"because if even one person who enjoys this in-game sadism tries it out in real life"

"I never said that people would go out and kill because of this game, that would be ridiculous."

Yeah, you backpedal the hell away from that point. Backpedal, y'hear?

You seem to have conceded that video games are less likely than other factors to affect people's capacity for violence, which furthermore means your extended point about violent media giving violent people violent ideas also collapses. Your reasoning about 'why give them ideas' is as weak a justification for censorship as anything else you've said.

Again, you are not going to solve the problem of violent crime by attacking the least likely contributory factor, so why do you want to have us wasting our time doing so?

(Because you're pro-censorship and can't think of anything else to do but censor hurrr)

PanStre

Be shocked man, violence, brutality, maiming and sadism can indeed pass for entertainment. It is not even new entertainment, it's always been around, in far greater doshes than Manhunt 2 can muster. Hell we've had gore movies on a level you can scarcely believe since forever, and let's not even get started on literature.

Your argument seems to rest almost entirely on the fact that games are an interactive medium, and as such places the user "closer" to the violence on a personal level. I'll argue that literature and films are equally interactive in terms of what you make of the experience in that regard.

Easily the most shocking scene of videogame violence in recent memory is a certain pivotal scene in Bioshock where command is taken away from the player. The actions taken are vicious, brutal and, if you're like me, you didn't want it to happen, but had to watch it happen anyway. The very idea of this scene, both narratively and conceptually, is that the player is a slave to the game's design. If the designers would indeed force the player to rape children to advance, the player's only escape from that rule would be to simply stop playing the game.

I have played Manhunt 2 quite a bit. This scene from Bioshock i will remember until i forget about Bioshock, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Any of the myriad hollywood killings of M2 are forgotten the instant they are over with. Manhunt 2, what i remember, is cruddy controls and an awful camera.

M2 is about excess and hedonism. It's pure entertainment with no philosophising, precisely on the same level as Takashi Miike's Dead or alive films or the Hostel films. It exists to serve a particular spectrum of consumers who find having their sensibilities challenged exhilarating, and everyone else, that includes you i assume, are completely free to ignore it, just like people who aren't into gore would ignore Hostel.

If you want to talk about suspect entertainment, watch the new The hills have eyes films. Women exist in those films seemingly ONLY to be raped and pitied by horrifying mutants. Not entire sure how banned those films were in the UK. Maybe you can fill me on that.

Sunjammer

And I am not saying books or movies are any less disturbing than games, you are obviously just reading want you want to see. I love American Psycho and found it moderately disturbing, but the fact of the matter is it is an excellent book with a very interesting point to make about the human psyche. I bet Manhunt 2 doesn't.

Now I do realise that I have not played this game,
I trust the BBFC's decisions. If the levels of violence were justified by the story, even in the end scene, it would have been rated 18. Simple.

Also, @ Panstre
I never said that people would go out and kill because of this game, that would be ridiculous.
The most games (just like books, films and the news) could do to affect people's actions would be to maybe give those people who are ready to kill anyway some interesting ideas about how to do it. But why give them so much?

There is simply no justification for a game to be this brutal, other than for publicity. It is just unnecessary, and thankfully the BBFC sees through it. Basically, yes, I do believe in censorship. The line should be drawn at some level, and it was, and Manhunt 2 crossed it. I have never opposed a game before, but then neither has the BBFC (since they changed their guidelines).

There is loads more I'd like to say but I can't be arsed any more, I have work to do. Everyone ask yourselves this: What exactly do you think you are going to enjoy about this game, why do you want to play it? If it is because you love killing virtual people then you have some serious empathy problems.

And don't get me started on "democracy"...

MrLister

Your point about child rape simulators is just plain stupid (JT would buy it, no-one else would), and your point about people 'trying out video game violence in real life' is stupid too because guess what, no-one IS going to try it out in real life. Take a close look at anybody you could conceivably point to as having committed a video game influenced killing, and you'll find that there were other factors going on in their own life that would have done far, far more to motivate them to kill. You basically don't understand the psychological inhibitions people have against ending a person's life, it's going to take a lot more than playing videogames to break those inhibitions down.
Let's consider the guy who shot so many people dead at Virginia Tech - the media seriously floated the idea that he was influenced by the movie 'Oldboy' (and don't you dare come back to split hairs over the fact that Oldboy was a movie), whereas the truth was that he had suffered bullying since he was a young boy. How much sense does it make to say that video games or movies affected him and drove him to murder more than that? Saying he was influenced by media, any media, is just unrealistic bollocks, the real reasons are a fair bit more involved than that. Banning video games is going to do what to stop that? Nothing.
You're talking the potential video games supposedly have to influence a person to murder and I say that won't happen at all i.e. you're talking HYPOTHETICALLY. If you can give me one case of someone having committed a murder motivated SOLELY by a desire to emulate a video-game - that cannot be shown to have other more probable affecting factors by a little cursory digging - than you may have a point. Get busy.

PanStre

Basically, it is clearly deliberately sensationalist, and it seems that Rockstar would be just as happy for the game to sell purely on its notoriety rather than the *gameplay* itself. That seems wrong, somehow.

The publicity the game is sure to attract will cause the closed-minded people out there to further believe (wrongly, obviously) that ALL games are like Manhunt 2. It will put an unwelcome spotlight on gaming and could actually result in more censorship and more regulation being forced upon the games industry. Which would be a Bad Thing.

I'm more concerned about the damage it will do to the reputation of gaming as a whole than any "harm" it would do to the population. I'd hate to see the Hillary Clintons or Jack Thompsons of this world gain any further support on the basis of this one game. Manhunt 2 could be used as a stick to beat us with time and time again.

If the game had a serious subtext rather than the blasé, "LOL, violence!" attitude it carries at the present moment, it wouldn't be so bad. We'd be able to argue its case. As it stands, it's just a potential embarrassment waiting to happen.

Jakey2.0

Sunjammer

"The game portrays totally realistic, biologically accurate killings." No it bloody well doesn't. I like your addition of "biologically accurate", like a) Rockstar went through pains and research to make it so and b) like that somehow makes it MORE SEVERE. Manhunt 2 killings are as realistic as any given Hollywood flick, only in this new recut version Hollywood has one-upped it by miles.

Your claim that books are less disturbing than games because in games you're in control is pulled right out of a donkey's asshole, and proves how much reading you've done. Go pick up American Psycho again, just for a laugh you know?

Mostly everything else in your post makes me absolutely furious, just point by point fascist thoughtpolice bullshit backed up by thin unproven references. I have friends who served in bosnia with post traumatic stress, they'll be happy to tell you the difference between having seen a person blown to bits or not. OF COURSE similar imagery will be stronger to them.

It is every man's right to be a dumb consumer, a complete and utter slut, a school dropout, whatever the hell we want. Hate to bust your bubble but fantasizing about terrible things is a common pastime. Welcome to democracy.

Sunjammer

And funnily enough, regardless of the psychological health of the subject, the subconscious mind has the utmost difficulty separating fiction from reality. The brain was not designed with virtual worlds in mind. Case in point, watch the episode of Derren Brown with the zombie video game, and check out the recent experiments using virtual reality with post-traumatic stress disorder patients.

It is up to society to look out and make sure that certain people not play software of this kind, because if even one person who enjoys this in-game sadism tries it out in real life, then it is society who has lost. You just have to accept that whilst people should be allowed to do and see what they want, they are not always the ones to best decide what is suitable. Average Joe doesn't know how exposure to violence (real or simulated) actually effects him psycholigically, but he should be responsible enough to let those who do know set limits on what is available, and the BBFC, having watched or played every single movie and game put forward for release is in the best position to set those boundaries.

There are far better games worthy of this much attention, but for the right reasons.

MrLister

They could, but Rockstar want to make money, and they won't make enough if they did that.

For all the arguments about "art", Rockstar is a big company interested only in making a return for their shareholders.

FunkyJ

Now I am not saying that a game focusing on acts of violence committed by the player are analogous to Mr. Banks' clear attitude towards violence and strong case made for that attitude, but I have always thought there to be something of a double standard when the graphic nature of something is far more important than the actual facts of the matter - I imagine that a game wherein you graphically torture Bin Laden for information to stop an imminent nuclear explosion would get a much higher rating than a game such as Civilization or Space Empires, where you can commit arbitrary genocide of cities, continents, or entire solar systems and kill vast numbers of people.

I understand the points made about interactivity, but I feel that can actually be a strength in gaming. I can speak for nobody else, but I often find myself being more merciful than I might have expected to be in games such as GTA, because committing acts of violence against innocents, even those who are only bits of data, can prove highly unsettling to me.

@mrandi: "Heaven forbid anyone should actually be protected from something for their own good." My general stance on that notion is this;

The only person you can trust less than someone who claims to have your best interests at heart is someone who really does have your best interests at heart.

Mister Adequate

lolspaceship

AtomicAgeZombie

No, the fact that it is "interactive" is a red herring. It does not change the fact that it is FICTION.

otakucode

otakucode

Absolutely ridiculous.

Sunjammer

Keegs79

The old Campion

That you seem to find yourself able to predict the mindset of someone based upon their desire to partake of some fiction, and your desire to control that person out of fear for your safety and that of others, I would seriously recommend you invest yourself in getting some psychiatric help. You are exhibiting signs of paranoia and diassociation with reality.

otakucode

Purple Dave

Ninja-Z

First, using under 18's as an excuse for this, is no excuse. There is the 18 certificate, and if you refuse to give a game an 18 because under 18's might play it, you are discreditting your own system.

I am for the BBFC here though, they have clearly said that it is not the violence, it is the context in which that violence is portrayed. There is no reason for it, and there is no way to avoid the killing. In their opinion, and their opinion is the only one that matters in this case, even though the game has had changes, the original reason for refusing classification has not been remedied.

Finally, everybody claiming to have rights need to wake up and look around. We have rules for a reason. We don't allow people to walk around with guns because the only reason to do so is to harm. The BBFC have a task as an independant body to put every game that requires classification through the same system, and this is only the second that has been rejected from the system. It's not a case of nanny state, it's not Jack Thompson telling you that you can't do that. It's a check by people who are quite lenient comparativly, which on this occasion has resulted in a game being refused.

Fudce

when you start banning a work of fiction because of the action of a few kids on friday night then it just demonstrates the radical failure of your educational system.

Besides you can buy Mein Kampf for 8 quids.

Fabrice

noliferuin (PSN+XBL)

ShineyBlueShoes

I honestly cannot understand why anyone would use THIS game as a focal point for everything that's wrong with game censorship. Game ratings should not be compared with film ratings because the interactivity of games (which sometimes makes them superior to films) cannot be applied to film. To see someone torture someone on film is disturbing and cringe-worthy. To torture someone in a video game is to participate, which IS NOT THE SAME THING. Sure, its all fake, but it IS a step closer to actually doing it and that cannot be minimized.
If we are going to celebrate how games have entertained, influenced and inspired us, as well as how this experience is finally getting the widespread attention it deserved, then we too also must realize the effect that has on people and act more responsibly. These aren't films. This is a whole new ballgame and the rules are still being established.

DARTH_TIGRIS

"the fact that someone WANTS to play Manhunt 2 is probably good enough reason for them not to", what a fatuous statement that is. I dare say your attitude is a hundred times more dangerous than MH2, because there's NOTHING it can't be applied to. Even, 'the fact that someone NEEDS insulin is probably good enough reason why they shouldn't have it', The thing about rights is, they don't stop applying when someone like you comes along and says, 'well, since I think someone's wanting something is a good reason to keep it from them', In fact, people who think like that are more than a little sinister, and thoroughly untrustworthy.

I've also got to say that everyone here who said the game had no connection to morality is way off the mark. The only contributor who came closest to actually describing the gist of the game is Maynard7, who elaborated on the fact that the game's main character actually became semi-psychotic as a result of the medical experiments conducted on him. So as you play you have the choice of deciding whether he goes completely over the edge into murderous psychosis or stands a chance of eventually becoming sane. I'd say (and I know what a bold statment this is) that MH2 rivals Bioshock in the 'choose the morality of your actions' stakes.

PanStre

Alyn

If the game wasn't so heavily orientated around these sadistic kills I don't think it would have been banned. Games such as the Mortal Kombats exist that have the option performing similarly vulgar kills, but it is an option. You could play the whole of the game without having to perform a fatality. Even without playing Manhunt 2, I would still bet that it does not offer you this option. At points in the game, you must be forced to kill. No option.

@JOHNNYWASHNGO
People have objected to your gun comparison, but I find it quite appropriate. Scenes in this game are potentially damaging to people of a certain disposition, and those sort of people are hardly going to be the best judge of what is appropriate to watch. We don't allow guns in the UK because there are many people who cannot be trusted with them, and even if guns were allowed most of the people who would want one would be the same people who couldn't be trusted with them.
Similarly, the people who most want Manhunt 2 are the people who it is most likely to have an adverse effect on. Most people wouldn't want to play a game where you kill people in intriguing ways with random items. However, teenage boys would probably love it.

To be honest, the fact that someone WANTS to play Manhunt 2 is probably good enough reason for them not to. I can't imagine why anyone would want to play this game. And I'm not a religious fundamentalist or game hater (actually more a game fundamentalist and religion hater) but i see no loss to society if this game never sees the light of day.

The only unfortunate part of this whole affair is the time wasted by Rockstar, who could have been making something good that people would play. I'd rather they'd made GTA San Andreas Stories for Wii, PS2 and PSP.

MrLister

Look at your neighboring countries that don't ban manhunt2. If they are still standing intact a month after the games release, then you've obviously made the wrong decision.

dandd

Captain Nobody

etho

With consoles, it is a different story. Because of the weak will of the public in general, videogame consoles are very locked down. They will not run 'unsigned' code. That means that code must be signed. Only the console manufacturers can sign the code. They can and do refuse to sign any code that receives an age prohibition rating of higher than M. They can and do refuse to sign any code that does not consent to allowing the ESRB to rate it for age prohibition purposes.

This is exactly the same (exactly, not just a little bit) as if DVD player manufacturers refused to allow unrated movies, or any movies rated higher than R (in the US). It is exactly the same as if an independent body formed and began reviewing books and determining age limits for the ideas contained in them and then the publishing companies refused to publish anything that company decided was meant for people over 18 years old. Oh and it would also be made impractical or illegal to own printers and photocopy machines in that scenario.

People don't accept censorship of books, poetry or plays. Not even to the point of labelling the content or rating it for age prohibition. But they'll bend over and take it as soon as a movie or videogame waltzes in the room. And if you are going to argue that the visual nature of movies and the interactive nature of games changes the situation - back it up. Show proof. Otherwise you're just as bad as the book burners.

otakucode

Let's put it this way---if Jack Thompson had gotten his way and helped ban Manhunt 2 in the US, would we be as happy about it? Probably not, because he's a poor excuse for a lawyer who has no idea what trash he's spouting. But the fact stands that Thompson and the BBFC would be doing the same thing---censorship. Saying that we're not capable of making our own decisions. Their reputation should not make this fact more acceptable.

Ever heard of the slippery slope theory? That's another catch. Let's say that Manhunt 2 never gets approved in the UK because of the fact it's too dark and sadistic (a fact that will never change, since that is a key emotion in the game that can't be fixed through simple revisions). Alright, you've got your first video game that's banned in the UK without a successful appeal. Add to that the moral outcry over the Manchester Cathedral in Resistance, and now they've got a leg to stand on. "Video games can be more violent than movies!" they'll cry out. "Manhunt 2 is a perfect example of this, and we need to make sure that more video games like it do not appear." So now video games like Manhunt 2 that want to resemble Saw and other horror movies are out of the question. Standards will become more strict, and as time passes the scope of games considered "immoral" will broaden as the moral outcry begins to take root in the government. No longer can opponents to censorship claim that video games are all appropriate for a certain age group, because the government suits will point to Manhunt 2 and say that that was inappropriate for all age groups. Soon enough, government groups will be established to look into the effects of video games, and more regulations will be established. At that point, it's only a matter of time before they start saying that movies, music, books, and TV shows should be held to the same standards.

It's a hypothetical situation, obviously, but any successful ban is a goal for censorship supporters, and that's the first step towards full-blown government regulation.

Ninja-Z

krisb

krisb

directors cut is going to out sell the original if it is ever released. Hopefully on the internet or somewhere in like mexico where we can import it

huginn

Seriously, if the UK doesn't want it, don't give it too them.

Datalock

imaria

Kuraudo

Just like in any other game like FPS ones you kill badies in this game.
The story more or less is that the protagonist took part in an experiment,
they messed with his head injecting a 2nd personality to make him the perfect
weapon. One that once that 2nd personality gets triggered is a killing
machine(thus the ammount of violence) and then turned back to normal not remembering anything.

So the protagonist is in fact a victim trying to find out what happened to him.
Other than that the game itself is fun using stealth, and delivers funny moments through the dialogues of the badies.

In a logical world sony & nintendo would accept the fact that games are also for adults, the game should remain intact, get a 18+ rating and stores just sell it to anyone with an id that proves his age.

But I guess it's to much hussle for the stores to enforce such a thing & parents would choose censorship to do their job bringing up and looking after their kids.

Let's bring down internet as well cause there's porn in it.

Maynard7

What's preventing the same disturbed kid to kill everybody at his school after watching CNN news, rambo 3 or even worse, strictly come dancing.

Fabrice

Fabrice

I'm quite happy with the ban - I wasn't going to pick up the game, but this at least stops it becoming a scapegoat in the violent video games argument and / or used as a reason for some deranged kid hammering his friends head in.

Ging

I totally agree with you that games need more sophisticated aspirations. It's still a bit juvenile but I see it slowly changing.

@ Fabrice

Apologies if you're from the UK but 18 rated games are freely available here. They're stocked everywhere, just as much as U, PG, 12, 12A and 15. The BBFC's problem is that they don't even want to give it an 18 rating. As I mentioned earlier, why don't they give it an R18 if it's that bad.

Luckyjim

noliferuin (PSN+XBL)

The problem isn't the rating 18+, there are plenty of movies which are 17/18+. Problem is when such rating is given retail stores refuse to sell the game, which is frankly silly. What's the point of an adult rating when it simply means 'banned'.

Fabrice

That's what the BBFC is for.

Nobody here has played the game - so how can you possibly say that the BBFC is wrong in banning it?

I don't want a game to be banned that should not be banned. Don't be against censorship - be against inappropriate censorship. We've got to trust these guys. If you don't, then talk to your MP. Heaven forbid anyone should actually be protected from something for their own good.

As for the "what's the difference between a game and a movie" argument, think about it. A movie is a very controlled environment, everything you see and feel has been carefully considered by the directors and screenwriters. In a game, you are given a structure, but you make you own experience within it using the tools you have. In a game you are made to feel that the decisions you make are your own (even though these are controlled by the director just as much as a movie) and IMO you are much more involved in the process - you are no longer an observer, you are a participant.

Movies and Film are not on an equal footing emotionally.

mrandi

tellute

I agree with a lot of what you have said in this thread and believe me, it pains me to be on the side of censorship as I am normally trumpeting the ability of people to make their own minds up.

This game, however, just takes things a little too far. Sometimes this can be a good thing, pushing the limits of taste and decency can be a way of breaking down barriers in societies where the day to day lives of people are being stifled by over controlling governments or dictatorships. In the case of Manhunt 2, I feel that the narrative structure and overall themes associated with the game are just tasteless and do not bring anything of value to the gaming community.

I would strive to show that video games are not all breasts and buttocks, violence and destruction but that they are capable of handling more adult and mature themes.

And the gun analogy was a bit of a stretch, apologies for that ;)

When it comes down to it, I can see both sides of the argument, but I would prefer to err on the side of caution in this case.

johnnywashngo

i live in new zealand, where the first game's banned, and the amount of times i've heard "they ban this, but movies like hostel and saw are much more graphic" is just staggering.

but i'm not going to say what i think of the game (it's shit) or the ban (it's justified), because that is an endless argument that nobody on any side ever has any particular evidence for.

...damn you, parentheses, thwarting my every attempt to mount my high horse. (one day i will destroy you)

frostcircus

Latonone

DrXym

I applaud your stance. You have given a cogent and thoughtful argument and, in your defence, your reasons for banning it is as valid (i.e. the greater good) as my arguments for lifting the ban (freedom of speech and the consumer rights of the individual). It just depends which side you butter your political toast.

However, I do take issue with the comparison to guns. You do acknowledge that games don't kill people but I still think comparing such a 'loaded' (no pun intended) subject matter with the games industry is a little unfair. You could just as easily compare guns to film and music that contain inflammatory material for supporting a ban.

To me, it seems that classification boards, and not just the BBFC, always come down hard on games without ever really stating why. Most of the time we assume it's because of the interactive element (and I'm sure it probably is). However, other than a few mainstream media articles and some anecdotal evidence, there isn't really lot of well-supported studies weighing up the relative merits and disadvantages of passive versus interactive entertainment, certainly not enough to justify a ban.

To be honest though, I don't really give a shit about Manhunt 2, just the principle.

Luckyjim

Oh, and Africa.

And South-East Asia.

..And Southern America.

...And..

Fuck it. If you haven't got it by now, you won't.

splines

I wish Rockstar would actually read and understand what the board objected to. It wasn't the graphics, it wasn't the gameplay. It was the total lack of moral reasoning for what was happening in the game. There was and remains zero reason for the killings. It's just a game where you go about killing for someone's amusement and that's it. You can't choose not to kill. You can't stealth your way through to escape etc. etc. you just plain kill guys and like it!

I know a lot of people will scream about making their own choice about buying the game but, until the shops and parents can responsibly NOT buy this type of game for little Joe. I guess there will be a need for others to ensure that it doesn't get into his hands.

penhalion

Yenzo

Anyway, the first game was utter shit, and I have no reason to believe that the sequel will be anything else but that.

Flazh

In this case though, I find myself agreeing with the BBFC wholeheartedly.

Are we capable, as adults, of determining what games to play and how to interpret their themes and ideas without allowing them to unduly affect our behaviour? In most cases, yes.

Should we allow makes and publishers of such games the ability to sell them to any adult who wishes to purchase them and play them? Perhaps not. I don't think it is enough for someone to prove that they are old enough to play this type of game. Sadly there is no real way of ensuring that someone is emotionally stable enough to play it and not take it any further than that.#

You could, and this may be a bit of a stretch, switch the argument from games to guns. Should an person over the age of 18 be allowed to own a gun? Would you trust everyone in the street to purchase and use the gun in an appropriate fashion? I don't know about you but I would find that prospect a little unnerving. Violent games are not as physically damaging as guns, but the consequences of watching/playing the content of this game may well be as damaging mentally as the gun is physically. Like I said, its a bit of a stretch ;)

@ Mr Bentley
Sir, I would invoke Godwin's Law in your case and point you in the direction of Wikipedia ([en.wikipedia.org]'s_law)

johnnywashngo

Prathik

Some porn shops could even do two-for-one offers - Manhunt 2 with a free copy of busty dwarves 7.

Luckyjim

I agree. I also agree with your criticism of JohnnyWashngo's post. It's unlikely that a game will improve someone's ability to asphyxiate another person, or improve the accuracy of putting a syringe in someone's eye. If that line of argument does have some validity it's that it could desensitize the individual to violence but I would argue, that photorealism of film is far more capable of that.

@ Johnnywashngo

There are so many implications for banning something outright for utilitarian purposes, especially in a liberal democracy. For a start it erodes the rights absolves responsibility of the individual. It may also set a precedent; what else may a censorship body deem inappropriate for public consumption? Criticism of government? A documentary about human rights violations? I'm not saying that this would happen in the UK, as the BBFC is an independent body with a strict set of guidelines (that they drew up), with no government or media interference, but, nonetheless, the principle of it is more than valid.

Also, when censorship was more common, was the world a safer and nicer place?

Luckyjim

Infradead

Frank

Striderhayasa - Phillyyakk on PSN and Live.

Then stop whining like a 12 year old who's not being allowed to watch 15 rated movies by his parents.

Mentalist-air

The BBFC regularly rates things as only suitable for ages 18+. All the GTA 3 series, Gears of War, the original Manhunt and many others have all been rated as such.

Mentalist-air

I am 33 years old, I would never hurt a fly, and I love computer games. I understand the difference between right and wrong; fantasy and reality, etc.
I want to play this game. I am a mature adult living in Britain, and I find this decision incredibly patronising. I should have the right to decide for myself what is or is not appropriate. It is the right of every adult- or it should be.

It's just another disgusting symptom of the Nanny State that Britain has become. Those that applaud this decision are tantamount to Nazis and Thought Police. No consideration for the rights and freedoms of their fellow men. Utterly disgusting and shameful. So "a lot of people who are legally 'adult' are actually emotionally or mentally immature", are they? Well then, what a fantastic idea to treat EVERYONE like that then. "Some of you people are idiots, so it is fine to treat you ALL like idiots"? How dare you!

If we are so quick to throw away our rights and freedoms to choose and make decisions for ourselves, we may as well have just handed the country over to the Nazis back in the 40s. Our ancestors fought and died for these rights. I will not be so quick to disregard them.

Bentles

Why this isn't allowed by torture porn in movies is, I couldn't tell you.

@johnnywashngo: Your argument holds merit insofar as the fact that there are indeed people who do not have what is needed to properly process this game, or similar violent media. However, first you say that something like this would hone skills - I don't recall many murders committed by pressing the buttons of a Dual Shock. Second our socities of the West tend to agree, and rightly so, that those people who can handle such media should not be prevented from enjoying it because some other people can't.

Whether or not other people can handle something is not relevant. I can, and thus I have the right to if I choose to, and no authority or individual on the planet has any right to stop me.

Mister Adequate

The difference between play a game like this and watching a film or reading a book with similar content is that the video game medium is interactive and promotes, in most cases, the honing of the skills involved in playing the game.

Why you would want to try a game like this, let alone play it until completion baffles me.

Any before you flame for me being pro censorship, which anybody who knows me would laugh at, consider this. Just because you and I may be mentally and emotionally mature enough to play this game and understand it concepts and storyline within the context of being a video game, does not mean that everybody will be capable of doing the same thing. A lot of people who are legally 'adult' are actually emotionally or mentally immature.

I am all in favour of a society where we are responsible enough to deem certain things out of bounds. It helps make the world a better place for everybody involved. Until we get to the point where we have a utopian society where everybody is sufficiently mature and sensible enough to play games like this without them having too much of an effect on them, I think that games makers and publishers should start to exercise more control over what they make and publish. The BBFC is doing the right thing in helping them reach this conclusion themselves by rejecting this game.

johnnywashngo

Luckyjim

Clockwork Orange was the 70s and, furthermore, it did actually get rated and released back in the day. It was Kubrick who had Warner Bros. withdraw it when a tabloid shit-storm brewed-up concerning violent teenagers that claimed to be influenced by the film.

As for the BBFC thing. All in all, they're a very good classification board. Films very rarely get cut. For example, Michael Winterbottom's "9 Songs", which is pretty much hardcore pornography, was released as an 18 certificate on general release throughout the country. The point I'm trying to make is that the BBFC has a history of considered and thoughtfull classification. It is very rare that they will ever something outright so Manhunt must have really pressed some buttons.

My major issue with this whole situation is the BBFC need to come out and say why Manhunt 2 didn't receive a classification but something like Saw does. It needs to state why it considers violence in games to be any different from violence in films.

Luckyjim

*sigh*

IanC

aestheticity

Lateralus63

Black-Dog-Howls

CyberSkull

KraazyCraig

My only issue with the ruling is that the BBFC can't allow regular Britons the choice to buy the title if they wish to, and decide for themselves.

projectmayhem

splines

Dragonzigg

Ashytaka

MasterOfPastures

Fluffy22

projectmayhem