
If you were waiting to purchase Manhunt 2 in the U.K., plan on waiting a bit longer.
As reported by
GameSpot, a ruling by a judge in London's Royal Courts of Justice will force a re-review of the game's status by Britain's Video Appeals Committee.
As
GamePolitics reported last month, the VAC voted to lift a ban on Manhunt 2 which had been imposed by the British Board of Film Classification in June of 2007. The BBFC, however, appealed the VAC's decision to the courts, culiminating in yesterday's ruling by the Honourable Mr. Justice Mitting.
In ordering Manhunt 2 returned to the VAC for re-consideration, Mitting ruled that the VAC should have considered whether Manhunt 2 posed a "potential" risk of harm rather than the "actual" risk, upon which the VAC based its decision.
Although attorneys for Rockstar argued that the game was a form of human expression, Justice Mitting did not find their case persuasive.
What's next? From GameSpot's coverage:
[Justice Mitting] stipulated that the same seven members of the VAC must now reconvene and make a new decision [on Manhunt 2] based on the guidelines he laid down in the courtroom today. It is understood that this is likely to happen within the next two weeks, which would in theory put an end to the protracted legal drama.
Comments
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- 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Likewise, they instated this outdated censorship regime, and can take it away at any time, so they're responsible for it.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:
http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/14/in-battle-against-knife-violence-brit...
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/byronreview/
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
"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.
It is only logical that it should remain banned. The downfall of an entrie nation is at stake, freedom of expression be DAMNED!
Plus, I for one actually don't want to see some chav get their grubby mitts on Manhunt 2 anyway.
No great loss to uk gamers if it wasn't avalible, but from what i've seen ,I doubt it'd do well anyway.
Now if this was Bully or mass effect? I'd be pissed about that.
That is stupid and ignorant at the same time. SO do they not allow stairs in their country because of the "potential harm" of someone falling down them and breaking their neck? DO they not allow cars in their country because of the "potential harm" of someone getting into a fatal wreck?
Heck, we have 24 hour licensing with the known harm of alcohol intoxication...
What so called gamers class as a 'Bad Game' does not excuse the BBFC banning it simply becuase it has an adult story.
Here's hoping that GTA4 will have the same fate in April and maybe then people will start questioning the BBFC as it simply is Old Hat.
What makes me uncomfortable is that it seems to suggest that the BBFC can grade something based on imagined factors, rather than factual ones.
What do they have to say on the topic of legal precedent?
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.
England's just trying to figure out why youth crime has skyrocketed in the past few years. Possibly because of an absurdly restrictive society that treats its citizens like idiots who are just waiting to win Darwin awards? Maybe there's social dissatisfaction over economic opportunities? Perhaps tensions have been rising due to immigration issues and cultural clashes? No! It's got to be the media!
All this legislation says is that the English government thinks that its people are weak, stupid and highly susceptible to suggestion.
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.
Hey its the U.K. so i havent any clue what they'll do, all i know is if they ban it people like JT will use that against us. (hell Jack already has)
This is an isolated incident and hardly endemic of an assault oin new media by the British governemnt, especially when the BBFC is an independent organisation. Allow me to paraquote a post I made in another thread:The BBFC is an independent, non-governmental body. In order to preserve its independence, the BBFC’s income is derived solely from the fees it charges for its services. The Board is not organised for profit, and its fees are adjusted only as required to cover its costs.
(I nicked all that from the BBFC website, btw)
You can judge the credibility of the system for yourself in the following three interviews - personally I think it’s a reasonable system (certainly better than PEGI’s, at any rate).
• Gamespot interviews BBFC examiner
• Joystiq: BBFC interview
• MCV interviews the BBFC on violence in games
we stopped being an empire a long, long time ago.
@Monkeythumbs
good one, excellent summary, and accurate :D
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.
"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."
Shouldn't the decision of whether or not Manhunt 2 is worth your time and money be YOUR decision and not your governments?
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....
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to play Manhunt 2, but at the same time, I feel that that privilege has been taken away from me by what is a hypocrisy (that I have thousands of shitty violent and sex filled movies that have no plot whatsoever to choose from, but one game is banned because the Government think I don't have the mental capacity to choose what I can and can't buy and entertain myself with. I don't even care if Manhunt 2 wasn't allowed to be displayed or advertised in shops, if that would stop kids from buying it, it is my right as an adult to decide what media I choose to watch and play.
There are millions of under-age smokers with PROVEN ill-effects, but the Government don't ban smoking because cigarettes are one of their greatest sources of tax revenue. Basically, they're whores; not driven by morals but by money. Because the Government is not losing any tax revenue over the banning of this game, they don't care. I hope Keith Vaz dies.
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.
Is he serious? *Potential* risk of harm?
POTENTIAL.... RISK??? So we're no longer even discussing RISKS that can be quantified, but risks that are wholly imaginary?
In that case, Saw IV should never have been rated in the UK, because there's a potential risk that someone might stab themselves in the eye. Rambo should never be released, because there's the potential risk someone, somewhere, might shoot a Vietnamese villager...
*nnnnnnnnnnaAAAAAAAAAARGGHH!* *head desk*
"So the BBFC is a revenue generating tax scheme to keep goverment fed and happy?"
Actually, I was saying that even though tobacco and smoking are proven dangers and a large proportion of people would approve if smoking was banned outright, the Government would never destroy the cash cow that is the tobacco industry. It is because that video games make up no large base of tax revenue that the Government is happy to sit back and allow the BBFC to ban some of them because they can say they have the moral high ground, rather than the fact they won't intervene because it isn't worth the trouble.
I guess in a way, this sets Keith Vaz apart from the Government, because he is driven by a moral agenda rather than a financial one. Even though his moral agenda is completely wrong and skewed, it is at least admirable he isn't driven solely by money. Of course, I still hope that he dies.
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
The current status quo is fine - no-one is going to go out of business if it stays unreleased, it's one title amongst tens of thousands.
@ las, attorney
"it is my right as an adult to decide what media I choose to watch and play..."
"I hope Keith Vaz dies.
You want to be treated like an adult? Then act like one.
Simulating psychopathic murder can have a place in videogames, but the gaming world is better to use that concept in a justifiable context.
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. We'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.
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.
We all know who this game will appeal to the most now, 15 year old kids who want "the cool game that got banned". Similarly, we've all seen game 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. I intervened in a major high street retailer a while ago when I heard the assistant say to a parent, "it's not that bad, I wouldn't worry about it" about the suitability of the original Manhunt for a 12 year old child.
A change in the law, so that retailers would be culpable if there is clear evidence at point of sale that the game is being bought for a minor, is how this issue needs to be addressed. That, and at the same time educating parents sensibly as to the content of the games they intend to buy for their children. Proper press coverage would be the best means for this, not the tabloid Daily Mail education they get now, which most people thankfully just discard as scaremongering.
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
/b
"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.
So media nazis are we? I say religious media is evil and vile it makes people think they are better than others ban it its "subversive", the problem is censorship is pointless and even more so when media is rated by age and policed through the law, adults have the right to buy "suggestive" media because they are adult to say they can't because a 15 year old might get it why not ban ban free thought as well it will make them rebellious bastards behave some, get a clue all this is doing is increasing the importation rate of the game and getting it into the hands of them wily teenagers faster.
I am sorry but censorship treats a populace like brain dead childern and there is no need for it because you will still have 5% playing in traffic or poking someones eyes out regardless if you censor or not thus removing any logical reason for it.
Normal media including porn should not be baned merely riffiled off age ratings and laws, if you can not see that adults are diffrent and have diffrent tastes, you via the moral high ground want to protect you and yours from the reality of the world you are immature even more so if you think censorship works.
oh welll......
And the government is also responsible for taking the trash from outside my front-door, but do you think they sit in on the local waste-disposal meetings?
The point I was trying to make is that at no point have the British Government been involved in the decision making process about the classification of Manhunt 2, so it's incorrect to infer a political agenda here. Nor have they even made an official staement about this case.
If you [b]are[/b] looking for an anti-games industry political villain in the cabinet, then look no further than Margaret Hodge. However, she has no bearing on this situation, otherwise I'd be imploring everybody to e-mail her.
... you do of coarse do realize the BBFC was made as a censor board to censor media.. well after the good intentions of preventing film fires and some building issues....but evey since after its conception its been a board influenced by goverment either by theme or money to regulate the media that the populace consumes.
Is it not enough that age ranges are bond by law, must they take the extra step to protect adults from media?
Children will always find it one way or another, parents are the only censorship needed in a mature socity... in the end protecting the world from steak will only make more cannibals...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Board_of_Film_Classification
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.
true, looking at porn its more questionable than harmful thus an age lock is acceptable form of censorship and that logic can be applied to overtly violent media.
Moralistic censorship is just moral bukkuka.........
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
@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.
All roads in this issue lead back to the government, and the government more or less alone.
/b
/b
@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
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.
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.
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?
That's quite a comment :) First I want to say that I don't think that we're going to see eye to eye on this because where censorship is concerned I fall firmly on the side of idealism. I think that any speech and expression should be protected. Another issue is that in the US offensive speech is protected across the board whereas in the UK people and the government are much more concerned about offending others. For example it would be completely legal for a US newspaper to have a headline that reads "Fuck You!" Offensive, certainly, and likely business suicide, but completely legal.
My problem with pragmatism regarding free expression - and with many things I am very pragmatic - is that the ability for people to express themselves and their ideas in any way they desire is the immutable cornerstone of a free society and it is the line in the sand that must be drawn. If you cross that line for any reason you risk starting on a slippery slope that could lead to government control over the expression and exchange of ideas.
Regarding your final point on self-censorship you must realize that the moment the BBFC banned Manhunt 2 it became an inevitability. The massive negative press the game received in the British media will also have a chilling effect because many developers are going to realize that the game was banned because of its high profile and they will want to avoid making the same mistakes. Despite the developer's best intentions and desires to have their vision realized the publishers are going to step in and make the bottom-line decisions.
I'm jumping around with the points you made and I'm sorry about that. I'm trying to do about a dozen things at once right now :)
I don't think that games need to justify themselves any more then movies or books because I don't accept that any media needs to justify itself. Rather then talk about games as media for the sake of this argument I'm going to consider them avenues of expression. Any avenue of expressions exists as a way to dialog with an audience. The creators may feel the need to justify their creation or the fans may feel the need to justify their affection but the expression itself exists as a conduit. When you start asking that avenues of expression justify themselves you're looking at censorship because you're imposing requirements that they must meet in order to be valid. The question that's raised is then what is done with "invalid" expression? Can it be dismissed when it's politically or socially expedient?
That being said, I disagree that games need a stronger motivation for the player to commit brutal acts. One of the things about games - and Manhunt in particular - is that it is their interactivity and often the lack of motivation that speaks loudest. A player - an adult player because games like Manhunt are definitely not for children - sees aspects of themselves reflected in the decisions they make and those choices are magnified the less motivation the game provides. If you play a game where you pass a level by shooting a guy in the head then you have to engage in that action and it doesn't say anything about the player other then that they want to beat the level. If, on the other hand, you have a game where you could shoot the guy in the head but it wouldn't effect your progression then the activity of the player has so much more resonance. That is what I see as the "highest" form of interactive entertainment - where the player is given a reflection of themselves, as good or bad as that may be, through their participation in the fiction.
As far as young British criminals are concerned - I left the country a decade ago and that's about the time the crime started to increase. I'm not say that I traveled across the UK fighting crime or anything ... but hey, the numbers don't lie :)
On a more serious note, some of the most horrendous and horrifyingly imaginative acts of violence I have seen or know to have been committed have been done by people with little or no exposure to much modern media. I have spoken to people who have seen acts done that so completely defy comprehension that I couldn't even imagine them being presented in any form of media - not because of a sense of self-restraint or social responsibility but because it is only through the pure irrational hatred and ugliness of our most vile impulses combined with extreme circumstances that certain concepts can even be born. In short, the media will never be able to match the horrors other people will inflict on each other because they are simple not able.
I do agree with you that the main thing is to further the acceptance of gaming in the mainstream but I think that we disagree on how to do it :) I think that you're going to have a more difficult time in the UK, though, because of the way your media presents things.
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.
QFT
"On a more serious note, some of the most horrendous and horrifyingly imaginative acts of violence I have seen or know to have been committed have been done by people with little or no exposure to much modern media. I have spoken to people who have seen acts done that so completely defy comprehension that I couldn’t even imagine them being presented in any form of media - not because of a sense of self-restraint or social responsibility but because it is only through the pure irrational hatred and ugliness of our most vile impulses combined with extreme circumstances that certain concepts can even be born. In short, the media will never be able to match the horrors other people will inflict on each other because they are simple not able."
Regarding media versus avenue of expression and the criteria for validity... well it's a tough subject. I do however make one distinction, which I'd be interested to hear your views on. I distinguish between temporal, tangible media and purely expressive ones. By temporal/tangible I mean everything from the printed word through tv shows and recorded music to movies, videogames and beyond. By purely expressive, I mean stuff done live and only exists in the moment - anything from a festival through to street mime.
Right, hope you're still with me. My view is that the former carries a great social responsibilty by virtue of its more permanent, material nature wheras as pure avenues of expression are the natural right of all sentient beings (go go Optimus Prime). I mean, it's just moving your body and flapping your lips - what could be wrong with that, right?
However, with tangible goods I'm pretty sure that a common sense consensus can be agreed by intelligent adults on what is and what is not permissable in (British, at least) society. At least, it's something that should be aspired towards.
The only caveat is that as an individual, I do think that people should be concerned about offending other people - after all, that's the only way I think we can "just get along" ;)
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.
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 :)
Come on VAT. If you don't stand up for your own rights, who will?
Immigrants they could potentialy murder all englishmen in their beds... lets ban immigration...
The Royal family could potentially overthrow the democracy...lets ban the royal family from Britain...
Planes could potential be used as weapons by terrorists lets ban all airtraffic...
Lets decide all criminal case on the basis of potential crimes that could be committed rather than crimes that actually where...
Justice Mitting could potentially become a human traffic kingpin and a killer.... hey lets put him in jail now because he has much more potential of doing these things than the potential harm that Manhunt can do...
ALL LIVING BEINGS ON EARTH COULD POTENTIALLY COME TO BRITAIN AND KILL SOMEONE!!! LETS BAN ALL LIVING BEINGS FROM BRITAIN...
Dang this is really fun...
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....
If we just got rid of grains altogether, we could stop all violence!
No matter what you say blocking media because some do not like it by a board thats funded by the government and or influences laws is nothing but foolish shortsighted censorship.
The most mature way to deal with the issues it label it a adult item and let the law and the market deal with it, once its out of the headlines it becomes another part of life commen folk are use to dealing with.
But as long as it stays in the moral jack off contest and gains the ire of all sides it becomes a never ending circus and more harm via free advertising is caused from it, this is the core of eliest moralisim by whining about it it dose not go away.
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!
PS: Tom, whilst I'm not sure I entirely agree with all of your examples, I think I am starting to come round to your way of thinking.
"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?
I disagree with you point about context on an artistic level and would hope Rockstar aren't so childish as to develop a game simply to cause controversy. However, I've come to agree with the majority of posters here - just because something is (in my personal view) grossly distasteful, doesn't mean it should have been banned.
(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.