't surprising considering the first one was banned in Australia, New Zealand, and Germany.
For the record I thought Manhunt was a bit shit, so I have no intention of buying the sequel.
But essentially this is censorship and sets a bad precedent.
It reminds me of the 80s situation with the video nasties. Oh, and that Mary Whitehouse should've stuck to raising her own damn family and stopped trying to nanny an entire fucking country.
Any of you learned gentleman have any idea which films are/used to be banned from sale in the UK? Because I personally think any arguements about interactivity are quashed by the fact we're yet to produce a game you could mistake for live-action footage.
Any of you learned gentleman have any idea which films are/used to be banned from sale in the UK? Because I personally think any arguements about interactivity are quashed by the fact we're yet to produce a game you could mistake for live-action footage.
Or, for that matter, real life.
Clockwork Orange springs most immediately to mind. Yeah, that was a good first date.
A pretty important point you all seem to have missed:
According to the BBFC, Manhunt 2 is far, far more violent, dark and so on than Manhunt 1. They considered Manhunt 1 perfectly acceptable.
Given that the BBFC are, on the whole, more liberal and reasonable than the game ratings system in the US, and no-one here has played the game to comment on it, I'm inclined to at least wonder if they know what they're talking about.
I'm not in favour of banning things, but I'm pretty sure they have a duty to consider banning things that meet certain criteria, not a power to ban. There's a world of difference.
The Rule of Rose affair has me far more annoyed than this one.
Where does it say that? It just says it is different from recent high-end videogames and is more violent than the first one. It doesn't say if how much more violent it is.
This being banned isn't surprising considering the first one was banned in Australia, New Zealand, and Germany.
The article I linked to seems to say that to me.
Actually, I'm going to have to buy this now. It's suddenly become highly relevant to my dissertation next year.
For the record I thought Manhunt was a bit shit, so I have no intention of buying the sequel.
But essentially this is censorship and sets a bad precedent.
It reminds me of the 80s situation with the video nasties. Oh, and that Mary Whitehouse should've stuck to raising her own damn family and stopped trying to nanny an entire fucking country.
Any of you learned gentleman have any idea which films are/used to be banned from sale in the UK? Because I personally think any arguements about interactivity are quashed by the fact we're yet to produce a game you could mistake for live-action footage.
well, shoot, that's what i get for reading the Express (i hate it with a passion). The story i remembered reading was that it was the kid who did the killing who owned and played it obsessively. I will, indeed, check facts more in future.
It's not your fault, the reporting of the incident in newspapers was grossly inaccurate. Basically take anything you read in a newspaper here with a pinch of salt.
Recent studies suggest that Brits have too much salt in their daily news.
I'm sorry but "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone" is not grounds for censorship, it's a fucking artistic choice.
It was the different narrative context also.
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, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game.
The BBFC seems to make a big deal of the need for artistic merit and context, but their track record is not too impressive, most notably in the cases of the Evil Dead and The Exorcist. I appreciate that their practice has changed since then, and their advisory capacity is immensely helpful, but I don't understand exactly how they feel justified in defining the limits of acceptable social production. They're not elected and they do not represent the population they claim to be 'protecting' in any way - at least if it was a government body they could claim to have some level of accountability.
I don't even really understand their criteria of context, beyond a half-hearted gut reaction against the depiction of violence, or sex, or whatever, in general. The whole decision is poorly justified - they describe the game as 'bleak' and 'callous', both of which are utterly irrelevent points, and as encouraging 'casual sadism' which is admittedly an unpleasant aspect but one which is not justified as a reason for censorship beyond its 'nastiness'. They would only be justified if they could prove the game was actually harmful in some way, and even then they'd be on shaky ground.
As it stands, they are just trying to act as social arbiters when they are unsuited to the job.
well, shoot, that's what i get for reading the Express (i hate it with a passion). The story i remembered reading was that it was the kid who did the killing who owned and played it obsessively. I will, indeed, check facts more in future.
It's not your fault, the reporting of the incident in newspapers was grossly inaccurate. Basically take anything you read in a newspaper here with a pinch of salt.
yeah, i try to, but i think shameless misreporting like that would need a massive salt-extraction operation from one of the major seas.
regarding the censorship, well yes, if it is that they're banning a game for its artistic or stylistic choices, then i am firmly opposed to such decisions. At the same time, as Xagarath said, they've generally been pretty good about what they let through, so i don't think a decision like this would be made lightly.
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, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game.
:roll:
Doesn't that mean that almost all shooters fall into the same catergory as the rarely offer anything other than the ability to kill?
Posts
I was actually expecting such a post earlier in the thread, and was amazed at how long it took.
How will this game do harm to society? The reasons for statutory rape laws are obvious. The government can decide what substances we can't legally consume because the bad effects of drugs are obvious and often deadly. The most a videogame will do is scar a few children. These children would probably know about the violence beforehand and know what to expect unless they thought Manhunt is about Barney. A few children being very frightened isn't likely to cause problems for society as a whole while doing an unknown amount of damage to an unknown amount of children who have parents willing to buy the game.
You can cut off a guys balls. You can also saw off thier head and wear it on your belt.
This could be the violentest game ever. I doubt Rockstar or whoever made it is surprised by this.
Switch - SW-3699-5063-5018
I'm okay with the heads being cut off, but the balls? Whyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
I can just imagine doing the "monkey steals the peach" manevour with the wiimote..
The balls thing is new though. That's, uh, wow.
It's not pointless, and this has nothing to do with being a hardcore gamer, or even a gamer at all. You don't have to be a gamer to oppose censorship in the games medium. Your comment is laughable and wrong; this has nothing to do with PA, and you'll find that a majority of human beings would likely take umbrage to this decision if posed to them objectively. I've found that most people severely dislike censorship or, euphemized, "choosing what is best for society" as relates to any artistic or entertainment medium.
It won't be available in Ireland.
The context seems to justify the overall level of violence to me.
But if the second one gets good reviews I'll probably pick it up when I get a Wii. You can't just play sunshine and rainbow games all the time.
Might I look at people buying it a little funny? Sure. But I still don't think there's any reason to think that the release of this, or any game, poses a risk to society as a whole.
Extreme violence? Sure. Child pornography? No. And racism or homophobia etc without a valid context (ie the extensive use of slurs like "Gook" and so forth in a game set in vietnam such as Vietcong or whatever) or some kind of artistic redeeming feature (which isn't really a problem, I've yet to see a controversial game that is completely devoid of artistic merit or validity) I'm on the side of censoring that.
Strong and robust rating systems sure, with the appropriate ratings provided to even the most heinous and depraved games around so there's no way it ends up in a young impressionable youth's hands via a retailer. When they start banning completely fictional, pixelated violence in the name of protecting the public though, is when I think people should be concerned. I know some people probably roll their eyes, but where do you draw the line?
That, however, is very unlikely.
Same with censorship within media as well - the BBFC simply recommends that certain scenes be cut should the film company want a specific certification. It's still up to that company to decide whether they want to make the cuts or not.
Info on how and when vidyugames are classified: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/faq/docs/7075.html
The local authorities thing: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/faq/docs/11046.html
It depends on your definition of child porn. It doesn't count as child porn in the USA if it is simulated and not real. Unless the racism and homophobia advocates violence towards those people, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed.
In the context of the game, the violence works as you are an escaped inmate from an insane asylum.
Twitter
And i wonder how much of the decision was to do with the psycho kid that played Manhunt obsessively (many, many hours, daily), who was unbalanced, then took a friend out to the woods to murder him. He was too young to play it, his parents let him, even acknowledged he wasn't normal, then still blamed the game for the death.
The kid who owned manhunt was the kid who was killed. Check the facts. Manhunt was cleared of any blame in court.
According to the BBFC, Manhunt 2 is far, far more violent, dark and so on than Manhunt 1. They considered Manhunt 1 perfectly acceptable.
Given that the BBFC are, on the whole, more liberal and reasonable than the game ratings system in the US, and no-one here has played the game to comment on it, I'm inclined to at least wonder if they know what they're talking about.
I'm not in favour of banning things, but I'm pretty sure they have a duty to consider banning things that meet certain criteria, not a power to ban. There's a world of difference.
The Rule of Rose affair has me far more annoyed than this one.
I think so, yes, although from what I understand local authorities can still overrule that rating. I'm assuming BANNED is considered a rating.
Man, Strongbad should be banned from the UK for failing to accurately re-create the typography and layout design of The Guardian.
This article has the exact wording given by the BBFC, it seems.
It's not your fault, the reporting of the incident in newspapers was grossly inaccurate. Basically take anything you read in a newspaper here with a pinch of salt.
Where does it say that? It just says it is different from recent high-end videogames and is more violent than the first one. It doesn't say if how much more violent it is.
This being banned isn't surprising considering the first one was banned in Australia, New Zealand, and Germany.
But essentially this is censorship and sets a bad precedent.
It reminds me of the 80s situation with the video nasties. Oh, and that Mary Whitehouse should've stuck to raising her own damn family and stopped trying to nanny an entire fucking country.
Any of you learned gentleman have any idea which films are/used to be banned from sale in the UK? Because I personally think any arguements about interactivity are quashed by the fact we're yet to produce a game you could mistake for live-action footage.
Or, for that matter, real life.
This just in, BBFC bans most British towns and cities.
Clockwork Orange springs most immediately to mind. Yeah, that was a good first date.
Actually, I'm going to have to buy this now. It's suddenly become highly relevant to my dissertation next year.
Here ya go
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/rejected.htm
Where Madness and the Fantasical Come to Play
Recent studies suggest that Brits have too much salt in their daily news.
I don't even really understand their criteria of context, beyond a half-hearted gut reaction against the depiction of violence, or sex, or whatever, in general. The whole decision is poorly justified - they describe the game as 'bleak' and 'callous', both of which are utterly irrelevent points, and as encouraging 'casual sadism' which is admittedly an unpleasant aspect but one which is not justified as a reason for censorship beyond its 'nastiness'. They would only be justified if they could prove the game was actually harmful in some way, and even then they'd be on shaky ground.
As it stands, they are just trying to act as social arbiters when they are unsuited to the job.
yeah, i try to, but i think shameless misreporting like that would need a massive salt-extraction operation from one of the major seas.
regarding the censorship, well yes, if it is that they're banning a game for its artistic or stylistic choices, then i am firmly opposed to such decisions. At the same time, as Xagarath said, they've generally been pretty good about what they let through, so i don't think a decision like this would be made lightly.
Doesn't that mean that almost all shooters fall into the same catergory as the rarely offer anything other than the ability to kill?
Where Madness and the Fantasical Come to Play