Manhunt 2 Banned In UK And Ireland June 20, 2007

It's a fine decision. Let's hear from Rockstar exactly how they can emphatically counter the points made by the BBFC.

Dave - what points would they be exactly. I've seen many uber violent films - they have 18 ratings and are far more realistic than the graphics on a Wii; I play many games with death match modes which encourage killing - they have 18 ratings. What the BBFC are censoring is the tone of the game and I value my freedom too much to think its acceptable for a non elected body to ban items based on something which is very subjective and based on individual beliefs.

I agree with Dave, we don't need games like this, even though it's aimed at 'adults' I would question why anyone would gain pleasure from it. Surely it indicates that there are already enough disturbed adults around without tipping more 'over the edge'.

Snife, I have to agree with the BBFC, this game is that little bit too far over the line of entertainment versus excessive depiction of violence.

The other side of it is that with the Nintendo Wii version you as the character go through the actual physical motions of hacking, stabbing and beating other characters, many often innocent bystanders, with your Wiimote. This to me is just a little overboard. Possibly a little bit hypocritical since I play games like Battlefield 2 and 2142 regularly where you run around shooting people for jollies but there is something somewhat more sinister and visceral about Manhunt 2.

With a horror movie, you just watch the gore, in this game you participate. To many people this may be a line that is not necessary to cross in the name of entertainment.

As for personal freedoms? I dunno, there are some freedoms that I am willing to forgo as I believe that if you trivialise too much social accountability then in some peoples minds their personal accountability may become blurred.

i want it to be released its a fun game and itm is a GAME

It's the underlyin objection of the BBFC that I have a problem with. It seems that it's viewed as perfectly acceptable to prevent independent thought even in adults. A violent book you participate using your imagination and to a certain extent the same can be said regarding films, a computer game is just another type of interaction. To sensor a game for adults is one step closer to a police state.

I would just like to say that playing the first Manhunt game, to me, ended up with more thought going into stalking (same as, for example Splinter Cell) and 'unlocking content', that is finding out all the ways in which to perform excecutions, then thinking "Now, I'm gonna kill those £*£"ers over there". In fact, that state of mind never occured during the game. It was similar to playing good old "Commandos"

Afterwards, I feel like it left less of an impression in my mind then reading a A Game of Thrones, which does not come even close to the type of violence you see in this game. When you read a book (and if you have a strong imagination) you picture the scenes more vividly.

What is more, the scenes are bent to how you want to perceive them. So they may be justified or not, by what you consider right, wrong and moral. A game, however, is 'as is' and it is much harder to bend the scene that is already all flashed out and see it in a different light.

Really, if we started bannings products because of how a small portions of society might interpret or misuse them, then we'd have to ban a large amount of things.

About 3000 people die in car accidents worldwide every day. I'm sure that number is more then there are actual video game inspired murders in the history of the world.

So considering that most of those are due to people who aren't suitable for driving (much like people argue there are those unsuitable for these games), using the same logic, nobody should be allowed to drive a car.

The reason cars will not be banned is because most of the people in the world use them and, obviously, we can only ban those things that are used by a small portion of the community.

Now, what are those demonic worshiping role-players up to?..

Jump - you are saying 'we' don't need games like this - but this is my point, who are you or the BBFC to decide what I should be allowed to view/play. If you don't want a game like this, you have the option not to purchase, its clear what the game is about and it should be given an 18 rating, i am intelligent enough
to make my own decisions.

Steve - How can you agree with the BBFC, you have not seen or played the game so cannot possibly know they made a good decision.; I am able to disagree as my argument is with censorship in general not with the content of what is being censored. In terms of excessive depiction of violence, I feel this about Hostel and SAW, imho, they are bad films as a result of this but I would defend anyones right to watch and enjoy them. The hypocracy is what really annoys me. I play Saints Row and Gears of War and do get pleasure out of shooting people in the head and hacking them with a chainsaw (and as these are 2 of the most popular games on live, i'm not alone) and i've not met many people who haven't mowed down some innocent pedestrians in GTA but its just a game - if someone thinks that the violence in Manhunt 2 would be more disturbing then they have the choice not to play it - choice is what my whole argument is about.

The point is that these people who's personal accountability would become blurred, have mental health problems - whether its a video game or a movie that pushes them over the edge, that doesn't mean they are to blame or that it wouldn't have happened anyway, I don't believe there will be anything in Manhunt 2 that would have this effect where the original Manhunt or uber violent films would not.

Arguably, the Manhunt genre is actually more responsible than other games which do not accurately show consequences (such as stabbing with a knife not killing or re-spawning multiple times after being killed).

The danger with any of your reasoning is where the line is drawn - do we then only have U rated films and games because anything more could potentially corrupt or do we allow adults to define their own standards of acceptability.

You have some very valid points Snife - I won't argue with them at all.

I guess that if you are one of the people who goes out-a-murdering then you're likely to already have the tendency and playing the game is not going to enhance or lessen it, mearly provide some ideas.

I still personally believe tho that there is a need to retain some sort of a moral standpoint on some of these things and I also believe that there has been a great deal of desensitizing to horror and gore due to movies and computer games. I guess we as adults have not really grown up on this stuff, hell the earliest computer game I remember playing was Galaxian or Elite and I don't feel the urge to go out get in my spaceship and blow aliens away :D

The thing is that children are getting exposed to this in greater and greater amounts and I have no proof that it is adversely effecting the youth of today but man I really do think that there is something wrong with them - I'm sure computer games have had some sort of input into that.

I think that there does need to be some sort of governing body in the industry and to be fair they have been extraordinarily lenient up until this point and IMO it's not a bad place to draw a line. Certainly suggesting that banning a game in this country is tantamount to a police state is a little overboard and I don't see it as a violation of my personal rights.

Heh - interesting question "should we allow adults to define their own standards of acceptability?" In my honest opinion - hell no. You can't tell me that everyone in this country over the age of 18 is well enough equipped to make a well thought out logical and moral decision? The simple fact is that some people never grow up and every day we see some plonkers somewhere doing something stupid - but hey thats ok because they're adults and they've made their decisions based on their own defined standard of acceptabiliy.

Steve I understand where you are coming from I just object to decisions being made for me by people who I can fairly assume are less intelligent than me, I regularly get angry at the way we are all getting treated as idiots in this country, regarding 'You can't tell me that everyone in this country over the age of 18 is well enough equipped to make a well thought out logical and moral decision?' no they are not - there are plenty of stupid people but these same people are allowed to vote, have children and drive so I don't think computer games are the things to restrict.

I'm not saying that children should be allowed to play Manhunt 2 (although I did watch a fair few 18 films in my childhood and it never did me any harm) but if they are admitting that the ratings system doesn't prevent this, then isn't it completely pointless? The responsibility for the way a kid turns out and what entertainment they have access to is firmly with the parents imho and the rest of the population should not be restricted because parents aren't responsible.

I am completely against a moral standpoint being set as morals are a very individual and subjective thing, what if we had devout christians making the decisions like the MPAA in America who believe all nudity, sex, homosexuality, drug taking is wrong and do their best to remove it from films. People have different morals - a moral isn't something to be enforced. I don't understand why people can think any kind of censorship is a good thing and how essentially having a choice is a bad thing. Being able to make the choice of what we believe is right or wrong is fundanmental to our human rights.

I was actually speaking a few months ago to a member of the bbfc who doubted this game was going to get through classification. In my opinion its a great pity i enjoy playing games and have no qualms with this at all. What i do have problems with is the parents who let their ten year old children play this then blame anything they do on the game. I think the vast majority of gamers who would be playing this are mature and intelligent enough to realise that it is a game after all. Sadly it means 1-0 for the anti-violence protestors i just hope theres going to be no more bans on the way.

Of COURSE there are going to be murders attributed to games like this – but that's because there are crackpots, lunatics and arse-brains out there who will kill someone and blame it on something they saw Tommy Vercetti do back in Vice City, but that's because of the audience the game attracts. I mean, if iPods were bought solely by psychos, there'd be at least three consecutive Daily Mail front pages plagued with stories about people hanging themselves from the earphone leads, or using the metals to pass electric currents through Royal corgis or something. It's just the fact that Rockstar's games happen to attract an audience of three sole groups (the pub crowd; the psycho minority; everyone else) that is the problem. The fact that psychotic people are more likely to report that they "tw4773D him like on gta 4 LOL." on a web forum makes the game look like some tool of the unhinged. It's a problem most art forms have, it's only because the games medium has only recently been recognised thus that the level of scrutiny has been upped.

@Garry - I'm not so sure that morals are such an individual thing. After all who defines our moral standpoints? IMO it's a direct relationship with our upbringing and environment. We don't kill people because it is accepted that to do so is a bad thing. We don't socially accept these bad things because society has set these rules and enforced them by law and we've been bought up to understand right from wrong.

I fully accept that there is likely nothing wrong with the game and we as discerning adults who have grown up understanding what is right and wrong are unlikely to be effected by it. I guess a question is are we at any loss for not being able to play the game, and are our children at any loss for not having access to it. I don't think so and I don't believe that we are being dumbed down for having governing bodies retaining some sort of a standard.

If you want to see murder and mahem just watch the news - at least there it is a pretty clear definition that it's a bad thing and that there are passed on consequences and losses. Just last night there was an article in the news about a 17 year old girl stabbed in an argument with another girl over a boy!?!?! At what point did their moral standpoint break down? I'm not suggesting that there is a correlation between games like this and the resulting action of a young person but I am suggesting that retaining a moral high ground is important and something that seems to be slipping away in society at the moment.

Making the action of murdering people, especially in such a visceral manner, seems to me to be unecessary for entertainment purposes and I am certain that I wouldn't be that impressed to see my kids playing it.

The simple fact is that if you really want to play the game - buy it on the internet - it's not that complicated, but if it keeps it away from kids who already have a fuzzy moral perspective - all the better. It's not a reflection on our rights or some sort of overall moral policing - it is a governing body maintaining a standard which I believe up until (and including) this point has been pretty just in their decisions.

I disagree that you can just buy it on the internet, while this may be true, it won't sell well through this method only and will lose money for the studio which means they will not be likely to make games that push the boundary in the future. GTA was shocking when it first came out and people asked for a ban, its one of my favourite games; what would the next version be like if you couldn't kill anyone in it?

To be honest, i wasn't too bothered whether i actually got to play manhunt 2, I would have liked to play it as all my games on the Wii have a very short life but its not going to be the game of the year or anything, my concerns are more over what allowing one game to be banned will mean for future games.

The point with a line being drawn, is that ultimately an individual decides where to draw this line and this is dangerous territory for our freedom. It should not be the place of governing bodies to enforce a moral. You make points that something is unnecessary - this is an opinion, my point is that some peoples opinions are that all violence and sex and unnecessary for entertainment purposes - I disagree. If people disagree with the game they have the choice not to buy it, if the moral majority disagree with a game then it will not sell and would not be commercially viable, the point is that this game would sell very well.

The fact is that sane people know murder is wrong, the reason we dont commit murder is not because its against the law and someone is enforcing that upon us. While morals are an individual thing, I totally agree that they are formed in individuals through upbringing and behaviour

What most of the arguments seem to fall to is kids playing this game, parents need to start taking responsibility for this, they can set the parental controls on the console or simply not allow their kids to have a spare 40 pounds which they don't know what they are spending it on. Any entertainment medium is not a replacement for parenting which is what many parents seem to think these days.

It's amazing how susceptible the brain is to external influences. Just look at how some people are easily conditioned by certain cult religions. I'm not sure you can say that watching violent films or playing games like this will have absolutely no effect on an individual.

Mark, all regions (not just cult) influence people in this way, I am absolutlely apposed to all religions and religion can be blamed for 1000x's more deaths than any video games but as much as I disagree with religion, I would argue venomously for anyones right to practice whatever religion they want.

I'm not saying watching films or games would not have an effect on some individuals but banning is not an answer to anything.

Mark and Steve, you are both arguing in favour of no censorship in any circumstance, even if the focus of the game is to do something that is a crime in the real world - is this really right in all circumstances? If a game came out that focussed on rape or paedophilia, would you still argue that it should go on 18-certificate release?
There has to be a boundary where even an online depiction is unacceptable to society, and a legal framework to prevent unacceptable activities from occurring. Just because a games developer has the capability to "push the boundary" doesn't mean that they should always have free reign to do it.

(sorry, I read the string the wrong way - my comment should be addressed to Snife and Garry, not Mark and Steve)

My argument is having a non elected board having the power to censor what we have access to on a very subjective basis. There are laws ragarding paedophilia and any depiction of it whether real or virtual so thats a non argument, i would personally have a problem with a game that focused on rape but that does not mean I would call for it to be banned, I would choose, as the majority of people I believe would, not to buy it - it is this ability to choose that defines by own morals.

If the elected government (although i'd personally like the ability to vote on individual issues but thats not the current setup of our 'democracy') decided to make it illegal to depict rape or murder then so be it, this I wouldn't have as much of a problem with, but you cannot have something being legal then having a company decide whether they agree with the tone of those legal depictions.

OK so you have issue with paedophilia and (extending the items of distaste) rape, racism, genocide etc. and the depiction of these activities and yet find that it is ok to represent murder and the activity of these in a game and that we should (as humans) have the base right to use these activities for entertainment?
By that argument do you think that game developers should be able to develop a game based around paedophilia and that we as consumers should have the right to decide if we should purchase it or not?

For me paedophilia and murder fall under the same "this is wrong" label.

What I have or do not have issues with is not the focus of my argument - if there is not a law against something then it should not be otherwise censored.
To live in a free society you have to put up with things being available that YOU might find distasteful but this to me is a small price to pay. I personally have no problem with anything being available as long as the rights of the people in it/who made it are not infringed in its' production. The point is that as soon as you allow someone to decide what should be available and what should not, your not living in a free society and i'd be concerned over what the next target of censorship would be.

There is a law that would prevent a peadophilia based game but the law is devised by a government that we elect therefore we have the choice to choose who will best represent us and implement such laws, There is no such law regarding the depiction of murder; if there was any evidence that violent video games could corrupt sane individuals then I would support such a law but I do not think this is the case. By your argument you are suggesting that media containing murder should not be available but yet you clearly play games involving murder so this viewpoint is somewhat confusing. I'd be interested to know what you would think of someone who thought 'this is wrong' regarding homosexuality or a specific religion, should any media containing such aspects be banned to appease the views of these people?

Man, these games r sick! Anyone who needs to play this stuff to get their kicks needs a psychiatrist!

Get some fresh air dudes.

@Snife - I do agree with you, and to a certain extent I am playing devils advocate. I agree that in a utopian world we all have the right to total freedom and freedom of choice. But we don't live in a utopian world, and I still believe that some are ill equipped to make the 'right' choice.

Regarding games dealing with homosexuality, it's not illegal and in my opinion not wrong. Murder is. I entirely accept that I am being hypocrytical in that I pretty much every night turn on the computer and blow the hell out of the 'enemy' in computer games - but I think there does need to be a line.

Free society? I don't for a moment believe that we do live in a free society. It's the pipedream of people who have infinate faith in their fellow human being. I may be something of a pessimist but there is always going to be someone jamming a spanner in the works and for that reason we need rules and laws.

I entirely agree with what you are saying Snife and I think that you have a very solid argument BUT I don't think that it is entirely grounded in the reality of the situation.
To be giving away your freedoms, you have to first have them and you can't honestly say that we have ever actually had a free society.
In some small way I feel like the games I play have a slight (and I mean slight) moral high ground on Manhunt in that with say Battlefield 2 or 2142 it is war - and we're conditioned to accept that death is part of war. With GTA Vice City etc, you are penalised for taking out pedestrians and the police go after you so you are not under the illusion that it's ok. From what I understand with Manhunt, there are no consequences.

The more you play nihilistic mind sucking killing games the less chance you have of getting a girl - unless she's one too and then we're all screwed!

Interesting development:
Both Sony and Nintendo have confirmed that they will not authorise the release of controversial video game Manhunt 2 on their games consoles - the PS2, PSP and the Wii - in the US.
Sony and Nintendo have both said they won't bless the game's US release unless publisher Take-Two Interactive either wins an appeal or alternatively edits the game in order to receive a Mature (M) rating instead.

Sounds to me like they got it right and Sony and Nintendo have agreed.

Sounds like jumping on the bandwagon to me. They were perfectly happy to release the original Manhunt. I don't see how much worse this one can be... surely the most disturbing aspect of it is the emulation, on the Wii, of the sawing / hacking / stabbing motions to commit the carnage?

I'm having a difficult time making my mind up on this one. I pretty much agree with Snife's position. And yet... Isn't it possible to imagine a game which didn't fall foul of laws (eg. governing the depiction of paedophilia or inciting racial hatred) but which still rewarded players for behaviour that is beyond the pale (rape or torture for instance). I'd be unhappy for such a game to be on the shelves of my local game shop. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of someone else deciding where to draw the line - and of course I can't tell whether Manhunt 2 crosses the line that I'd draw. Ho hum... still undecided.

i personally dont think that manhunt should have been banned, i think the main reason manhunt was banned was because that it was more likely to getinto childrens hands thant adults, though this is entirely subjective to what is appropriate and inapropriate, i think the majority of us know the difference between games and reality and it should be left to the people, not some unregulated body.

There would probably not be this level of contention if Manhunt 2 was a SEGA game from the 80s with tiny pixel men. If its the realism that bothers you, imagine as a theoretical exercise that Star Trek-style VR is possible. Would you bludgeon a character in this environment, realistic gristle flying and sound effects added? Its kind of the way realistic-looking games are heading. Do you think there is a line at which the amount of realism might start to corrupt a sane person? These questions are not directed at anyone in this thread, just - you? Discuss...

Gamers always lose out when naive parents and the PC brigade get their way!

I've been playing computer games for over 20 years and I'm bored of hearing the same argument over and over again. I'm a 27 bloke with a good job and a house. I want to play Manhunt 2. I'm not going to go out and kill people because it's wrong. I wouldn't let my 7 year old daughter play it or watch me play it because it's not suitable. Don’t tarnish the majority of us sane and law abiding citizens with the same brush as that minority of scum who will blame anything for their unacceptable behaviour. I see 12 year old kids drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes frequently which is far more detrimental to their health (physical and mental) than any computer game. Why don’t we ban the cigarettes from this country along with alcohol? Because it’s a huge industry which the UK government makes big fat pile cash out of that’s why! At the end of the day it’s like everything else – it’s all about money and whether we like it or not it’s a fact that is here to stay.

Just a thought here, and yes all of you have made very decent, intelligent comments on the subject, however! All of this has made me think of a comment made by a director (whose name escapes me right now) after his horror/slasher/thriller movie was given a rather harsh X rating for violence (he later cut it to get a R rating)...

he said: Horror films don't make people into killers. They make killers more inventive.

The bottom line is that games like these played by 'normal' people aren't going to turn them into stalking lunatics, hell bent on killing grannies. If people are already messed up in the head, its not going to be a video game that sends them over the loop... it could just be a movie.

Protect our basic human right to make up our minds on things. We all have a brain for a reason.

Exactly.

I must say i had no intention of buying Manhunt 2 but the decision to ban this game has infuriated me.

I understand that as a white 27 year old Male i am societies biggest threat but being policed in this manner in my consumer choice reeks of a the PC brigade

I have been playing games for 15 years and as i have matured i expect the gaming industry to mature with me, this is simple commerce. Moving with your market. Let us not forget this is a billion doller industry and one which is at the forefront of innovation.

Let us not ban the game but more address the nature of why the game is being banned in the first place?

It is; for me, soley down to a fear that the game will invariably end up in the hands of pre-pubescant children. But is that my fault?

The real problem here is a lack of control by mostly independant retailers and a parental view that videogames are for 'kids'.

Would the BBFC (or similar body) ban a novel widely available in schools which colourfully describes teen suicide when faced with the external pressures of teen life?

Would you ban Romeo and Juliet?

So are Rockstar to blame?
Well no, these companies have a brief and part of that brief is to provide stimulating entertainment geared solely for adults.

I have read several articles since the BBFC banned the game regarding the murder of a youth by a Warren LeBlanc.

A Youth! The fellow in question was 17! No comments about a lack of parental control, illegal distribution and a bizare decision to ignore the police report which stated robbery was the cause of the attack.

Am i to be therefore to punished for a complete lack of parental control?

Sadly it appears so

What a boring game manhunt was.
I truly hated it.

I've recently been granted a gun licence. Hmmmmmm. So I can be trusted with a shotgun but not with Manhunt 2........there's something not quite right there....