First Game Banned in UK in 10 Years

[Macsen]

Is oDDity on the BBFC board?

 

A violent video game with "an unrelenting focus on brutal slaying" has become the first to be banned in Britain for a decade.

 

Manhunt 2, a sequel to the original and controversial game Manhunt, has been condemned by authorities for its "casual sadism" and "unremitting bleakness".

 

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) rejected the game after finding it "constantly encourages visceral killing".

 

The ruling means the game cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK.

 

David Cooke, director of the BBFC, said: "Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly.

 

"Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the board's published guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2, this has not been possible."

 

The original Manhunt game was given an 18 classification in

 

2003 and was later blamed for the murder of a 14-year-old boy.

 

Stefan Pakeerah was stabbed and beaten to death in Leicester in February 2004 and his parents claimed the killer, Warren LeBlanc, 17, was inspired by the game.

 

At the time, the BBFC described the game as being "at the very top end of what the board judged to be acceptable at that category."

 

Issuing a certificate to Manhunt 2 would risk the possibility of "unjustifiable harm" to adults and minors, the BBFC concluded.

 

"Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing," said Mr Cooke.

 

"There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.

 

"The game's unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game."

 

Manhunt 2, made by Rockstar Games, is designed for PS2 and Nintendo Wii consoles. "To issue a certificate to Manhunt 2 on either platform would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks within the terms of the Video Recordings Act," said Mr Cooke.

 

The last game to be refused classification was Carmageddon in 1997 but the BBFC's decision was later overturned on appeal.

 

Rockstar Games now has six weeks to submit an appeal.

[greebo]

Although I doubt that the banning will have much effect on the game's popularity, I do agree with some of the arguments, like this one:

"The game's unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game."

[OrbWeaver]

The game sounds like delinquent garbage and I'm sure it will be no great loss to society to see it unsold, but I nevertheless remain opposed to banning on principle.

 

issuing a certificate to Manhunt 2 would risk the possibility of "unjustifiable harm" to adults

 

So they are not even pretending it's all about children any more? How nice of them to protect us vulnerable adults from the "harm" caused by Unclean Thoughts. I am so glad these wise elders are always looking out for our interests.

[Macsen]

So they are not even pretending it's all about children any more? How nice of them to protect us vulnerable adults from the "harm" caused by Unclean Thoughts.

It's us against the chav children now OrbWeaver. Better just to get rid of them the second they're born I say.

[oDDity]

Good, I'm glad it was banned, I hope this is just the start of a campaign which will end with 90% of current game titles being axed. Even if they aren't violent, they should be banned for being shit and lowering the standards of society. After that, we can move on to TV shows.

[Macsen]

Making video games wouldn't be a very profitable exercise if 90% of what your produce is likely to be banned. You can't always plan a good game - Thief is a good example of a game that was meant to be a dull hack-n-slash game, but changed at the last moment beacuse the swordfighting didn't work and just happened to be any good.

[oDDity]

So it wouldn't have been banned then. certainly, My version of Thief wouldn't be anyway, since it doesn't urge the player to be violent, or get enjoyment from pretending to maim and kill people.

OF course I was being facetious about banning games for being low quality, since a lot of games I consider worthless lowest common denominator trash get 90% ratings by reviewers.

[OrbWeaver]

It would be better to merge the games with the TV shows. Get 12 gormless shrieking exhibitionists together in a house full of cameras, and let loose a few Manhunt fans armed with hammers.

[sparhawk]

Still haven't played Manhunt I. Don't know if I ever will though. I have the CDs somewhere but never bothered to install it. Maybe I should, just to know what it really is about.

[Macsen]

My point was that if violent, dumb games were banned Thief would never have been given the green light, because that's what it was before it morphed by accident into a stealth game.

 

And what would be next? Ban sports because it's dumb to run around in shorts kicking a ball into a net?

[sparhawk]

How many people hiave killed others because they weer kicking a ball around. Oh, wait .. oh, well. It's probably safer to ban football, then ban violent computergames, if I look at the stats.

[OrbWeaver]

It's up to the Concerned Parents to decide what gets banned: statistics, reason or anything else don't enter into consideration. In this case, a Concerned Parent has decided that the Manhunt game killed her son, even though (1) the police stated that robbery was the actual motive, and (2) it was the VICTIM, not the killer, who owned a copy of the game.

 

All it will take is one death that is blamed on football by the affected Concerned Parent, and ministers or other authorities will start scrambling to find something that needs to be banned in response.

[sparhawk]

It doesn't matter if it is the victim or the killer. Maybe they played it together and thus the killer became the killer? The police just tries to cover their asses, by claiming something boring as robbery. And if a computer game is involved in a violent act, it HAS to be the computer game that needs to be blamed. After all, computer games were spawned by the devil. Just look at Doom!!!!!!1!!1!!1

 

If god had wanted us to play computer games he would have given us two joystick instead of hands.

[oDDity]

My point was that if violent, dumb games were banned Thief would never have been given the green light, because that's what it was before it morphed by accident into a stealth game.

 

And what would be next? Ban sports because it's dumb to run around in shorts kicking a ball into a net?

 

That's not a valid point. That's like people who argue in favour of religion by saying 'but look at all the great art and music inspired by religion'.

THe point is that other great art and music would still exist in the absense of religion, not exactly the same art and music, but equally as good.

If the situation had existed where violent game were not allowed, perhaps Thief as we know it would not exist, but other games as good as Thief would still exist.

[oDDity]

How many people hiave killed others because they weer kicking a ball around. Oh, wait .. oh, well. It's probably safer to ban football, then ban violent computergames, if I look at the stats.

 

 

I already pointed out very clearly in the other thread that anyone with this pathetic polarising argument has no wits at all, but there you again with the same old bollocks.

It has absolutely nothing do to with people being inspired by violent games to commit violence in real life.

It's about the morality of putting players in the position of enjoying violent behaviour.

As far as I'm concerned, the enjoyment of violence in games is no different than the enjoyment of simulated rape, child abuse, racism or whatever. It's all behaviour that is not tolerated in real life, and should not be simulated in games for cheap amusement.

[sparhawk]

I don't know about you, but I see a distinction between violence and rape in a game. The violence may be justified depending on the circumstances, but I really don't see how rape can be justified by ANY circumstances. And even less child abuse.

 

But I'm quite surprised that you are suddenly such a saint. Doesn't fit with the earlier Oddity IMO.

[Macsen]

It's about the morality of putting players in the position of enjoying violent behaviour.

As far as I'm concerned, the enjoyment of violence in games is no different than the enjoyment of simulated rape, child abuse, racism or whatever. It's all behaviour that is not tolerated in real life, and should not be simulated in games for cheap amusement.

Pfff... you're as bad as the religious nitwits you claim to loathe. Violence comes naturally to animals and there's nothing wrong with enjoying it. Of course it can't be allowed in real life but if you can simulate it what exactly is the harm?

 

Is this forum as an 'argument simulator' a bad thing just because you wouldn't be as rude as you are to people here in real life?

 

In fact the whole reason people enjoy violent games and films is that they can get their animal urges out of their system so they don't feel inclined to do it in real life. So in a way playing violent games probably makes you less violent. How come Japan has less censorship... yet almost no crime? Compare that to very religious ststes in America where they suppress everything and the murder rate goes through the roof.

[oDDity]

Pfff... you're as bad as the religious nitwits you claim to loathe. Violence comes naturally to animals and there's nothing wrong with enjoying it. Of course it can't be allowed in real life but if you can simulate it what exactly is the harm?

 

Is this forum as an 'argument simulator' a bad thing just because you wouldn't be as rude as you are to people here in real life?

 

In fact the whole reason people enjoy violent games and films is that they can get their animal urges out of their system so they don't feel inclined to do it in real life. So in a way playing violent games probably makes you less violent. How come Japan has less censorship... yet almost no crime? Compare that to very religious ststes in America where they suppress everything and the murder rate goes through the roof.

 

So, where would you draw the line then?

I can give a load of extreme examples, but I'm sure you can think of many yourself. Why is it ok to simulate shooting someone in the head for fun, but not ok to [insert what you think is over the line]?

Unless you have no boundaries and are quite happy for literally anything to be the subject of a game, the object of which is to do it and enjoy it.

I don't know how you guys can so easily draw a line between rape and murder. Murder is worse than rape, yet gratuitous murder is apparently fine in games as far as you are concerned.

I'd like to see some consistency to your arguments.

 

What about a game called 'Rape Those Nigger Bitches', the object of which is to stealthily stalk black women through a city, get them alone, paint them white, rape them and then kill them?

How many of you would be ok with that game being released next week?

And don't' say 'yes' just to win the argument. No one who isn't a certified class 5 psychopath would be ok with that.

What's the difference between that and a game like Manhunt though, really?

OK you're not stalking black women specifically, you're not sticking you cock into them before killing them, but it's still more or less the same thing. I don't know why the addition of the black women and the cock suddenly make it so much worse in some people's minds - the sort of people who are fine with games like manhunt.

[OrbWeaver]

Here it is:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Cleans...(computer_game)

[sparhawk]

I don't know how you guys can so easily draw a line between rape and murder. Murder is worse than rape, yet gratuitous murder is apparently fine in games as far as you are concerned.

 

Why do you think that rape is better than murder?

 

What about a game called 'Rape Those Nigger Bitches', the object of which is to stealthily stalk black women through a city, get them alone, paint them white, rape them and then kill them?

How many of you would be ok with that game being released next week?

 

Well, it already was released. Not with "niggers" but with indians. Wasn't a big success though. Might also be because it was released on the old Atari 2600 console, which tells you how good the graphics was.

 

What's the difference between that and a game like Manhunt though, really?

 

Why is Manhunt so much different than other games in that genre? I haven't played Manhunt because I don't like it either, so I'm not really defending it in particular, mind you.

[Unstoppable]

In the Thief world. Oddity is sort of like Karras but a lil dictatorish and i'm a bit like Garrett. However I kinda support this bann that game is violent for no other reason. Too violent. AO only is the way to go.

[Macsen]

Yes, oDDity, but the point is that the kind of killing and violence seen in video games isn't 'murder' as society sees it. I can't think of a game (besides Manhunt and Manhunt 2, above) where murdering people is the sole purpose of the game. In pretty much every game we're told that the player is the force of 'good' against 'evil' - we know killing can sometimes be right (fighting the Nazis in WWII for example) - and it is in this sort of situation that the player frequently finds himself in a video game.

 

If they were just murder simulators most people would feel morally uncomfortable, and probably bored, just as they would with a child abuse simulator and rape simulator. So these aren't 'murder simulators', they're 'saving the day' simulators. It lets you enjoy the violence without feeling morally wrong - like punching Hitler! There's also a measure of skill that comes with these games that many people find appealing.

[jdude]

@ oDDity:

The key difference between Manhunt2 and "Rape those Nigger Bitches" is that your made up game insights hate into a specific race of people. Manhunt2, even if you are killing janitors or keepers, you aren't born as one of those.

 

My first thought when I read this thread was "Well did the UK ban Hostel and Hostel2? Two movies which are completely based around the idea of torture and murder as Manhunt is?" However I think we shouldn't be considering video games on the same playing field as movies. For instance, it's one thing to watch a airplane take off, it's another the play a simulation where an airplane takes off. In the simulation, your far more likely to become engrossed in it and it will therefor have a larger impact on you than if you just watched it.

 

Does anyone know of any good research which has been done in regards to the affects of video games on people? Because even though I myself am a fan of bloody gross scary video games, I realize that it is possible for them to have a negative affect on people, because not all people have a solid grip on reality [resulting in the capability to block out bad thoughts], and I don't mean the random person with a mental illness. I could give an example of in my own life of how video games have altered my thinking. Before playing Counter-strike I never thought of shooting much at all, then I started playing it, I loved the game it was a lot of fun [back in 1.0] and suddenly guns and stuff were cool. Now I'm not going to go get a gun and shoot people, or get a gun at all, but I'm just trying to show how much more of an impact it can have on someone than we may be giving it credit for. Another example is the Darkmod. A certain series was so much fun, we have put thousands of hours into making a better version. I don't remember anyone doing the same for movies

 

I think that if the government has research to show that 1 in 100 people [or any other reasonable ratio] will be negatively influenced by a game which simulates murder, it should be considered for banning. Just as a game which violates the constitution would, because if it violates the constitution [ie: Nigger killing game] it would obviously have a negative impact on society.

[OrbWeaver]

I think that if the government has research to show that 1 in 100 people [or any other reasonable ratio] will be negatively influenced by a game which simulates murder, it should be considered for banning.

 

That is necessary, but not sufficient. They would also have to prove that no more than 1 in 100 people who would otherwise be tempted to commit violent acts, choose not to as a result of playing a game instead. Everything has both positive and negative effects, and it is necessary to prove that the negatives outweigh the positives, not simply that the negatives exist.

 

Just as a game which violates the constitution would, because if it violates the constitution [ie: Nigger killing game] it would obviously have a negative impact on society.

 

That doesn't make any sense. A game cannot violate the constitution, only the government or a law enforcement authority can do that. It is certainly not "obvious" that a nigger-killing game would have a negative impact on society, for example it might just cause people to despise racists even more.

[sparhawk]

Considering that such games already do exists, and that they have no apparent influence, on a general population, that's all you reall can say about it. Such games are usually played by racists anyway. Most other poeple find these games way to boring because of their simple formula.