The controversial ‘slasher’ videogame Manhunt 2 is to be re-assessed by the UK's Video Appeals Committee (VAC) after the High Court this week judged its decision that the game should be released was legally flawed. Manhunt2 Rockstar's Manhunt 2: release to be re-evaluated The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) ruled …
Quick! Ban Q-tips too!
(cotton buds to some....)
Otherwise I, as a complete f**ktard, might have an uncontrollable urge to ram them into my eyes! They're potentially lethal, and the government has a duty, nay, a sacred trust, to protect me at the expense of everyone else having dirty ears due my own stupidity.
Release the Game
Just release the game this is beyond a joke now. If people think its to violent then they dont have to buy the game, dont ruin it for the rest of us. This country is badly going downhill we are becoming a nanny state and i dont want that.
COULD BE POSSIBLE
they should of never banned this game in the first place its a war over nothing. games arnt real i think the bbfc need to look at the movies now cannibal movies chainsaw movies etc etc ive seen those movies and by god there awful especially the cannibal movies. i mean pulling someones guts out of there body or sticking a women on a spike from her private parts going up through her mouth this is not entertainment fucking hell. manhunt is not real cant people see that anyway thought id be the first to post haha lets hope manhunt gets released uncut and unedited
"There are adults who could be classed as vulnerable and we’re legally bound to protect them from games like Manhunt 2, as well as children."
What will be the upshot? A new "18-NAN" certificate for those 18 years old or older who can prove they are Not A Nutter?
“There are adults who could be classed as vulnerable and we’re legally bound to protect them from games like Manhunt 2, as well as children,”
It's comments like these that drive me nuts, surely if it's an 18 we shouldn't be thinking of the children? What next, ban everything that isn't child friendly? Oh and yes there are adults who are vulnerable but hey, they're also vulnerable to the voices in their heads that tell them to kill.
The main worry seems to be
that children may get hold of the game.
An 18 certificate doesn't prevent this. It simply tells retailers that they must not sell it to children. If others buy it for them, it isn't the game's fault.
If the BBFC use the argument that children may obtain it, they are saying that their own classification system doesn't work, which makes the BBFC's classifications irrelevant anyway. We may as well disband them.
If they are to persist with this logic, no 18 certificates can be issued at all, in case an under 18 gets hold of it. Presumably then, no 15s can be issued, in case an under 15 get hold of them. Thus no 12s can be issued in case an under 12 gets hold of them. In fact, all you're allowed to play/watch are the Teletubbies and Bob the Builder.
Vulnerable Adults can drive, buy weapons, drink....
“There are adults who could be classed as vulnerable and we’re legally bound to protect them........as well as children,”
What a load of nonsense. That might make more sense when it comes to buying alcohol, driving, buying knives/guns etc, but until that date comes - why so much hoo-haa surrounding a game?
Damn this game will be good. The more they go on about how 'damaging' it can be the more I want this game! The more they dither and procrastinate the more likely it becomes that I'll take my Wii controller and nunchuck and go round to the BBFC and give them a serious wiiing-too.
No Country for Old Men
I went to see the above at the cinema during the week. Not once have I felt the need to kill anyone with a bolt gun since. I also have not "gone on the run", driven a pickup, or picked up a Texas drawl.
I just thought I'd let you all know, that the world is safe....... ish!
Nice to see idiocy still reigns supreme
Hopefully by some miracle sense is eventually seen and the game gets released and the BBfC has to pay compensation for months of lost sales out of the pockets of the people who made the idiotic, prudish and ignorant nanny-state decision in the first place.
Can't see it happening though, places like the BBfC and the goverment in general are full of people who are so utterly out of touch with the type of entertainment people under 30 enjoy and enjoy without ever turning into the psychopaths they idiotically assume they do turn into.
It's a hard battle with traditional entertainment that holds a grasp on the media such as TV stations being scared to death at the loss of revenue that a growing alternative entertainment industry brings though.
You control the actions
Again, the difference between a movie and a game, is that you're encouraged to "do" the bad things. In a movie, you just watch it happen and don't get the choice to be "evil" - it's not that subtle a difference. They're just starting to reach the crux point where movies and games can become comparable in terms of visual quality. Not arguing for or against, but that's the situation.
Having said that, I stand by my earlier claims that merely playing the game is enough to censor it - the copy I "acquired" recently that was leaked was, well, truly an aweful collection of drivel. No-one will play it for more than 5 minutes!
The game should simply be banned because its total and utter rubbish, with RockStar playing their usual trump card "get the under 18's and idiots caught up in the violence hype, they will buy anything if they think its bad enough to be banned!"
However, unlike video's, video games are fully interactive, in a video it isn't *you* who is running around finding extreme violence as a method of problem solving. It *is* you with a Wii controller simulating violent murder.
We all know who this game will appeal to the most now, 15 year old kids who want "the cool game that got banned", the BBFC made the right decision the first time, and now that the judge has said the appeal was unlawful, the appeal board have to relook at their decision based on the judges comment and ban it, for good, then maybe RockStar will start to make good games or lose sales.
Can we get the news and papers banned then?
I bet you can turn on practically any news program, bar John Craven's Newsround and see human beings being ten times more sh***y to one another than some naff game.
When that actor died earlier in the week, the press treated us to the very respectful picture of his corpse being wheeled out of the hotel on a gurney!
I've played it and quite frankly I was bored after about 45 mins of hacking people up, I was surpised my interest lasted that long!
Move along, nothing to see here.
For a change...
...I think this is a decent decision.
Simulating murder can have a place - indeed computer games are reliant upon it - and the gaming world is better for that freedom, to use in context.
Rather like the degeneration of the Saw series of movies from the intriguing and suspenseful first to the spiritless and dehumanising fourth film (which was nothing but a cheap nod to the emo / goth Saw fans, trying to out-do any prior movie violence to satisfy their middle-class pretentious posturing), there comes a point when the sadism and brutality is only for it's own sake.
I've played Manhunt 2 (it's not exactly hard to get hold of if you know how), and it was both joylessly and spiritlessly violent, and empty and boring. There was no hope in the game, no sense of aspiration, it was repetitive, depressing and holds no appeal to any sense of human endeavour. Chop-move-on-murder-move-on...
The current status quo is fine - noone is going to go out of business if it stays unreleased, it's one title amongst tens of thousands.
It's not state censorship, it's only a computer game. There's plenty of censoring of stuff that actually matters to people (whether it be their health, family, number of doughnut vouchers in pockets or whatever) in the UK, more deserving of anti-censorious action; this on the other hand is just entertainment, and is just a mite too empty, vacant and hopeless (in the truest sense of the word) to warrant general release.
You just know...
... however, that the game is going to be complete and utter tosh. All the BBFC will have managed to do is provide free publicity for a game which would otherwise be in the bargain buckets by now.
I suspect there are other motivations
I reckon they are trying as much as anything to stop the game shops selling it to ignorant parents for their children. We've all seen it happen, and watched shop staff sell an 18 rated game to a less than savvy parent knowing they're purchasing it for the little kid standing next to them.
Whilst this does need to be tackled, and I intervened in a major high street retailer one day when I heard the assistant say to a parent "it's not that bad I wouldn't worry about to" about the original Manhunt for the 12 year old child (!!), the BBFC are going beyond the scope of the particular law if this is a motivation in this ban.
A change in the law making retailers culpable for under aged sales is where the issue needs to be addressed. That, and educating parents with proper press coverage about games and content. Not the tabloid Daily Mail education they get now which most people correctly just discard as scaremongering. Change the law so retailers can be prosecuted if there is clear evidence at point of sale that the game is being bought for a Minor, and at the same time educate parents sensibly as to what they are intending to buy for their children.
Stop the heavy handed banning of things like Manhunt 2, (unbelievable when Hostel 1 and 2 got rated), put it on the shelves, let us make our choices as sane consumers, and force the retailer through the correct legal statute to behave responsibly at point of sale with parents.
As for vulnerable adults, to be blunt, if you are inclined to murder someone brutally, you will anyway. Take the stabbing in Lancashire for instance or the Ipswich killings. That is a very, very thin argument from the BBFC.
Give us a new classification!
30+. Meaning anyone of 30 or above can buy the product as long as they have a clean criminal record and no history of mental illness. Then let's see them argue thati t might affect people.
So it's shite then.
This all smacks of the old Howard Hughes trick with "The Outlaw". A fairly ordinary western, most notable for Jane Russell's boobs. But Hughes had a brainwave. Stick it on the shelf claiming that the censors had refused to issue a certificate 'cos it was too raunchy and that he wouldn't make any cuts on principle. When it was finally released people went to see it in droves.
The game industry cottoned on to this one when the original GTA was around. That was (IMHO of course) utterly crap and would have sunk without trace were it not for all the "negative" publicity. Once the furore started it sold like hot cakes.
I'm sure it's merely a matter of time before there's an outcry when a game company employee is convicted for hiring some ne'r do well to hack up a few innocent bystanders with a machete and then claim that they were influenced by "Psycho Slasher Attack IV" or whatever, to boost sales....
BBFC - Hook, line and Sinker
Yup, the BBFC certainly did fall for the "Ban it!" request from El Presidente!
Fools - it's played well into the hands of Rockstar. Very crap game!
Blah blah blah
The BBFC need a quick slap. If the VAC don't find to release the game again they also need a quick backhand.
It's a game. There are millions of the things, most crud, none have been proven to cause people to kill or incite them to violence of influence them.
A suitably disturbed person may be equally influence by the Teletubbies and go round fatally inserting TV's into peoples stomachs.
The BBFC are a flawed and draconian body in need of disbanding. I remember as a child regularly watching 18s on VHS.
Censorship dosn't work for home media, simple. Advise and warn, don't control and dictate.
Read this, you will weep tears of laughter, intermixed with tears of despair because it's getting worse.
To be fair this case is more about the legal bite of the BBFC and them proving their entire reason for being, which is fair enough - what's the point of trusting these decisions to them if they get overturned. But their decision, whether upheld or not, was still another small toddle down the road of babydom.
Bargain bucket? Yes please.
If it is really that bad then I can't wait to get my hands on a copy. Could be just what my dusty PS2 has been waiting for.
Time to remind the BBFC...
That their role is to classify - not ban or restrict. They must allow adults to make up their own minds what is or is not appropriate. The argument 'children might get hold of it' is specious and the worst example of nanny - statism. What children get to see is the sole responsibility of their parents, not some unelected, unnecessary quango like the BBFC.
Couldn't agree more. That comment enraged me as well and perfectly sums up the "Nanny state" point of view we all dread and despise.
For better or worse, adults (even vulnerable ones) should be free to make their own decisions.
They're making a moot point anyway. It's not like obtaining the game is difficult. All this is doing is increasing the game's fame and will probably result in higher revenues for rockstar.
I've read "Big Babies" and whilst it's excellent, to quote it in re: BBFC is a bit mad, because it talks about the "I want it NOW, s'not fair!" generation, which sounds an awful lot like some of comments on the intertubes about this game!
"Again, the difference between a movie and a game, is that you're encouraged to "do" the bad things. In a movie, you just watch it happen and don't get the choice to be "evil" - it's not that subtle a difference."
I couldn't agree more. This is the thing everyone glosses over when comparing films with video games. Film ask you to watch what's going on, games ask you to take part. That's a *massive* difference. Sure, there might be gory scenes in films like Saw, but you watch someone else carrying it out and it's more likely that you feel empathy with the victims not the sicko carrying it out. Games like Manhunt ask you to *be* the sicko and stepping into those shoes on a regular basis and getting fun and reward out of doing it is not a good thing to be doing, especially when kids get hold of it.
At the end of the day, just what sort of person do you have to be in the first place to be uspet that a game like Manhunt2 got banned? If you're desperate for this game and aren't happy with the hundreds of other games available, then perhaps you should take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself why your desire to play games like this is so strong.
The children! Who will think of them?
If computer games influenced children then my generation would spend their time in darkened rooms, munching pills while listening to repetitive electronic music... oh wait.
borrowed without permission from Markus Brigstocke
The game is crap?
@ Those people commenting that the ban should go ahead because the game is crap...
That is your own personal opinion and not reason enough to justify banning a game.
Lets be real here people, its just a game... I played the original and I've never been tempted to go out and make my own snuff movie.
Re: This game is crap?
Good point, it is just a game.... therefore get over the fact that an officially appointed body sees fit not to certificate it and get on with your life.
You are right, whether it's crap or not isn't the issue. I think the BBFC have taken an considered, intelligent stance over this game, which is more than most of the posters here and elsewhere have taken.
Why are people so upset about not being able to play this game - if it had never existed, would your life be any worse?
- Breaking news: Google exec veep in terrifying SKY PLUNGE DRAMA
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Google CEO Larry Page gives Sundar Pichai keys to the kingdom
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? SKYPE has the HOTS for my NAKED WIFE