New Zealand Censor Bans Manhunt Outright

rh2600 writes "The New Zealand censors have banned Rockstar Games' controversial stealth action PlayStation 2 game Manhunt, making it the 'first [ever] video game banned by the Office of Film and Literature Classification.' The New Zealand Herald has a story about it, including some pretty interesting comments from a usually liberal Censor's Office: 'Unlike the Grand Theft Auto series, which... had an element of humor in its depiction of police chases, Manhunt has none of that whatsoever.'" The censor concludes by saying: "You have to at least acquiesce in these [in-game] murders and possibly tolerate, or even move towards enjoying them, which is injurious to the public good."

Comments

Riiight...

[KBV]

And this from the people who gave us Brain Dead. Great.

Re:Riiight...

[SmallFurryCreature]

If you read the article then you can read the quote about Grandtheft Auto having the element of humor. Bad Taste and Braindead had this too. In buckets. It makes the buckets of guts acceptable. It ain't real.

Censorship like this takes great store in the context in wich something happens. Personally I think from the reviews that Manhunter is indeed crossing the line. In most other kill games you kill to achieve a goal, not kill for the killing itself.

Braindead has lots of killing of zombies but for the greater goal of protecting himself and his girlfriend. Manhunter has you killing to make a nice movie. A bit different don't you think?

Order it online

[a.koepke]

Yeah they may have banned it for sale there but how is it going to stop people ordering it online?

I used to have a game that was banned over here in Australia, was easy to buy over the internet and have them send it over. Also makes me wonder if it will be banned here in Australia at all?

But on a different note, doesn't sound like the sorta game I would like to play. I play GTA Vice City a bit and thats good fun but this... I think not. Yeah in GTA you kill people (which is still fun) but its not the aim of the game. Also seeing someone fall over and there being a bit of blood is a lot different to seeing the victim's mouth gasping for air inside the bag you suffocate them with. The latter is, IMO, bordering on perverse.

Re:Order it online

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Given that you haven't even played the game and you've decided that no one should play it - what is your basis? The fact that there is photo-realistic violence? Do you support the idea that no one should see movies like Halloween or the Silence of the Lambs? Both clearly have photo realistic violence and are not intended to be taken in any sort of humorous way. You could argue that in movies, it is a passive medium and in a video game, you have control over what the character does.

But since you haven't played the game, that argument doesn't hold any water. You don't know how one interacts and at what level the interaction is. Before you go deciding that no one should be playing violent games, maybe you should do a little research and find out if there's ever been a link established between violent games and deviant behavior.

Sure, if Manhunt isn't your cup of tea, don't buy it. But rather than trying to judge whether anyone should be playing it or whether it should have been made, why not just let the free market determine the best route? [Since you're not going to prove a link between violent games and violent behavior in people who weren't already prone to such behavior.] If no one buys games that, in your opinion, shouldn't have been made, games like this won't be made.

I live in the United States where freedom of speech is a right - this includes violent video games.

Great

[Blublu]

The game will now be infinitely more interesting to teenagers.

Re:..it better not be at Hatians...

[Kirby]

>Funny, I thought that there were just as many on the right (especially the religious right) who are interested in censoring things.

This is clearly true - extremists on both sides are censors, for different reasons but to the same ends.

Not convinced that it's not the other side of the spectrum from you? I present data:

In a list produced to mark the American Library Association's annual Banned Books week, 2002's most frequently challenged books were, with their alleged 'offence:
The Harry Potter series, by JK Rowling - glorifying magic and wizardry.
The Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, - sexual content and unsuitability to its targeted age group.
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier - offensive language and unsuitability to age group.
I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, - sexual content, racism, violence and unsuitability to age group.
Taming the Star Runner by S.E Hinton, - offensive language.
Captain Underpants, by Dav Pilkey, - encouraging children to disobey authority.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain - racism, insensitivity and offensive language.
Bridge to Terabithia, by Katherine Paterson - offensive language.
Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry, by Mildred D Taylor - insensitivity, racism and offensive language.
Julie of Wolves, by Jean Craighead George - sexual content, offensive language and violence.

Harry Potter is clearly a right-wing protest, as well as most of the sex and bad word complaints. Huck Finn is clearly a left-wing protest, as well as most of the insensitivity and racism complaints.

This problem doesn't come from the classic American political spectrum. It's more on an individual rights vs. community standards axis. The techie crowd skews strongly towards individual rights, but it seems like the general popluation in most countries is more towards community standards.

(Personally, I'm not a big fan of censorship, either for these games or these books, but anyone blaming the Left or the Right is just not paying any attention.)