ELSPA: Manhunt ban is good. Us: WTF?
ELSPA Director General Paul Jackson has issued a statement praising the BBFC's recent decision to deny classification for Rockstar's Manhunt 2, effectively banning the game from sale in Great Britain. Jackson said the decision "demonstrates that we have a games ratings system in the UK that is effective" and emphasized that the arrangement "works and works well."Frankly, we're a bit shocked that an organization whose stated mission is to "protect, promote and provide for the interests of all its members" would support state-sponsored censorship of one of its member's products. The point of ratings, at least as we see it, is to inform the public about the content of a game before they buy it, so they're not surprised by any objectionable materials contained within. The whole idea is that informed consumers can make the best choices for themselves and their families. The BBFC's decision goes against this ideal by effectively telling British adults they're not mature enough to decide whether or not they can handle this game. How is that an "effective" system?
Jackson's statement does not address BBFC Director David Cooke's unsupported assertion that the game's availability would "involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors ... [that] would be unacceptable to the public." Does ELSPA really agree that the mere availability of a game to adults can damage a society so badly that its distribution must be stopped? If so, is that a message ELSPA's member organizations are willing to get behind as well?
In his statement, Jackson stresses that games "appeal to all kinds of people across the country, young and old, male and female." What about the people Manhunt 2 appeals to? Apparently, they're just out of luck, as far as ELSPA's concerned.
[Via GameStooge]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
whosmav @ Jun 19th 2007 11:34AM
WTF indeed
vidGuy @ Jun 19th 2007 11:35AM
I say give it the equivalent of an Adults Only rating and be done. Nothing good will come of this...
Matt B @ Jun 19th 2007 11:39AM
The game may not be sold in stores but it will not stop those who want it from getting it. If anything, this ruling has peaked interest to a higher level. Those that applaud the ruling would most likely have not bought the game anyway.
Rob Accomando @ Jun 19th 2007 11:45AM
just make all the blood green. haha
Topher @ Jun 19th 2007 11:47AM
Replace the blood with puppies. Someone gets their throat slit and little cocker spaniels come shooting out of their jugular. ^__^
Rod Munch @ Jun 19th 2007 11:49AM
I know I'm going to be hunted down for saying this, but just because your over a certain age does not make you responsible. Also why the hell should an incredibly violent game be allowed anyway? As was mentioned this is the first game in a long time they have refused to rate, so I think we can see that they are not anywhere near as reactionary as many ratings boards.
Werbal @ Jun 19th 2007 11:49AM
I thought the Nazis lost in World War II.
Hirsbrunner @ Jun 19th 2007 11:52AM
@5. Brilliant!
Roger @ Jun 19th 2007 11:58AM
i say go ahead and ban it. its gonna suck anyway! the only reason they made ANOTHER ONE and put it on the WII is cause its the perfect marketing ploy!
the game is gonna suck like its pretisessor! do something good rockstar and make another bully or even red dead revolver! RDR never got any contrevercy!
in conclusion...its gonna suck so let jack think he is mighty than crush him like the bug he is!
Crackjaw @ Jun 19th 2007 11:58AM
I've been playing video games since I was 7 (I'm 23 now) and I have watched some of the most violent scenes in movies, games, and anime. With that being said, all I have to say about Manhunt 2 is that there is a limit.
The BBFC made the right decision in my opinion. Who here has actually played it? What if it was far more graphic than the first; then add on the simulated hand motions you would be doing with the Wii remote? I love loading up GTA III and just going for a rampage, but this really looks like nothing more than a murder simulator.
The argument of letting it go public then let the public decide is asinine.
Why stop at letting the public decide on just video games? How about drugs? Then fully automatic weapons? Why not make everything legal and let the populace sort it out?
Because that would be Anarchy.
Wether you want to believe it or not some things the government does is meant with your best interests in mind.
rfom @ Jun 19th 2007 12:00PM
This is just crap. As a complete cyber-wimp, I cant find the fun in games like Silent Hill, but if someone else likes those games why the hell cant they play it? I can think of any number of disgustingly violent movies, why are those allowed? Sin City for instance.
On an aside, if its coming for PS3, can you import another region's game and play?
Frank East @ Jun 19th 2007 12:00PM
what would be a laugh is if germany accept it, but that won't happen until our sun dies.
I think this goes against everything free choice stands for. O'well wasn't going to get it anyway.
vidGuy @ Jun 19th 2007 12:01PM
"this really looks like nothing more than a murder simulator"
So? Murder simulators don't make murders any more than Flight Simulator made anyone a pilot.
CJC @ Jun 19th 2007 12:02PM
The rest of the world is as uptight about violence as we Americans are about nudity and sex.
Ben @ Jun 19th 2007 12:03PM
The point is this isn't the US. Ratings work differently over this side of the pond and the approach much of the US media is taking towards this just doesn't seem to understand that. Additionally these are not 'unsupported assertions' made by the BBFC. A judgement has been made after actually looking at the material, that's how it works. This wasn't a decision plucked out of mid-air or one in response to political or media pressure, which is how the ratings game seems to work in some countries.
The BBFC has and no doubt will in the future not give a rating to a film or game. Guess what, they're treating both mediums the same! In other countries in Europe you get the same situation of games not being given ratings.
What the head of ELSPA is doing is trying to prove to the watching world that the ratings system those who attack the games industry say is ineffective is actually working. In doing this he is protecting the interests of the groups members. Whether you agree with the BBFC's decision or not, the system that is in place IS working within it's own sets of goals. And with people calling for more regulation of games, proving that they are already regulated is a good thing for the industry.
Also, lets not forget that the BBFC has supported the games industry, supported games when they've been unjustly attacked, published research dismissing the accusations that games cause violence and stated that negative publicity can help sales of a game.
While people may not agree with the decision, it's sad to see so many (particularly US) 'journalists' come out with blanket and uninformed pieces slating the BBFC.
vidGuy @ Jun 19th 2007 12:04PM
"I love loading up GTA III and just going for a rampage"
I should have reacted to that, too. Going on a rampage in the street in GTA allows you to kill innoncents, including women and police officers. It sounds to me like the only people you kill in Manhunt are killers and criminals themselves. Kill or be killed, you know?
polly @ Jun 19th 2007 12:05PM
"Why stop at letting the public decide on just video games? How about drugs? Then fully automatic weapons? Why not make everything legal and let the populace sort it out?"
I see what you did there.
megaStryke @ Jun 19th 2007 12:05PM
vidGuy: "Murder simulators don't make murders any more than Flight Simulator made anyone a pilot."
Highlighted, underscored, and bolded.
Vidikron @ Jun 19th 2007 12:18PM
@Crackjaw
[The argument of letting it go public then let the public decide is asinine.
Why stop at letting the public decide on just video games? How about drugs? Then fully automatic weapons? Why not make everything legal and let the populace sort it out? ]
The thing that is asinine is that argument. This is a GAME, not a freaking gun. You argument is absurd because it can be applied in the reverse direction. Why let the public decide anything then? Why let the public eat fast food when most of it is bad for them? Why let them drink alcohol? Why let them do ANYTHING the gov't deems potentially harmful? See how absurd your argument is?
You can make a point against anything by taking it to the extreme, which is all you did. In the end though, we are still talking about a GAME. Not a gun, not a drug (though I think you will a lot of people do support drug legalization), etc... it's a game.
Poisoned Al @ Jun 19th 2007 12:18PM
I suddenly have the urge to burn a government building down! Violent video games dome make me aggressive, self-important pretentious wankers do! We need to ban holier-than-thou bell-ends because they make me have bad thoughts!
penas @ Jun 19th 2007 12:23PM
god damn LIBERALS! *gay voice*"no its too violent, besides where are the rainbows and men in short shorts?"
sheppy @ Jun 19th 2007 12:32PM
"I've been playing video games since I was 7 (I'm 23 now) and I have watched some of the most violent scenes in movies, games, and anime. With that being said, all I have to say about Manhunt 2 is that there is a limit.
The BBFC made the right decision in my opinion. Who here has actually played it? What if it was far more graphic than the first; then add on the simulated hand motions you would be doing with the Wii remote? I love loading up GTA III and just going for a rampage, but this really looks like nothing more than a murder simulator.
The argument of letting it go public then let the public decide is asinine.
Why stop at letting the public decide on just video games? How about drugs? Then fully automatic weapons? Why not make everything legal and let the populace sort it out?
Because that would be Anarchy.
Wether you want to believe it or not some things the government does is meant with your best interests in mind."
Wow, can you hear me all the way back there in the 1800's? Curious, you know. My voice carries far but "there is a limit."
I have to wonder, if you've been gaming forever, you've heard of Sanitarium right? After all, that game features events and themes far more disturbing than Manhunt 2. And while you're on your pedestal, you're obviously a big fan of Soldiers Of Fortune. I remember my first time playing that game and exploring the "gore zones." Blowing off a man's leg and watching him fall and scream in pain. Shooting someone in the face only to discover you did, indeed, use hollowpoints and now the entire back of his head is a crimson stew resembling red cornflakes soaking in fake blood. And I can't tell you how many times in FPS games I had turned some poor fools chest into a softserve dispenser. The cerebral bore didn't disturb you as the sound effects clearly told you is was crunching through the skull? And even GTA and Saints Row, in their ability to allow you to vent on police and pedestrians with little reprecussions, remain more morally objectionable than Manhunt 2.
So, in essence, you draw the line here and you give them this victory, you're a fucking coward eagerly awaiting the day of green blood and "zombie enemies" like Germany has it right now.
Lucky @ Jun 19th 2007 12:41PM
I love 10's argument, it made me laght. Maby the govren ment sould start to censorship "harmful" political parties? Thows pesky democrates are trying to tear apart our christian morals after all!
Now I have prety socalist views, but I can be the 1st to codem the USSR and even the PRC. It's one thing to ban automatic wepones, or drugs. But this is a game, I've read more volient things in books then what I've seen in any video game.
There are parts from thows books that even if I gave a quick summery of what happened, could probly get me banned from posting here. But does that make me want to go out a kill and mutilate bodies?
Hell no.
Lucky @ Jun 19th 2007 12:47PM
I'm glade I don't live in england. (Even thow I'm not a big fan of Man hunt, the idea of censorship) Also I bet you that import sites are going to be makeing ALOT of money.
They can't ban the game 100%, the only thing they will be doing is makeing english stores loss money, and give that money to places out side there country. Not very good econimics.
That plus the fact this isn't what a rates bored is ment to do, is makeing them look more and more like dicks.
Reuben @ Jun 19th 2007 12:47PM
Whether there is a realistic limit or not I really don't care. The fact is that it's the not the government's business to tell me what I can and cannot play. if parent's don't want their kids playing it, then don't buy it for them! What about the adults who are going to want to play these games? I'm sure they feel like little children right now being punished by an overbearing parent.
Savok @ Jun 19th 2007 12:57PM
Britain is dying
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/jolly_shut_ins_targeted/
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/pods/watchful_eyes.jpg
This is simply more evidence of that fact.
For those defending this, it is NOT the government's job to make our lives better, their job is to administer public services and the economy, also act as the international voice and defense force of the country.
Adam Owen @ Jun 19th 2007 1:00PM
If this was a movie, it would be compared with films such as 'Hostel' and 'Saw', and not seen as a murder simulator. The BBFC said themselves that people are more influenced by these films than any violent games, so why aren't these films banned?
If they WANT to remember, the BBFC are going to have lots of explaining to do...
megaStryke @ Jun 19th 2007 1:06PM
Wow. I used to think sheppy was a bit of a tool, but he has truly become one of my favorite and one of the most balanced posters.
Kenny @ Jun 19th 2007 1:19PM
"GTA allows you to kill innoncents, including women and police officers"
I think killing innocent people in general is a mean thing to do. I don't think we have to get gender involved. (That's a pet peeve of mine. It's like when a big disaster is reported. I don't care how many women were killed, I care about how many people were killed. Noone's life is more precious than another based on anything. I guess I'm just an equalist.)
Anyways, this is censorship. I don't care how violent the game is, give it an appropriate rating, restrict it from being sold at places were minors are, or give harsh penalties to parents who let their kids play. I think that's the only issue here, kids getting ahold of the game. And again, it's the parents responsibility. More video game phobia I guess. Maybe its extreme. I know I wouldn't play it, personally, it would make me feel sick. That doesn't mean somebody with a little more tolerance for depictions of brutal murders can't enjoy it. And why shouldn't they?
Rob Accomando @ Jun 19th 2007 1:35PM
it's "Night Trap" all over again. In 5 years we'll look back and see the stupidity of the over-reaction to this video game.
arrrgh @ Jun 19th 2007 1:35PM
So let's just ban everything, and make parents even lazier...that'll help. Let's keep trying to get things to the point where parents can just sit their kids in front of the tv for the day and not have to deal with them!@ Just like in the good old days :S
wtf
Anam @ Jun 19th 2007 1:38PM
@Poisoned Al
That's exactly how I feel. You get this people telling us that we shouldn't play these games because they can lead to anger and violence, but those very people make me more angry than a game ever has.
It's kind of like these school shootings we keep hearing about over here in the United States. People keep making connections to guns, video games, movies, rock stars, etc. but doesn't anyone think that maybe, just maybe, these kids are angry at the schools?
But you're not allowed to blame the schools, because schools are there to help kids so we shouldn't question whether or not they're achieving that self-proclaimed objective. Let's just blame another rock star instead. They don't matter.
Guess I got off track, but you know what I mean.
Ryan LN @ Jun 19th 2007 1:40PM
Because, Crackjaw, what if the government decides in its infinite wisdom that video games as a whole serve no rational purpose and only lead to declines in productivity, intelligence, and work product? Then they can ban them all. Banning speech of any sort (and yes, video games are protected speech under our constitution) because you don't like it is a slippery slope that leads to sensorhip for stupid reasons. While I can't speak to England and our European brethren, when it comes to our country you just can't do that for any old retarded reason that the Jack Thompsons of the world come up with- you've got to jump pretty severe constitutional hurdles in order to do so, because governments throughout history (including the current administration) have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted when it comes to the management of "dangerous" ideas, notions, and school of thought.
James B @ Jun 19th 2007 1:42PM
I find it strange that this was done WITHOUT any media or political pressure. This does make me slightly confident that the desicion is more justified, but I am still unhappy about it. I mean, if we have no problem with MUCH more violent movies/books, why video games? I heard that the Wii remote controls wern't all that great either, so I cant see that as an additional problem.
Avatar @ Jun 19th 2007 1:45PM
Holy crap! It's like Britain is slowly turning into the Britain from V for Vendetta! Soon it'll be another fascist nation, convinced of it's own righteous glory and the people's inability to control themselves that they will soon control every aspect of the public's life. Aren't we supposed to be making advances in human rights, not taking them away because some politician doesn't like it?
Avatar @ Jun 19th 2007 1:46PM
Holy crap! It's like Britain is slowly turning into the Britain from V for Vendetta! Soon it'll be another fascist nation, convinced of it's own righteous glory and the people's inability to control themselves that they will soon control every aspect of the public's life. Aren't we supposed to be making advances in human rights, not taking them away because some politician doesn't like it?
Avatar @ Jun 19th 2007 1:46PM
Oops, stupid double posting.
Rare Hare @ Jun 19th 2007 1:55PM
@ Crackjaw (#10):
So you're fully in favor of outright censorship?
It doesn't matter whether or not Manhunt's material makes you uncomfortable. You don't have to play it. But banningthe game, and thus not allowing others to play it, is censorship. And it's wrong.
Rare Hare @ Jun 19th 2007 1:58PM
"god damn LIBERALS! *gay voice*"no its too violent, besides where are the rainbows and men in short shorts?""
Yeah, moron. Let's just turn this into a liberals vs. conservatives flame war.
E8 Foe @ Jun 19th 2007 2:26PM
@13 (I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, so bear with me)
No, but the Air Force does use flight simulators to help hone pilot reflexes and train them to do their job better and more efficiently.
Obviously, no one's becoming a pilot because they play a simulator. But if you're already heading down that road...?
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Jun 19th 2007 2:32PM
Would it be too much to ask to explain the acronyms in these articles so that you get what's being discussed without having to go do your own research on the issue? WTF is ELSPA? Never heard of the thing.
Victor @ Jun 19th 2007 2:34PM
# 10
You don't know shit about what's anarchy.
That was fucking ignorant. Go back to school.
Pretty Obvious @ Jun 19th 2007 2:41PM
If the game is to violent for you dont play it, dont allow your kids to play it. Same thing goes for movies like Saw or Hostel. Saw has spawned 3 sequels with a 4th on the way, so obviously they dont suck - people are watching them. Dont tell people what to watch, next thing theyll be telling people how to live.
Sounds like England is full of pussies.
vidGuy @ Jun 19th 2007 2:51PM
E8 Foe, I agree. Various branches of the military use video games and simulations to train for combat situations, too. But there are other forces that make these people pilots, soldiers, or murderers. Video games and simulations are not the cause. We should be addressing causes, not incidental influences or correlations.
I'm all for keeping this game out of kids' hands, but adults should not be restricted from obtaining it.
Anam @ Jun 19th 2007 2:59PM
I always think it's funny when people talk about Saw and how it's all about torture or something.
Now, I haven't seen the sequels, but the original was a damn fine movie that was mostly about a conversation between two guys trapped in a bathroom. There were a few scenes of torture, yes, but most of it was character development and storyline. Just think it's funny how no one gives it a chance.
On topic: Boo to censorship.
Nathan M @ Jun 19th 2007 3:36PM
@Crackjaw:
"Why stop at letting the public decide on just video games? How about drugs? Then fully automatic weapons? Why not make everything legal and let the populace sort it out?" Right, because video games cause just as much violence and degradation as automatic weapons and drugs. Oh wait, they don't. Also, for the record, iirc automatic weapons are legal in the US. The ban on assault weapons was lifted recently.
@E8 Foe
"Obviously, no one's becoming a pilot because they play a simulator. But if you're already heading down that road...?" Then they're most likely going to go postal at some point whether they play the game or not. If someone is already so livid that they would kill someone, not playing a violent game is not going to stop them.
MalReynolds @ Jun 19th 2007 4:47PM
The reason for the ban on Manhunt 2 isn't because they think Adults aren't mature enough to make the decision whether the game is good or not, but that the content is so unessecary it doesn't constitute 'ENTERTAINMENT' or any kind. Virtually murdering someone in the ways that were portrayed in the Original Manhunt, so assumably worse in the sequel, was Over The Top.
People who would want to play Manhunt2 are people who goto video sites to see hostages get their throats cut by terrorists, women stoned to death for looking at a guy that wasn't her husband and Snuff videos.
There is a line to be drawn and maybe Take Two should be praised for defining where that line is and to those people who love watching executions and snuff videos, seek help!
Neil Christie @ Jun 19th 2007 4:49PM
I don't know why everyone is being so outright about this - NONE of you have played the game so how can you possibly comment on its content?
We trust the BBFC here in the UK and we know that their decisions are almost always the right ones. It's actually quite nice to think that the BBFC has this power, as well as the proper legal backing that is lacking so much with the ESRB.
Sorry, but Jackson is absolutely right - just because you were looking forward to the game doesn't mean that it is exempt from the same ratings system which all other games and movies go through. That said, Rockstar would know fine well what the guidelines were and it wouldn't surprise me if the game was submitted like this to gain attention. It sure as hell is working.
Poisoned Al @ Jun 19th 2007 4:50PM
"I'm glade I don't live in england."
I'm the last person to pick up on typos, but DAMN!
Anyway, while this is crappy, the UK rates quite low on "OMG! BAN!!!111" list of countries. This is the first game in ages to cause problem. Unlike the US, Germany and Australia that seems to have some right-wing attention seeker, spouting the evils of games on a Murdoch owned "news" channel. I've yet to hear any of this on UK TV.
b00ny @ Jun 19th 2007 5:26PM
Devils advocate again: Google "age play" "second life" and read one of the many articles about this phenomenon in SL - what about that? After all it is just a video game and nobody is harmed...