Zachary,
Let's even be more blunt. Not to sound like a previous poster from the past, but "Potential Harm" COULD be used against religion. Let's face it, news story after news story about how religion played a part in various crimes (though no one was brave enough to directly say "It's 's fault!"). From child molestation, to COVERING UP child molestation, to verbal, mental, physical, even sexual abuse, hate crimes, spreading of bigotry and hate, and many other acts.

Let's face it, we could downplay "potential harm" to an extreme, but we really don't need to. While various media formats (books, music, TV, movies, video games, etc) are becoming scapegoats to justify the desires of Tin-Pot-Dictator-Wannabes out there, there are far more "popular" things that could be just as easily blamed. But, as with many popular cliques in a school, only the "unpopular" or "unacceptable" are deemed "antisocial".

I'd say this is the PERFECT time to throw it back in their faces.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@Monkeythumbs

"they function much like the MPAA or the ESRB and only do “our thinking for us” when it comes to assigning ratings"

Wrong.

The ESRB has no authority to ban a game. They only can better inform people so they can make educated purchasing decisions. Therefore their ratings are merely suggestions. the BBFC does the thinking in regards to British media, as they get to decide what you can and can't see.

And even if you keep trying to say that the BBFC isn't a part of the government, they have been granted powers by the government. Again unlike the ESRB.

"I’d much rather that ratings decisions were not in the hands of politicians, if we are to have them at all."

Yeah. Why leave it to elected officials when you can let some company decide for you.

I really don't think British gamers would mind if they never got their hands on Manhunt 2. If this case was about Bully: Scholarship Edition then gamers in the UK would be in uproar; but if you read the various websites, blogs and forums, many don't actually believe Manhunt 2 is worth defending.

Plus, I for one actually don't want to see some chav get their grubby mitts on Manhunt 2 anyway.

This game has racked up more sales thanks to drama than it ever could have through advertising....

@EZK

Heck, we have 24 hour licensing with the known harm of alcohol intoxication...

Well, if nothing else, it certainly does prove that the BBFC do grade video games using a different measure to Movies, since how much 'potential harm' is there in some of the more violent movies out there if you work on the 'assumption' that someone is going to emulate it?

What makes me uncomfortable is that it seems to suggest that the BBFC can grade something based on imagined factors, rather than factual ones.

If they get denied a rating, I'm pretty sure they'll just offer a PC version for download via Steam. Rockstar's other games (Manhunt 1 and the GTA series) are already there, adding one more wouldn't be too difficult as they probably already have an agreement worked out with VALVe.

Overall, I think this stuff is nonsense, but whatever. Brittain is a democracy and the people do have a democratic way of dealing with this.

This ultimately boils down to this, Video Games are an easy target. Watchdogs have tried forever to censor broadcast television without success, and now they want to target video games thinking maybe they'll have better luck there.

@ Robert Seddon

You raise a good point, but since the BBFC rates games on a case-by-case basis, moreover that they aren't looking to make some kind of blanket ban on video games (violent or otherwise), I don't think think there's much to fear. I would confidently predict that it will be a very long time until this type of situation is rears its ugly head again, if at all.

@ Bones

The bone of contention here is not with the story, but rather with the context in which the violence of the game is placed. The BBFC have no issues with the Bioshocks, GTAs or Bullys of this world, however they take exception with Manhunt 2 in which extreme violence for the sake of violence is rewarded.

However, none of this would be a real issue if British consumers viewed videogames in the same way as they do DVDs and stopped buying them for underage children, as then there wouldn't be a case for "potential harm."

This really isn't an attempt to stifle creativity within videogames by the British establishment - if anything, they're requiring that the bar be raised a bit higher if the callous violence within Manhunt 2 is to be justified.

I am sure it has been said above, but what exactly is a "potential" risk of harm and to what extent does it have to exist for a game to be banned? And under whose criteria is the harm assessed? If they are using flawed studies as a means to suggest that it is harmful to people then I cannot see the justification in this ruling, especially from a judge. Also no criteria for children should be taken into account given that an 18 rating effectively stops children from purchasing the game.

@MysterX

we stopped being an empire a long, long time ago.

@Monkeythumbs

good one, excellent summary, and accurate :D

@ Ian Charles

Because there's a qualitative difference between films and games. The BBFC are concerned over Manhunt 2's gameplay mechanic and the nature of it's reward system, the function that drives you through the game and makes you want to complete it.

Films and books, by comparison, are a passive experience. Even films like Saw & Hostel don't force you into the role of the murderer and require you to carry on killing victims in order to finish the movie.

The point here is this: Manhunt 1 was considered to have a worthy enough story to justify the violence in that game, and was therefore rated by the BBFC. Manhunt 2 apparantly does not, and from all the previews and reviews I've read, I actually agree with the BBFC on this one.

What the judge actually meant to say:

"We're a bunch of old men who have played any of this videomaja games, and to be honest we believe a small section of school-aged children are the only people that play these games. A videomaja game that is violent as a film intended for adults is much worse because children always wander around without parental supervision with £40 waiting to run into shops and buy violent games. Since games are only played by children, we will stand by the hypocrisy that is the BBFC, which is a film rating board, not a game rating board. Never mind Europe already has an accepted game rating board, we believe the government has a right to ban material that has no effect on an adult's behaviour because that very nice man Keith Vaz said this game is worse than Satan."

Monkeythumbs
The trouble is because of the interaction its impacted in such areas is lessened, they just want to be hipacritcail nazis over it by approving it for adults only 18+ bound by law kids can't get it thus trumps any reason or logic to block it.

las, attorney
The UK uses the BBFC in place of pegi, and even if pegi passed it the UK would have blocked it just to be special....

las, attorney

I think most already know the BBFC is a board made by the goverment to nanny media in the UK, like Germany's system that can allow adults to buy media the BBFC refuses to let adults have steak, they prefer turning people into zombies.
So the BBFC is a revenue generating tax scheme to keep goverment fed and happy?

I like the laws bound to age ratings it makes the assault on them that much more pointless.

The popularity of the game is irrelevant. The fact it was BANNED by government is the point.

las, attorney
morals? I think is more "look voters I r doing stuffs vote for mmmeeesssss!!!!!!!!!"
if votes are not needed..ya morals would be it :P

@Monkeythumbs: The BBFC can be as independent as it wants- it has still been put there under the threat of the government doing it instead, is sanctioned by the government (it's illegal to sell DVDs and certain games without a BBFC rating) and its decisions are enforced by the government (it's illegal to sell a rated product to anyone below that age), and the government are free to change the law (one specifically designed for this purpose, I might add) at any time and appoint a different ratings board- this means that the government are still very much involved in this supposedly "independent" group.

Besides, the decision this story refers to was made by the courts, who, of course, are put there by the government to uphold the government's laws.

/b

monkeythumbs

"You want to be treated like an adult? Then act like one."

Oh yeah, I see children everywhere wishing death on people. That's why al-Qaeda, with their 'death to the infidels mantra' are run by 5-year olds. Try again.

zippy

"morals? I think is more “look voters I r doing stuffs vote for mmmeeesssss!!!!!!!!!”"

I don't think it is that. He seems to have a real agenda against games. I doubt Leicester really cares about his video game agenda.

oh my genitals for a edit button.....
oh welll......

Censorship based solely on offensiveness (rather then actual proven harm) is totally wrong. There is no proof that Manhunt 2 is harmful to anyone, therefore it shouldn't be outright banned. Period!

@ Monkeythumbs

You're right that the BBFC is technically an independent organization however the government has legislated that it is illegal to sell or even, if I remember correctly, own media that has not been rated. While they may not receive government funding they are, for all practical purposes, a government body because their decisions constitute a legally binding decision. It is illegal for a store in the UK to sell an 18 game to a person under 18 and therefore the body that decides on the 18 rating is, in effect, a government body.

This is completely different to the American system where the only legislative restraints on what can be distributed are the obscenity laws and even then "obscenity" is purposefully loosely defined in order that it not trample free expression.

That you feel or that the BBFC feels or that the British Government feels or that the CCFC feels that Manhunt 2 is not artistically valid does not make it so. There is no real, substantiated causal link between violent game playing and violent crime and contrary to what you have said it has been shown by research done by the BBC that people invest more in films and television programs then in games. I would imagine, although I am not aware of studies done on the matter, that people invest more in books then video games as well. Your argument that Manhunt 2 is more "damaging" then Hostel or Saw is based on questionable and circumstantial evidence. That the BBFC chose to not rate Manhunt 2 while they did rate Manhunt does not speak to the relative merits of the games. In many ways the games are identical and the merit of the stories in each is completely relative. The decision to offer a rating to Manhunt but not Manhunt 2 is likely due to the broader media attention the latter game garnered and a shift in attitudes towards games in general. It's all relative and very often circumstantial.

Ultimately there is a major ideological difference between the way media is viewed in the UK and the US. Stateside it is generally considered offensive to even suggest that certain speech censored by the government despite what biased polls may say. In the UK government censorship is considered a reasonable aspect of life.

@Monkeythumbs- the government instated the rubbish collection service, and they can take it away at any time, so they're responsible for it.

Likewise, they instated this outdated censorship regime, and can take it away at any time, so they're responsible for it.

After all, we blame the government when our bins aren't taken away, so we shoud be blaming the government when they *do* take away games.

This mere existance of this debate shows that this censorship system is flawed, and who are the people in a position to fix it? I'll give you a clue: it's a bunch of people who meet in the Houses of Parliament in London, and its name starts with "G", and ends in "overnment".

Besides: The fact that the government are actively trying to censor games more than they already do, and that they're willing to use the BBFC to do it, means that the government ultimately have a hand in what games we get to play- don't forget that we were quite happily getting along with ELSPA's ratings before the Government stepped in and said "give these games BBFC ratings".

Hell, the fact that the Government feel that we need a government-backed censorship organisation shows that they don't think their public is smart enough to make these decisions for themselves, regardless of it being a game or a film- and this is an issue that trancends one mere Rockstar title.

/b

...I think my posts are being eaten.

/b

To those saying Manhunt 2 isn't worth defending, you're missing the point.

The quality of the game isn't what's at stake. Personally, I'd rather the decision to play a game be mine and mine alone than decided by some man behind a desk who's idea of a video game doesn't extend past Pacman.

And they WILL try this again with more games if they get even one. Using the potential harm argument, they could ban World of Warcraft because it MIGHT cause potential harm by making a person forget about hygeine, food and make them become obese, it MIGHT do that, and might not, but why take the chance? Most governments as I see it aren't full of risk takers.

@ Tom

What an excellent post! You've realy made me have to think about my position. I take all your points on board, especially that of the cultural differences between the US and the UK. The only correction I would make is: "In the UK government censorship is occasionally considered a reasonable aspect of life." It essentially boils down to pragmatism over idealism, and I for one firmly stand on the side of pragmatism. There hasn’t been a truly controversial censorship case since Lady Chatterley’s Lover and for the most part, the BBFC just go about mopping up a few cases of universally agreed nastiness here and there.

I'm not suggesting that Manhunt 2 is more "damaging" than Saw or Hostel (my position is that inanimate, non-mechanical objects are rarely damaging in and of themselves, it takes a human being to cause said damage). Rather, I'm suggesting that videogames require greater justification to employ the same amount of violence as those two films.

In movies, the motivation of the characters to progress the plot is provided by the script and the director. Whilst those aspects do come in to play for videogames, ultimately plot progression is down to the player. For that reason, I think the player should require more motivation to carry out the deeds in Manhunt 2 than the characters in Hostel or Saw, especially given that the player is rewarded for taking out his victims in ever more brutal ways.

I'm not saying that this type of gameplay mechanic should be banned from games, I;m just saying that if you're going to present it to the public then you should have the narrative/plot/character motivation to back it up. Otherwise it becomes as tasteless and obscene as a snuff movie - and as you point out, the USA also recognises that in extreme cases, obscene material is better kept from the public gaze.

I agree wholeheartedly that there has been no evidence presented to demonstrate a causal link between video games and violent crime - that said, as an aside I know that if certain sections of British youth culture played Manhunt 2 (i.e. chavs), they'd be trying to copy it in a shot. I'm not saying they wouldn't commit horrific crimes anyway (they need no encouragement), I personally think it's preferable to not give them fresh ideas. please take this paragraph with a pinch of salt)

I applaud your use of realpolitik when discussing the reasons why the BBFC chose to rate Manhunt 2 differently from Manhunt 1. In truth, I agree wholeheartedly with you, and yet still support the BBFC's position. Here's some more realpoltik to explain why:

Does Manhunt 2 really glorify or incite hate/violence? Probably not, no. It almost certainly doesn’t deserve a ban. That said, I just don’t think that British post-youth culture (40 years old +) is ready to deal with Manhunt 2 in a mature and responsible manner, with the most likely result being the mainstream’s overall impression of videogames being tarnished by a tabloid smear campaign centred around this one game. I sometimes doubt whether many older adults can discuss videogames rationally – as we’ve just seen with Mass Effect. I think that keeping Manhunt 2 off the shelves presents an all-too-forseeable shitstorm, allowing videogaming to flourish. Quite frankly, British gamers could do without the controversy.

Please understand my principal concern here is the ongoing success and acceptance of videogames, as an artform and as a medium. By 2015, I think the situation will have changed and gaming will have become ingrained as part of our everyday culture, allowing more controversial games to be released without the possibility of having the entire medium condemned as degenerate.

Now, if we were talking about something that any other game - one that wouldn’t attract the attention Manhunt 2 would upon its release, due to being developed by the authors of GTA 3 - things would be very different. I just think you need too be smart about all this and know when to pick your battles, and over what.

Thankfully, the BBFC weren’t overruled by the High Court, if the BBFC had lost all credibility/authority, then we’d have been stuck with heavy handed politicians sticking their oar in. In reality, Judge Mitting pushed this ultimate decision back to the Video Appeals Council (VAC). He stated that he didn't feel qualified to make such a decision as he had not worked on the case since its outset.

The only drawback I can see to the banning of Manhunt 2 - aside from Rosckstar’s lack of sales- is if other publishers follow the BBFC’s lead and self-censor. We’ve already seen Suda51 taking out the the excessive (and ridiculously cool) blood and gore from No More Heroes. Hopefully this is not the beginning of a trend. If developers and publishers choose to self-censor than stay true to their vision, I will be incredibly pissed off.

Acceptance of videogames as a medium by all walks of the British mainstream is inevitable - it just takes a little more time and some patience. I don’t think it’s best to court controversy in the meantime if a game isn’t of such high quality as to actually make it worth fighting for. Videogames have their best years ahead of them - why jeopardise that over such an unremarkable game?

If this was about the first decent, tasteful and contextual sex scene in a video game (a la Mass Effect), then I reckon we’d all be kicking off. But is such gratuitous violence really worth defending? Especially if it’s the basis of your entire game? Furthermore, is this what we want games to be forever associated with? Because that’s what might happen in the public eye if it was released.

If the UK tabloid media ever get their claws into games in the same way as they did punk rock or Child’s Play 3, then there’d defo be a fight between enlightened liberals against reactionary conservatives - and not just in Parliament.

Okay, so I've been chatting with a colleague of mine about this issue IRL and i'm beginning to think that my position is intractable. Just becuase that, deep down, i don't think Manhunt 2 is a game worthy of development in the first place, doesn't mean it should be banned - potential media controversy be damned.

Fundamentally, freedom of speech/expression is more important than notions of artistic merit and the real solution lies in educatiing parents that videogames are not exclusively designed for children.

Aside: is this the first time on GP.com that somebody has changed their opinion?

Oh my god. I can't believe this is STILL going on.

I beat the game twice now and It's been sitting on the shelf collecting dust for the past three months. Just release the god damn game.

By keeping this charade going they're basically saying that a video game is MORE harmful than alcohol.

By this point the BBFC has lost all credibility and all they're doing is proving this whole thing is about arrogance rather than doing their job.

@ Monkeythumbs

I'm hesitant to suggest that expression in general and particular mediums should be saddled with social responsibility requirements. That's not to say that people should be socially irresponsible rather that the criteria that would define "socially responsible" are, by their nature, unacceptably fluid. One example from relatively recent UK history is Kubrick's Clockwork Orange. When it was originally released it was considered, as you suggest, socially irresponsible and therefore banned however in recent years, under new social norms and after a reexamination it was decided in the late '90's that it could be released. The relative social norms were different and, therefore, a piece of undeniable art was suddenly "acceptable." By your logic Kubrick should never have made that movie in the first place.

As you say about the "common sense consensus," it is all relative to what defines "common sense" at any point in history. When Manhunt came out the "common sense consensus" was that Manhunt should be given a classification and yet when Manhunt 2 - basically the same game for all intents and purposes - came out that "common sense consensus" said that it should banned. That's a dramatic shift in the space of a few years and things will likely change again a few years from now, as you mentioned in one of your earlier comments. If people who create tangible expression were beholden to that common sense consensus then they would be effectively paralyzed as they attempted to adhere to such a mercurial standard. What, in those circumstances, is to be done with tangible media that was created in previous, less conservative times? Considering that Manhunt 2 was banned because it offends common sense consensus and lacks social responsibility shouldn't also Manhunt be retroactively banned? Wouldn't we then be in a "Fahrenheit 512" society as the government starts melting down CDs and DVDs that no longer meet the standards?

I completely accept that all of these suggestions are done with the best interests at heart but people tend to abuse any privilege and authority that is granted them.

As to whether or not people should be concerned about offending other people - yes, people should be concerned about that but that concern should not override free expression and the discussion of important issues. I think that the UK goes too far in their pursuit of an inoffensive society. People don't have the right to not be offended and neither are people required to "get along." People are generally asked, however, to act civil and, even, to offend each other in as civil a way as possible. That's not often the case these days, however.

I do enjoy these conversations :)

We can only hope the VAC laugh in the BBFC faces and stand firm, no State Side Murders since release (With the game to blame), thank you US Gamers.

Well, they should go after grain producers, with this logic. Most alcohols come from the more popular grains. So if we just sue all grain producers for the harm that will be caused if the grain is processed into alcohol and somebody drinks that alcohol and then does something fatal, preventing the proven potential danger of things like rice and barley, that would make just as much sense.

If we just got rid of grains altogether, we could stop all violence!

@ coravin

I could go on all day, so to people living in Britain, is judge an electable position cause I think anyone that would vote for this retard isn’t much smarter than him….

Of course, Britland is a nation of retards! We're so grateful that you took the time out to spot this, everything makes so much more sense now!

@Monkeythumbs

"I’m not entirely sure why people keep bring up the British Government, they’ve had absolutely nothing to with this case in the slightest. They don’t even appoint who sits on the BBFC’s panel!"

Okay then. Why aren't you amazingly pissed off that a group that isn't elected by you and not even appointed by your elected officials and is just some bullshit corporation gets to do your thinking for you?

The UK has got to make up its mind!

@ Thomas P.

(Maybe I should read through the plethora of other comments first, but this really bothered me...)

You said: "Brittain is a democracy and the people do have a democratic way of dealing with this."

The sad thing is, Britain is FAR from a true democracy. In fact, I don't think any country has a true and effective democracy. It's not like they're going to open up a referendum to the British public on weather Manhunt II should be sold to them or not. The government decides overall, and the rest of us just have to hope that we didn't elect a bunch of idiots who make horribly uninformed and assumptive decisions.

Not only that, to the Americans who clearly aren't interested in British Game Politics, why bother contributing with your "Why would you want it anyway, it's not a big deal and it's a crap game" comments, it's far beyond that. It is not the case of how 'good' the game is or not, it's the fact that we're being denied this for whatever twisted reasons they can come up with, meaning that in future, our government is going to become as pedantic as the US government in its blaming everything on the evil that is video games. We complain because this is a right being denied from us, video games are an art form, and the number of crimes/murders that are truly committed through inspiration from video games compared to the number of people who buy that video game, is so so slim.

We can't let our government and these companies continue to blame and speculate about the potential harm that video games are causing society. It's more than just Manhunt II, it's all games like this in future. Soon the US will be banning games like Spyro suggesting it impassions children to set things on fire, that it's a murder simulator for sheep etc (but of course this is an exaggeration). And of course, Westminster will follow suit, blissfully uninformed as usual.