ELSPA: Manhunt ban is good. Us: WTF?

"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.

#10. By 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?"

What the hell do you have against the public? Isn't the idea of democracy to allow the public to decide how it should be governed?

The BBFC deciding that the public should not be allowed to play this game is rule by fiat. They are not accountable, they are not elected, they don't even serve the public or the public trust.

You have less of a problem with non-representational power than you do with games about murder? Really?

At least if it was a representational body it would have some moral leg on which to stand. I'd still disagree, I don't believe that you have the right to tell me what I should play nay more than I have the right to tell you what to wear, but at least it would be democratic.

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...

@Neil Christie

It's not a question of content, it's a question of censorship. You either do or do not believe that censorship is acceptable. I do not.

Being from the United States, I don't know how things work there in England. But here, if a game is inappropriate, it should be rated AO (for Adults Only). The AO rating effectively bans it from most retail stores, but anyone who really wants it can get it either online or from stores that sell other adult material.

The concept of totally banning something is something most people in the United States simply won't tolerate. Is England different? I wouldn't know.

It seems like about 90% of the posts after mine were regarding it. I'm not going to argue with each and every single one, but I will address this one.

@19

Yes, you're right, it can be applied in the reverse direction showing us their decision is somewhere in the middle, which is ideal.

-End @ 19-

I can't stand kids who complain about the oppression/censorship of their government when they have no idea what they are talking about. Countries like Libya, Iran, Syria to name a few; those are countries that oppress the liberal arts.

Assuming most of the people here live in the US and Great Britain, complain about a video game getting banned for being too graphic? Be happy that your government is doing a good enough job for you to be able to afford that quality of life. Unlike in other countries such as in India where a Xbox 360 cost people their entire annual income.

Hell, most of the people that are defending the BBFC are from England and know the organization. While most of you just started foaming at the mouth when you heard, "Manhunt banned."

@Crackjaw

Other countries having more problems is no excuse for refusing to improve your own country. If there is something that can be improved (be it censorship issues or anything else), people in that country should try to improve it.

Saying "but that country doesn't either" is just a lame excuse.

@ 54

Because releasing Manhunt 2 for the Wii would improve your country?

An analogy to express my feelings from the previous post would be like a spoiled rich kid throwing a fit when he doesn't get his way.

I just read Crackjaw's comment (#10) and threw up a little in my mouth. I didn't know they made sheep like that. If people wanna lay around having corrupt politicians tell them how to live their lives, more power to them, but I don't like it. Something about being someone else's bitch gets me all pissed off.

@ 55.

So you think that freedom of expression and freedom of choice are the luxuries of a spoiled rich kid?

@56

Have you ever even talked to your senator? Do you even know who it is?

The BBFC is its own organization such as the ESRB and only has a professional relation with the government.

So, where did corrupt politicians even come from?

Do you even know where you are?

@57

I'm saying you should be happy you have those freedoms and not be whining about not being able to pretend killing someone.

You don't fully appreciate something until you don't have it anymore.

So we're only allowed to discuss an issue, or disagree with something, when things can be absolutely no worse?

What a fantastic philosophy. I guess Gandhi should have just shut the hell up because at least the Brits were'nt rounding up Indians in the street and killing them. Ditto for Martin Luther King.

To point out that something else is much worse is no logical argument, it is a misdirection.

This argument isn't about whether those freedoms currently exist, it is about defending them to make sure that we continue to enjoy them. If I were to remain silent about this censoring, about which could I argue? If I am unwilling to defend Manhunt 2 because it's content is extreme or because the first game was of low quality, how could anybody believe that my position against censorship is valid as opposed to just defending my own interests?

@ 60

Ok then

Pretend that Manhunt 2 is an interactive raping simulator of little girls instead of grusome acts of murder. Can you still defend its censorship?

I meant, can you still object to its censorship?

Yes, I would still object to it being censored or banned.

I'd object to the banning or censoring of a game that depicts me being raped by a pack of wild boars.

It's not up to me, or to you, if any particular work is art or worthwhile. That means that we have to defend everything.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

There have been works that raised questions from those self-appointed moral guardians have taken objection to, works that they sought to destroy or ban, works that we would have been poorer without.

We can't allow anyone to destroy works because they don't like the content. Even if we don't like the content ourselves we have to set aside personal feelings and defend the work.

If you think that censorship, as long as you disagree with what's being said, is alright then its only a small step until someone decides that they don't like what you say. That's why all speech has to be defended, no matter the content.

Yes, I would defend it. I'd defend a game that depicted me being raped by a pack of wild boars.

All speech must be protected or no speech is. If you decide that it's okay for things that you disagree with to be silenced what's to prevent someone else to decide that you should be silenced.

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

If you don't stand up for all of it than you don't deserve to have it. I'll still be here fighting for your rights, it's disappointing to know that you might not be standing for mine.

There are countless examples of self-appointed moral guardians attempting to silence voices that they disagreed with. Sometimes they won, sometimes they failed. In the instances they failed, in the works they tried to destroy, I have seen nothing so deplorable, so damaging to humanity, that it was worse than the attempt to silence it.

Sorry for the double post, thought it ate it the first time.

I think you can tell which posters are US based and who are UK based by reading their replies. As Neil Christie posted we have a respect for the BBFC over here in the UK, our ratings board isn't politically linked with any of the major parties of government.

They don't ban many things, the last was 10 years ago and in general they get things right.

I'm pretty sure Rockstar knew the guideline and they know better than anyone that getting a game banned is great PR. They are just playing the system.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/stories/20070417.html

From the BBFC's own website, and I quote David Cooke, the very man who was going on about this Video Game 'causing harm' to the public...

"The element of interactivity in games carries some weight when we are considering a video game. We were particularly interested to see that this research suggests that, far from having a potentially negative impact on the reaction of the player, the very fact that they have to interact with the game seems to keep them more firmly rooted in reality. People who do not play games raise concerns about their engrossing nature, assuming that players are also emotionally engrossed. This research suggests the opposite; a range of factors seems to make them less emotionally involving than film or television..."

Talk about 'double standards'....

@Topher (Re: Puppies)
Good Goddess, I hope someone makes that a mod. I'd then go out my way to buy it..

The BBFC has always been a good and fair organisation for the games industry. I believe they have published info to the effect that violent games do not cause violent behaviour.

For the BBFC to effectively ban Manhunt 2 means that there must have been some pretty harsh stuff in the game.

I completely understand people's desire to play the game, and their need to stamp their feet and claim it is their right to do so.

But we have to ask ourselves, as active, healthy members of society, and people who play games and want the industry we love to thrive and grow... do we need games like Manhunt 2?

Are games like this helping the industry or holding it back?

I'm sure it could be argued that Manhunt 2 is a pointless attempt by Rockstar to sell a game not on merit but on the back of sensationalist marketing. I'm sure it could also be argued that the people who would get the most enjoyment from this game are the squealing prepubescents who fall under the 18 rating Rockstar were aiming for.

It puzzles me just what is in the game that could cause the BBFC to not give it a rating. I wonder if their decision was based partly on content/context and partly on the failure of retailers and parents to restrict sales and monitor the games under 18's are playing. There's also the argument that even thought the BBFC is an independent organisation, maybe there was a bit of Government pressure in there too.

I'm all for freedom of choice but I'll give the BBFC the benefit of the doubt... What would be worse... Manhunt 2 hitting the shelves and THEN getting banned due to public/Government uproar or the BBFC showing that it has some teeth in the first place and banning a game it feels is not fit for sale. I'm sure the former would harm the industry far more than the latter.

How is it ever the right decision to ban speech from being sold to anyone in the country?

I think that outright banning is bad; as it is censorship, but if a body finds something particularly objectionable (like this, or say that child rape simulator that others have mentioned) the government should just use its pulpit to voice its opposition

Use free speech to combat objectionable free speech, that would be the dignified way to do it

The Streisand Effect... Manhunt 2 has been all over the news, and now more people know about the game, and frankly, all this press coverage will likely give the game better sales. I'm sure Take Two doesn't mind the coverage... although they aren't happy with the AO rating and bans (which are retarded, QFT Kyle) Take Two will likely benefit big time from all the talk. I'll prolly buy this game for Wii, it looks like it'll be a new gaming experience.

And I agree about the ELSPA thing... they aren't even standing up for their interest groups and supposed opinions about games. Maybe they feel some pressure from the EU or other governments? You'd think the ELSPA would be smart enough to operate in its member's best interests... UNLESS some 3rd party force was involved in shutting them up.

"13. "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."

You do realize that many pilots, from commercial, to freelance, to military, all train on flight simulators. I would wholeheartedly disagree with your assumption that flight simulators have not made anyone interested in being a pilot, or to discount their importance in pilot training.

As such, by your comparison, a game whose sole purpose is to murder, and to act out such actions with actual motions, could indeed be considered a murder simulation and attract deviants in society to play these games and learn from them. This game separates itself with the apparent lack of substance and forethought that actually acting out the motions to murder individuals may take it a little bit too far.

Take-Two Interactive has always prided itself on ridiculously pushing the edge because they thought they could. This time reality struck back. While I do not specifically agree with a ban, at the very least an Adults Only rating should be enforced and anyone buying this game should really wonder what they are actually supporting. Take-Two is not pushing the boundary for progress, they do it for media attention and for profit, nothing else and at the expense of the entire industry.

As video game consumers how do we protect our medium from unwarranted legislation from misinformed politicians when we stand up for games like this? Games that clearly will overwhelmingly project a negative light on the industry and all gamers do not help the cause.

If this is the time to make our stand and fight for what we believe in to protect games, I hope we can find a better example of a video game worth fighting for. Is it time for us to actually take a step back and look at what we are playing and consider why some non-gamers are horrified by it? Maybe that way we can finally combat the problem of misunderstanding, but as a hardcore gamer among many things, I have lost the message in Manhunt 2. I think I'll sit on the sidelines for this one.

A final thought on this, maturity would be appropriate when discussing this issue, especially if we are at the breaking point with video game banning. I can visualize in my head some of the thoughts outside observers must be thinking about the gaming culture when they read some of the ridiculous comments on these blogs.

We are fighting a freedom of speech "war" with our guns pointed at our feet, hopelessly and continually adding self inflicted wounds. Seriously, think about it.

*My two cents over*

Just wanted to add after finding page two of the comments, there is some good debate. I don't want to cast a terrible shadow on everyone posting when I spoke of maturity. Clearly, a lot of the posters understand the seriousness of the issue. Whether or not I agree with them, it is a fresh breath of air to see that, especially after reading some of the first posts.

One last thing to those using Voltaire and others to defend this game. I question how much are we willing to consider as "speech." Also, for those saying you must stand up for everything or you are a traitor to the cause. Look how that mantra has gotten the United States in the last 6 years. Heck, only Sith deal in absolutes right?