Slashdot Mirror
Manhunt 2 Banned In Britain
westlake writes "Rockstar's Manhunt 2 has been banned in the U.K. for what the British Board of Film Classification calls its 'unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying.' 'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.' The company has six weeks to submit an appeal. The last game to be refused classification was Carmageddon in 1997. That decision was later overturned via the appeals process."
Do they not realise all we have to do is fire up bittorent ?
http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
If this game gets released for the PC I'm going to import it out of principle. Now, where did I leave my hammer again?
It lets me know which ones to buy.
Manhunt 2, available soon in the US on the Wii...
GamePro gives it 8/10.
IGN rated 9.5/10.
British Board of Film Classification calls its 'unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying.' 'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.'
distasteful maybe, responsible for murders no. The people that do such crimes are crazy psychos t begin with yet instead of blaming the damn psycho for what they do they blame the game they may or may not have played.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
The very idea of banning ANYTHING entertainment-related in a 1st world country/area is completely stupid.
Any newscast will be covering events at least as horrible if not worse than anythin you will find in a video game. The difference is, when you hear about someone getting brutally murdered on the news, a person actually died.
I've always felt those that say videogames/movies/whatever that are too violent are the sick ones, for they apparently cannot discern fantasy from reality.
Living With a Nerd
The question is: will it help? In Germany they also have a big controversy about violence in computer games (they call it "killergames" / de: "Killerspiele"). But the politicians don't ask them self if banning a computer game stops the users from using it. If the children can't buy it at the store, they'll just download it from the bittorent or edonkey network. And if they don't have an internet connection, they copy it from their friends. Children are not stupid.
Another question is: is this appropriate? I can truly understand that the politicians don't want to promote violence in games, but it's one thing to not like something and a complete other thing to ban/censor something.
Somehow, I can't help but think this is an overreaction and even unfair.
I didn't enjoy the first Manhunt. This is partly due to the initial description a friend of mine gave. I was under the impression it was a far more open game than it was. The gameplay simply wasn't fun for me, snuff genre aside.
However, I wouldn't for a moment consider banning the game. Violent, yes. Gruesome, yes. Morally dubious, yes. However, so are lots and lots of movies, books, and the news. There are plenty of movies I've seen in theatres at an R rating I'd consider far more disturbing and vicious than Manhunt.
Unless there's concrete proof that Manhunt 2 causes cancer, murder, or the death of many kittens at the hand of God I don't believe it should be banned. Restricted from the reach of minors? Definately. But not outright banned.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Can anyone give me a valid reason why games like this should even be produced? I'm all for violence in video games as long as the violence doesn't portray actual acts. I remember when I was younger and had a intellivsion, then an atari 2600, C64, Tandy CoCo2, NES, SNES, and all the way up to my first pentium. Up till that point, it seemed games were about being fun, and exploring ones mind with a vast majority of the games. Now its just about how many people you can kill before you are gunned down yourself.
Do we really need this kind of reckless abandon in our games? Sure I understand games are not the cause, but with the great majority of people suffering more and more mental illnesses for whatever reason, do you want someone already on the edge to have this material?
I'm going to go outside and kick the shit out of the first person I see.
What the BBC report fails to mention is that the copy of Manhunt involved in the Stephen Pakeerah case was actually owned by the murdered boy not the murderer - this is something that was acknowledged by the police.
Whilst the BBC report mentions that the police have come forward to say that the game had no impact on the killing, it's sad that they omit the very fact that frees the game from any blame, that as mentioned above, the victim owned the game. To me this suggests that they were clutching at straws to find an example of why the game should indeed be banned, and when unable to find one figured they'd use the next best thing and omit the facts that would negate the use of this example.
Of course, it was only yesterday we were hearing about how the BBC has a serious bias problem in it's reporting, so it really comes as no suprise. It's just a shame that only a day later they insist on proving their fault with the fact they once more publish half truths and bring up an irrelevant murder to try and justify the ban.
I'd argue, that the whole reason Manhunt 2 has been banned is not because there is a problem with the game as such, but because the BBFC felt it had no choice due to the public uproar various anti-video game media establishments like the BBC have produced - you only have to look at this weeks Panorama for a top notch example of the problem. How could the BBFC allow a game to be published, that as far as the general public know is responsible for a murder? It's hard to blame the BBFC on this one but easy to see that the British media is the real problem here.
Well, England is a country that believes firmly that firearms cause murder and that the best way to promote civil rights is to have 100,000 cameras filming the public at all times. Whatever happened to punishing the guilty and letting the rest of us move on with our lives? You can't protect people from themselves.
Nobody needs the government to tell them what games to play. They're just games, and what people do after playing the game is THEIR responsibility. No video game is going to MAKE someone commit a murder. It's FANTASY and a healthy way to release aggression in a harmless way. Sigh.
I love Britain, and have visited many times; but they look like they are heading down the slow road to Hell.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
Is Manhunt 2 better than Clockwork Orange? Because I liked that movie. Hope Manhunt 2 comes out for Wii.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
If someone's so mentally unstable that they might conceivably go out and kill someone after playing a violent video game, perhaps the problem is with their mental stability than the videogame.
So despite the fact that the murderer never owned or played the game, the parents of the victim still blame the game for their son's death.
I thought the standard for when bad things happen without an apparent reason was to blame God. That at least makes some sense, rather than some video game that the killer never played.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
So you're saying that even knowing someone who owns manhunt can turn you into a killer?
IOU one (1) signature
...they'll be selecting web sites to ban. Looks like they've already started with blogs.
Wars are covered daily on TV for the children ( a.k.a. tomorrow's drone soldiers ).
Sincerely,
X
Ive played violent video games all my life, and despite my urge to pull someone from a car and beat them with a tire iron ( i live in LA), I haven't because of this thing called law, and a tad bit of moral principal I suppose.
The thing (as someone mentioned above), at least here in the states, I can see things just as violent from turning on the evening news! Ever notice how news doesn't have an MA-17 rating?
And whats with banning it? There is a rating on the damn box. If a parent buys it for their child, then they are a bad parent (shame on them.), but it is their child and they can raise them as they see fit. If a store sells it to a child and the PARENT is upset, then do something to the company. I'm positive most retail game chains have some sort of strong policy against selling adult content to minors.
So lets think "of the children." Whats better for them play a video game or letting them watch REAL people get brutally slayed on television every night?
crap.
downloading the Wii version? I just tried Wii Sports in my dvd rw and it can't read the disc, same other way the Wii can't read cd's or dvd's just askin' Alie
http://chimpbox.us
But that's what makes it FUN!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Because in a hundred years "Manhunt 2" will be remembered as 2007's "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" or "Of Mice and Men."
But, yeah, censorship is what it is, regardless of the relative worth of the item in question, which in this case is about zilch.
So despite the fact that the murderer never owned or played the game, the parents of the victim still blame the game for their son's death.
Well, yeah. I mean, the alternative is the truth, which is that their little angel got killed in a drug deal gone bad, when he was presumably still living in their house, under their care. Oops.
Much easier to blame it on the big bad video games.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The issue is that the game will be played by people under the age of 18, even if they can't buy it. Leaving aside the matter of downloading the game from the internet, most parents seem happy to buy games rated 18 for their 12-17 year old offspring without a second thought.
Ratings on games are ignored far more (and by a larger age gap) than ratings on movies. Probably because of the word 'game'. Even if the stores hold up the game's rating at the point of sale, the parents will still go and buy their kid the game for them.
This is the situation in the murder case - the parent's bought their 14 year old sun an 18 certificate game. Aside from that irresponsible act, it had nothing to do with the child's death unless he was goading on a drug addled thug with themes from the game.
99% of kids of 14+ can handle 18 films and games without an issue I'd hazard a guess. However that other 1% can cause a lot of issues, hence the ratings.
I'm totally against bans however. I think the game should be made available, but not via the usual routes. Sell it in sex shops, so adults can buy it, but they'll stop and think about why their getting their 12 year old kid something from a sex shop. If they're happy to buy their kid things from a sex shop, then quite clearly the game isn't the issue at fault anyway.
That says it all, doesn't it?
Yep, and both parents of the murdered 14 year old said they used to play it together (which the police said was not true and went out of their way to state very clearly it wasn't a factor as the killer had never played it, that newspaper reports to the contrary were incorrect and that the motive was robbery).
Yet still both parents of the victim hold the game responsible - even though the only person involved who owned or had played a copy was the victim! They have not explained why their 14 year old child was allowed this 18 certificate game when they thought it was so deplorable - however they have the nerve to accuse Rockstar of being irresponsible. Given by their own admission, they were blatantly aware their 14 year old had this 18 certificate game and used to let him play it, that's somewhat ironic. I fully expect they even bought it for him.
Of course, the press (The Sun, The Mirror, GMTV, The BBC) didn't bother to correct their stories when it transpired they had been grossly misreporting the story for months (even after the police had been very clear in saying what the press was reporting was incorrect).
Best physics
Best scoring system
Best audio
Best gameplay
Very possibly the best game ever! I think my entire floor in the dorms got addicted to this game (yes, it was an all male floor at an engineering school). I never would have guessed that senseless exaggerated violence with a buggy rubber band physics system could have been so much fun.
Hobby Robotics
Oh, and there are some really choice quotes from the (understandably) distraught parents that make a big deal of how "evil" the killer was and how he was specifically evil because he was deceptive and that was the "worst kind of evil". Considering they committed perjury by making false statements in court (in addition to reciting them to the press) that strikes me as a bit rich.
... the victim's mother, claimed that Leblanc had been 'obsessed' with the game after the former pleaded guilty in court.
What was the basis of her accusation? Was it misinformation by the news media.
I wonder if the movie industry had gone through a similar phase in its early days?
"It's FANTASY and a healthy way to release aggression in a harmless way."
Whatever happened to physical activity as a way to release aggression? I don't think these games make people into killers, but they sure help turn them into deconditioned tubs of lard. Get away from the monitor and spend the time exercising.
See also the attempts to blame the James Bulger murder on the movie Childplay even though there was no evidence (outside the fevered imaginations of tabloid editors) that the killers had even seen the film.
Import, people, import. It's a free market, and the game will be on sale in France/Italy/Netherlands etc. Generally, games in these markets are either completely untranslated (except the manual) or still have English available as an option.
I wasn't particularly interested in this game but will now certainly be buying it - aside from a simple anti-censorship protest I also want to know what's considered bad enough to get banned!
I quit!
I'm with you on this one. I don't think it's the violence as much as how that violence affects you. I have played plenty of violent games in the past, but how I felt after I was finished varied greatly between genres. Blowing up countless alien ships (rest their soul) in a shmup vs. blowing heads off in games like Soldier of Fortune causes very different physiological and psychological responses in me. I no longer play modern games simply because they have turned into something that I no longer consider fun.
When you outlaw the electro pedestrian bastard rays, only outlaws will have the electro pedestrian bastard rays!
A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
No you have it all wrong. Its always a PERSON that is to blame when things go wrong, but you must always PRAISE god for anything that goes right. Only the good things are his doing.
Nevermind that he created the devil.
I do agree with you about news. Occasionally, there are news events that I feel should not be shown at times when children can reasonably be expected to be present. I did call the new office (you really can get through to network newsrooms on the phone) and complain bitterly when the morning news had a report that a certain cannibal preferred asparagus with severed penis. Parents should reasonably expect to allow children to watch news and I think this this sort of news story is almost completely salacious.
Think global, act loco
I welcome a new "Tipper Sticker" as now I'll know which games to buy.
To quote Dee Snider, "The full responsibility for defending children falls on the shoulders of my wife and I, because there is no one else capable of making these judgments for us."
The least of which is the movie they just saw or the video game they just played. He probably displayed other anti-social behavior in the past. (Not silly things like black trench coats but actually physical assault, fascination with violence, and possibly killing pets or other small animals). The VA Tech shooter was a text book example of "missed warning signs." While that's not my favorite genre of games I think that claiming the game made him do it is up there with witches' spells and demonic posession. Perhaps if he had masturbated more he would have been better adjusted. Or why not blame the chemical additives in the food he eats (which I actually would be more prone to believe). Maybe he's just a psycopath and he killed another person because he lacks emotional development. Maybe suffers from mental illness. Or maybe he just cares more about his enjoyment than other peoples' suffering. All those are more likely explanations that a video game touched something in his psyche and turned him from a "such a sweet kid," into a murderer.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
It appears to be human nature to find an easily definable cause for a problem. Games are easy. Games based on violence are easier. There seems to be a compelling need in the mind to find a cause, or scape goat, to satisfy our emotional needs. Politics makes good bed fellows for these emotional compulsions. I believe there will still be violence and murder even if all video games were banned; then we would just seek out another scape goat.
It's interesting that I never even heard of this game until the controversy. I think I may download it.
Presumably, the more violent the video game the less unstable someone needs to be before it completely destabilizes them and they kill someone.
Essentially: A game fighting "monsters" with little blood and no decapitation would only make an already very unstable person into a killer, but a game that portrays violent killing as it is in reality could make someone much less unstable (someone still unstable but not enough to not seem normal) go and kill someone.
Hopefully someone with psychological knowledge will confirm or deny this.
This has proper fucked me off. I was looking forward to buying this game, I've actually set aside the games to trade in to get it... but now, oh now they're on their high horse. No More Heroes sounds like a good game though, they guy who is making it claimed that it would be "as violent, if not more so, than manhunt 2". Maybe I might be able to get this game on import from another PAL territory (although I've never looked into if Australian games will work with no problems).
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
> Rockstar's Manhunt 2 has been banned in the U.K. [for] 'unrelenting focus on stalking
> and brutal slaying.' 'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in
> which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.'
Hah! That's what Rockstar gets for not calling the bad guys "Blood Elves" or "Nazis" or "rats" or "boars" or something. "Go kill 10 Blood Elves over that hill, and I'll give you 37 pennies."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I wonder how the British government justifies banning games of murder while they sanction the mass slaughtering that is going on in Iraq.
Sure the first game was not pleasant, but it had a stronger storyline than virtually any other game I've played except maybe Deus Ex. Infact it's probably one of the best games I've ever played in terms of atmosphere, characters and story. The sequel might have lost that to a degree (they usually go that way tbh) but if it were a film, nobody would pay attention, Games of course are the cause of all evil in the world.
1). Create a game/music/movie/book that some will find culturally offense.
2). Wait for the government/church/other to ban/boycott the product.
3). Stock the shelves for those who will buy the product as a form of protest.
4). $Profit$
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
Wasn't Carmageddon simply censored in the UK, replacing pedestrians with zombies? It still got a successful release.
I seem to remember that overturning the ban and releasing the official 'blood' patch was something of a anticlimax, as the original game was considerable less gory then the unofficial patches everyone had downloaded in the mean time. (Images of real people, grannies with zima-frames, babies, naked girls etc.)
Jack Thompson announced he was moving to Britain. :-)
[Insert pithy quote here]
I have a theory that violence in the media, and games especially, may actually be beneficial to society (completely untested, so I guess it's a hypothesis). With the increased sophistication of our society, individuals are getting further and further from the need to kill their own food or participate in tribal warfare, or even to defend themselves physically from the wild and the elements. As humans, however, we're equipped with the survival instinct. It's foolish to think that we wouldn't want to express that urge, especially after millenia of social conditioning to do just that.
I think that violence in games allows us to act out what we're hardwired to do in a society that doesn't approve of it. Maybe we should force our murderers and rapists to play violent sims, so they don't act out their fantasies.
I wonder why violence is more widely accepted (in the US at least) and sex is shunned. I guess since most/all organized religions accept certain amounts of violence (or promote it), it's OK, while sex is a no-no in all of them, unless it is to procreate. We are strange creatures.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
The ratings board just made it so every kid in England will want to play Manhunt 2.
And Manhunt 2 would probably be a pretty crappy game.
Yay for free publicity.
In order to sell more copies in the States, all Rockstar needs to do now is put a big "Banned in Britain" sticker on the box!
Funny how you mention that, the BBFC was given their legal powers to ban films (and computer games) as a result of the "Video Nasties" campaign of the british press in the 80's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasties
Aha! So clearly, what we need is a game that features a lot of casual *masochism!* I'm sure that it will be a big hit... at least, with the censors.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Hostel II, the movie about rape/murder/torture/death/slashing/etc, was 5th in terms of revenues for this last weekend in the UK.
Reminds me of the movie The Man Who Sued God. One of the best movies I've ever seen.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I live in the US. I wasn't going to play Manhunt 2, but now that it's banned in the UK, I want to see what all of the fuss is about.
I've never even heard of the first one. Now they basically give them free pub by banning the 2nd game? Nothing says "buy me now" than a banned game.
Dude 1 : "Don't look now, but that girl behind you is a snaggletooth."
Dude 2 : *looks immediately*
Now that it's banned, more people will try to get it. Way to go. I run an online text game called AwakenedLands and many of the players are in the UK. The premise is to beat other people to death and commit crimes. But since it isn't made by Rockstar I won't get banned.
I thought the whole point of the Board of Film Classification (note last word) was to classify films - denoting which category they belonged in. They can't actually ban it, as far as I'm aware, they can merely deny it a certificate. For films, that meant that they couldn't be shown at a standard cinema, but were okay to show in private clubs. Don't know how that's meant to work with games. Maybe it means they can't be sold in shops, so we'll all have to buy it direct from Rockstar, with a note on the packaging saying that it remains unclassified.
Their rulings are not binding, or legally enforceable. Their own website points out:
"To this day the Board's decisions can be over-ruled by local authorities."
So if my city council say the local shops can sell Manhunt 2 (and I live in Edinburgh, where Rockstar North are based), then I don't see what the problem will be.
It makes me sad that this kind of thing (lets have society police the industry versus parents being responsible) keeps happening. Parents if you don't want your kids playing this then don't let them buy it. Leave the rest of us alone from your moral judgement. Get back to putting up limitless video monitoring cameras and automatic ticketing citation machines.
If some disturbed person blames a video game for inspiring their actions they are just looking for a scape goat and not taking responsibility for their own actions.
-Xen
People are missing the point I guess. It doesn't FUCKING MATTER if the game was partially or even completely responsible for the killing, it's about censorship, the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech might have some provisions, as not using it to cause riots, etc, but this definitely doesn't fall under that.
If there was information contained in a book that led to mass uprising or murders, do we just ban the book then? The answer should be no. It doesn't matter whether or not some piece of entertainment or information tells you to go out and kill people. It's entertainment, it can't force you to do anything. If we're going to censor this because it possibly results in murder then we should definitely censor the bible because of all the religious nutjobs who read it too much and use it as an excuse to kill abortion doctors or to kill John Lennon because he questioned religion's necessity. This is just the small tip of a very large iceberg. Without freedom, it really doesn't matter much if you are safe. You can be safe in a prison cell, is that what we want?
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Oh man, they should make a sequel to Carmageddon. I mean, a good one. That game was such a blast. It had just the right mix of humor and violence, and was just plain fun to pick up and play. Maybe I can find it on an emulator somewhere. Thanks for bringing it up!
Ok this is the UK where every RPG toting screwloose is a 'freedom fighter' and there is literally no limit to the amount of kowtowing to religiously inspired racist violence and rhetoric that the UK will champion. Hell, Rowan Williams is practically an honorary jihadist at this point. So yeah you ban your games. I'm sure that will fix things.
This ban is more proof that Euro-socialism always leads to gigantic nanny governments with too much power, dictating to people what they're "allowed" to consume. Thanks, lefties.
How are sadistic killings and relentless manhunts different from standard Hollywood movies or TV series?
Disembowelment, shots to the head, criminally insane killers, rape, torture, etc., they all seem to be standard plot devices in movies and even TV shows.
They didn't put in the Church of England, did they?
Oh... adults! Yes, clearly those "adult" bastards can not be trusted. A movie board is much better off deciding what's best like them. Kiddos!
:-S
Seriously, why can even movies be "banned"?
Because this movie, unlike any other gory action movie, will inspire murderers and they won't be inspired by anything else either?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Meh
I plan to buy this now just because of reading about that to support rockstar even though I didn't like the first.
Yeah, Its not like they knew they were breaking the rules or anything.
Totally not there fault if they push it too far and force the BBFC to finally act.
I think I'll set up a shop to sell drugs, and then sue the government for outlawing my business...
Hang on a sec...
According to the Human Rights Act, which codifies the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law, every company and individual in the country is entitled to a legal remedy in the courts if they believe their freedom of speech has been infringed. In the case of Man Hunt, it is effectivly Rockstar's freedom of speech which has been stepped on by the BBFC's outright ban. Although the HRA only technically applies to public bodies, case law exists by where courts have been obligated to act as public bodies on behalf of people/firms who believe their human rights to have been infringed.
Of course this all relies on whether a video game can be classified as "speech", but regardless I'd really like to see this go to the courts if it fails at appeal of first instance. No film gets banned in this country any more, yet its fine to take games off the shelves? Hmm.
That's true about cinema films - local authorities can overrule the certificate. Not sure if the private members' club rule still applies.
But as for videos, DVDs, and video games, the 1984 Video Recordings Act means that it is illegal to sell them in the UK if they have been denied a certificate by the BBFC. It is legal to import unclassified videos and games, though (or at least it sometimes - there are obvious exceptions such as child pornography).
...I do sometimes wonder what's in the water over there at Rockstar.
Perhaps there are lots of mentally unstable people at large in society, and maybe most of the time, most of them, manage to live their life without anyone noticing.
before video games.
Even if this were true:
Is it the cause? Would he NOT have done it otherwise? I agree the game might be the catalyst. But for someone in an unstable emotional state who is considering violence, it would seem anything could be the catalyst. Had it not been the game, could it have been TV, movies, a comment by a peer, his teacher's criticism, his parents, himself? Are these things dangerous because they can trigger violence out of someone who was merely contemplating violence?
The assumption of people against violent video games seems to be that they tacitly endorse real life violent behavior by encouraging people to perform it virtually. But anyone who could allow a video game to sway him away from the moral standard of an entire society is already a psychopath. Is our best defense against psychopathic tendencies to try to remove from access all influences which might seemingly validate those tendencies? That seems pretty bleak.
I'd like to announce the upcoming release of my new game "Crushing The Heads of Children."
Wait until you see the abortion minigame! Getting them before birth scores extra points! Woo hoo!
It'll be ready about a year after I decide what language to write it in.
I hope to get Rosie O'Donnel to do the voice of Ragey The Sledgehammer.
Disembowelment, shots to the head, criminally insane killers, rape, torture, etc...
Tonight, on a special episode of Gilmore Girls...
What's next....banning books that have too much violent, sadistic content? Sure its not as flashy as the video game, but, it still promotes the same messages....
They already do. Even in the U.S., it's possible to produce "child porn" using a word processor and your imagination, at least according to the Justice Department. The way the obscenity statutes are written, if something isn't artistic enough, it can be banned as obscene, on its content and regardless of medium alone.
I thought arresting people just for text was something we'd left in the past, but a few years ago there was a case about some woman (I think it was a woman) who was arrested for operating a website that had stories, of a sexual nature, featuring 'underage' participants (meaning the fictitious characters in the stories were underage). They were judged to be obscene, and thus illegal, even though no minors were ever involved in their production.
The argument for banning actual underage pornography is pretty clear -- you have to eliminate the market for the stuff, to prevent children from being sucked in and abused in order to produce it. No argument for me (or pretty much anyone else) there.
However, the evidence for banning 'simulated' pornography, either computer-generated rasters, or text descriptions, seems very spurious. Okay, so there may be some evidence that the availability of even certain kinds of simulated pornography encourages violent behavior. But to begin with, the evidence seems thin and mostly driven by emotion and rhetoric, not rational argument. Second, that entire line of thinking is a terrible idea, because it undermines the concept of absolute individual responsibility.
Once you start letting people escape absolute responsibility for their actions, by blaming it on pornography, or violent video games, or movies, or just "society" in general, you've lost. Even if you can demonstrate that the availability of porn/games/movies/whatever motivates certain already-sick people to action, that's still not a justification for banning them from everyone. (If anything, it suggests that we need to do a better job ferreting these people out before they can act, and dealing with them.) If a small uptick in crime and violence are the price we have to pay for individualism, then we need to suck it up, because that's the basis for our entire civilization.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"Rights" are not laws of physics, inherent in the universe.
They are simply what a given society decides that they are in a particular place at a particular time.
Your idea of what you want as a "right" might not be the same as someone else's, after all. For example, your "right" to chastise your child might conflict with your child's "right" not to be assaulted. There's no law of natture which says which "right" is right.
I say good riddance. Have any of you played the original Manhunt? That game was shit. And it is not an opinion. It had nothing going for it other than extreme violence. Once that got old, after level 2, I just uninstalled it. I have absolutely no reason to believe that Manhunt 2 is any better. Review by IGN proves my point. So if those type of bans prevent games like that to ever be released it will be better for everyone.
Too many "liberals" are quick to call for bans on anything they disagree with. They don't have to like it, they certainly don't have to do it, and they're free to condemn it; but the moment they start clamoring for their moral code to be enforced by law they lose the right to call themselves liberals. After all, there are much more accurate terms for hypocritical authoritarians.
No, people have no natural rights. The concept of rights wouldn't exist without society. There would only be power: do I have the power to do this or not? Every right involves giving up another right as part of a mutual trade with another human being. I don't want to be hit in the face, neither do you. We both give up the right to hit each other in the face in exchange for not getting hit in the face. And we agree that if anyone else tries to hit either one of us in the face, the other will try to stop it. All rights are derived from this principle of contract. I mean, if I say I have the right to free speech, but no one will uphold my right, do I have it or don't I? You have to walk pretty far out on a philosophical limb to say I do. Realistically and in any practical sense, I don't.
So, I would say, Governments do not give people rights, other people do through contract. Government merely expresses the collective will of the people as to what our collective rights should be.
The whole concept of natural rights is a kind of dodge or con. It is simply an appeal to authority designed to shut down debate around rights. "Oh, sorry. That's a natural right, end of discussion." The thing is, if there were such a thing as natural rights, they would be clear and self evident to all. Therefore the discussion of natural rights would never need to take place because we would all know them by instinct. Yet we do need to discuss them, and there is no clear consensus on what rights should be included in the hallowed list of 'natural' rights.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Just to put this in perspective. In general the BBFC do a needed job. Checking to see if film, video, games are fit for the public. I would hope most would agree that a game/film/video glorifying child rape or pro racist views, etc should not be available for the public. It is not a freedom of speech issue. All that has happened so far is that they have looked at the game and thought that some changes may have to be made for a release. That is all. They do this all the time with horror films, etc. No doubt they will suggest xyz needs to be changed for an 18 release. I imagine none of you here have seen a finished copy of the game that they have had for review so commenting on the level of violence somewhat strange. Look I am a gamer too and yes politics *may* have come into play and too am offended by the misrepresentation of the boys murder relating to the last manhunt game but I see this no different for any other classification review they have to do.
You, and lots of other people, make jokes about the irony of the CAPTCHAs you see.
/. for kind of a while now, and I've yet to see a CAPTCHA.
I have to ask: where/when do you see them? I've been reading and posting on
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
When you play a game, you learn an abstract system - one which has no relation to the real world at all, despite whatever aesthetics might be layered on top - and defeat it. That is what videogames are. They don't address real world issues, no matter how much people on either side of the censorship fence seem to think they do.
First off, I'm against censoring, and, as a British citizen, I intend to find an (easy, armchair) way of supporting the appeal, which should, to my mind, be inevitable and successful. But I have to make the point that probably disagrees with a majority on both sides of the issue.
Digitised, interactive violence does not desensitise a player to violence, it doesn't encourage it, and it isn't cathartic. Some people want to believe videogames (movies, music, paintings) turn people into murderers, while some people want to believe that the same forms of entertainment can reduce the likelihood that someone can turn into a murderer. I call bullshit, on both counts.
The only difference between Manhunt (A game where you 'surprise murder' people) and a hypothetical game where you give surprise gifts to people, are the visual and audio effects. Of course, when someone plays a game, they see the graphics and hear the audio (Though I will mention an anecdotal exception in a minute), but the fact is the player isn't even simulating any violent (Or altruistic) acts. Why? Because all a player does is push buttons on a pad/keyboard!
I play a few console FPSes quite extensively. When Resistance came out, for instance, my housemate and I sat through the entire game in one sitting (Nine hours, since you asked, and no, it wasn't worth it. Such an abysmal game). My housemate and I also play a lot of Virtua Fighter 5, and a lot of Stepmania.
You will notice I have ordered those three games in order, from most abstract to least abstract. Interestingly, the game with the most violence, is the most abstract. First, to explain how I am using the term abstract: Resistance is the most abstract because there is the greatest disconnect between player and game, partly because of the fact that you play 'through' an avatar, and partly because the game mechanics (attempt to) conceal themselves fully from the player. That is, where Stepmania tells you exactly what the right button to press or not press at every single moment of the game, VF5 lets you press anything but, through the presence of avatars, shows you where certain button presses will be beneficial and others detrimental, and Resistance attempts to create the faulty illusion that 'you' are running around 'shooting aliens' when, in fact, there is no you, there is no shooting, and there are no aliens. Anyone with any familiarity with any console shooter can immediately settle into the pattern of 'hiding behind cover' and 'shooting aliens' in entirely abstract terms; the game is simply a case of timing/accuracy/co-ordination, and 'variable management' (Making sure your 'health' and 'ammo' don't run out).
Obviously, the same could be said of any videogame, so I will: Every videogame is abstract and therefore disconnected from reality. Resistance players don't learn to fight off alien invasion, Virtua Fighter 5 players do not become martial arts experts (My bedroom door agrees), and Stepmania players do not become amazing dancers (There are a few nightclubs full of people who would agree if they knew my hobbies). Why? Because when you play a game, you learn an abstract system - one which has no relation to the real world at all, despite whatever aesthetics might be layered on top - and defeat it. That is what videogames are. They don't address real world issues, no matter how much people on either side of the censorship fence seem to think they do.
I visited my aunt this week, and heard one of my cousins, being 9 years old, tell her he was going to play GTA (The first 3D one for the PS2). She told him to turn the sound down, and he agreed, 'because of the swearing.' Now, I'm sure there is a portion of the
Conker's Bad Fur Day for the N64 had, as its box art, a gigantic (and well deserved) M rating.
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
I fully support the British Government doing it's part to ban any game that's easily accessible to minors, and has been the cause of violence and even murder.
And once they've gotten rid of Soccer and all their hooligans, they can move on to video games.
Why exactly do they think it's alright for them to censor like this? I don't care what the moral majority thinks, it's my choice to play a violent video game, not theirs.
Internet: Serious Business
I confess: I've been blowing the heads (and arms, legs, fingers, etc) off innocent civilians (accidentally, of course) and invading aliens for almost 20 years now.
:P) I've deliberately aimed my heavy, muscular vehicle at a wheelchair-bound grannie as she frantically tried to get across the crosswalk... ... and yet, none of this gratuitous and highly-enjoyable VIRTUAL PLAY has EVER caused me to do anything remotely similar IN REAL LIFE.
I've stolen spaceships, weapons; i've knifed men in the back (and sometimes women too), cut their throats, made them eat fragmentation grenades, used a flamethrower to melt them into a pool of screaming mush... I personally prefer the trusty ole shotgun for its' sound and emotional resonance; molotov cocktails can be tricky & dangerous! I like the impact a nice Navy Colt makes on unprotected sternums...
I totally enjoy smacking citizens around with a stolen police billyclub for their petty cash and stealing their hot italian pasta rockets. Nothing like driving a trash truck through a police station! I've stolen top-secret government plans, cheerfully and quite skillfully decapitated Dobermans, German Shepherds and various bio-morphed canine-analogues, as well as tentaclular monstrosities, cyborgs and even unicorns (oops! I felt bad about that one).
I've hacked into banks and federal government servers, stolen huge wads of digicash and used it to pay for drugs, which i resold at quite a profit in order to get some Boroccos for my Eagle (keep yer Titan
I have knives in my kitchen. Murderers use knives to kill people. Should we ban knives?
The whole ridiculous debate is a smokescreen to numb your mind to the real issues.
PAL-N (Paraguy/Uruguay) has the "standard" 50Hz/625-line spec, but has the colour subcarrier at 3.58 MHz- like NTSC- instead of 4.43 MHz.
PAL-M (Brazil) uses PAL colour-encoding, but with NTSC's 60Hz/525 line spec *and* the colour subcarrier at (again) 3.58Mhz instead of 4.43MHz. In other words, same as NTSC video, but with PAL colour encoding.
I can sort of understand the Brazilian PAL-M; it avoids resolution/frame-rate conversion issues with North American-sourced material, but avoids the colour transmission problems associated with NTSC. Not so sure about PAL-N though; I guess it was for bandwidth reasons.
(*) Pedantically speaking, I don't think the PAL spec even defines the subcarrier frequency, only the colour encoding method. Leading to the strange situation where (e.g.) digitally-encoded video at 50Hz/625 lines is colloquially referred to as "PAL", even though it doesn't actually have PAL-encoded colour.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I think the real point here is not about freedom, but about the flip-side of freedom, i.e. - responsibility.
If sick adults want to role-play psychopathic rampages, it's very sad, but most likely should be allowed (until that great day comes when such rejects aren't around anymore). The reason for media censorship in this case however (and with most others to do with gaming), is that these games are demonstrably bad for children to play, emulate, or worse, idolise. Most normal people's fears about these games fall into the category of fear for their children, or their communities children, not a desire to censor adult consensual behaviour.
None of the posters here are making that key distinction and those that say "this game is only for adults anyway" are full of it, and you know it. The main players of these types of games is young male kids. A lot of these are the "20 something" kids who are legally allowed to play such crap, but a lot of the kids also playing these games are little kids, 12 to 14 year olds.
If the makers of such games merely exercised a minimum of discretion and found some way to ensure that their games would not be played by 10 year olds, or in many cases 6 or 8 year olds, I don't think any government on the planet would have a problem with them. The fact is however, that *any* game, regardless of the "mature" labels on the box, immediately finds it's way into the hands of little children because the game companies don't give a sh*t about who gets to play them.
Walk into any retail gaming store in my town and you will find hordes of prepubescent boys walking out with "R" and even "X" rated games. The odd time that the store clerk won't give a kid a game, his older brother or Dad will certainly buy it for him. Try to find a nine year old that plays computer games that has not played GTA, I've never seen one.
If the game production companies acted even *moderately* responsible here, there would not really be a problem with violent games. The guys behind this piece of poo (RockStar Games), have no social sense, and have never acted in anything except the most underhanded, "who gives a sh*t" kind of way to the public.
Why do they expect to be treated fairly when they don't do the same?
and you stop where?
How about a photo-realistic simulation game where you get to rape children? Is that ok? what about if it has a handy import feature that lets you scan a picture of a real child and import that? still ok? How about a tycoon game where you run the KKK, or maybe an interactive ethnic cleansing rpg set in serbia?
99.9999% have limits as to what they find acceptable. If you are really saying that banning ANY game is wrong, you just stated that you would support the sale of such games as I just described. I know I wouldn't. personally, I wouldn't like to see games like manhunt sold either. It's reasonable to argue exactly where the line should be drawn, but are you seriously suggesting we have *no* line?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I say this as a citizen and now non resident, but what the hell is wrong with Britain? It seems video games are being systematically destroyed. In recent days alone there has been the controversy over Sonys representation of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man, dispite the fact that game has nothing to do with present reality. Now they have banned a game? Im sure Rockstar will appeal and certainly hope that they win, but the fact that the BBFC is capable of such a thing should make people question just what else it can do.
I hope this is not considered spamming, but MegaGames have the full story covered from all aspects. (BBFC's and Rockstar's opinions as well as related incidents).
...jack thompson when you need him?
A simple e-mail stating that you would like to complain about the recent decision by the BBFC to ban the game "Manhunt II" based on the fact that it constitutes unwarranted censorship of the arts and is contrary to the public interest will do. If Slashdotters can bring down entire servers, then they can certainly make an impact on a local council. I'd strongly encourage people to not stand for this mollycoddling, Big Brother bullshit.
Amnesty International
This ban only stops ROCKSTAR from making money off Manhunt2. Anyone in the UK who wants to play it will acquire a copy via BitTorrent or a blackmarket vendor selling copies for cheap.
http://www.ifco.ie/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/web/news?opend ocument&news=yes&type=graphic
And this isn't a knee-jerk reaction to the UK banning it, as this is the first time any game has been banned here, and indeed the first rating put on a game since PEGI started some years ago.
'unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying.' 'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.'
That sounds like the Dark Brotherhood quest line in Oblivion, and that game wasn't banned. In fact, the DB quests were amongst the most enjoyable in the game.
'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.'
They talk about casual sadism as though it's a bad thing. Honestly, how are kids supposed to grow up to be normal members of contemporary society if they're not fed a steady cognitive diet of consistent, vicious sociopathy from a young age?
The way these people talk, you'd think they were trying to ensure that these poor kids end up loving people as adults! Is that really the sort of future you want for your child?
While I in no way agree with censorship in any form (albeit when law is broken, e.g. child porn, rape etc) for entertainment purposes, I am also somewhat happy that this game has been banned. Not because I don't want to play it (I will because I know how to get it), but because I live in the UK and see, everyday, the self-serving, bigotted, hard-ass youth of today. Their vocabulary (I am not perfect) beggers belief (I physically find it hard to enter an expletive after every word in a sentence but the current youth seems to have mastered it).
This is not a general observation, but there are far too many "hoodies" (as they are called here) for my liking. They seem intent on destroying their own lives as well as those around them. Oh, and when I say youth you can include people under the age of 30...
Back to the topic: Manhunt 2 in the hands of the above type of people would, IMHO, be dangerous to the general public by encouraging a behavior that is already rife within our (british) society. Not necessarily murder, but definitely anti-social behavior. For example I have been spat at, cursed at, attempted ram by a motorist obviously needing the few extra milliseconds between a safe distance and my rear bumper.
Ban it, good, I will get it from another source.
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
I don't like censorship. I think it's used too often, I think it's regularly applied to undeserving texts and I don't think it works. BUT If you did rank all the media items in the world on their likely ability to incite violence, Manhunt 2 would surely be right near the top of that list. In general I don't support censorship. But I don't think it's always totally unreasonable, and the government would have a much easier time of convincing me on restrictions for a game like this than on material like Hot Coffee. If we're going to be ashamed and fearful of something, at least this time it's brutal violence instead of nudity and consensual sex.
All the hysteria surrounding violence in games and policing measures aside, is there any reason that game manufacturers need to put in more and more photorealistic gore into their games? I'm a little behind the times in this department but games like The Incredible Machine and Lemmings were fun to play and didn't need to even approach things like gore and sex to sell copies.
Sure, you need ways to show off your new GPU and rendering algorithms but can't they get a little more creative? Or maybe they're going the way of the media and the movie industries by fanning controversy for free advertising and sales.
I agree with you 99.999% But if the game had some sci-fi hypno thing going on that compelled the users to go kill, well then I would have to agree with you. I'm talking verifiable scientifically repeatable studies. That where I disagree with the "completely responsible" part. I don't believe games have anything to do with violence (hell, I've played all the Res Evil and Silent Hill games and I haven't wonked out yet), but IF, and I mean IF, somehow some subliminal stuff was stuffed in there, I would have the opinion that 1st Amendment stuff just goes out the window.
I know, sci-fi type stuff, but just putting it out there.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
There is no text in the Bible that promotes rape and stoning. I am against religion as much as possible, but we atheists must be truthful. The Bible refers to rape and stoning as sinful acts that must be avoided.
I would say that any UK TV bought in the last ten, probably twenty, years has no problem synching to both 50 and 60 hz. I might be wrong for _really_ cheap TVs but not for one bought by someone with a wii.
If a US import doesn't work then it's the Wii not the TV.
If a US import displays in black and white only the Wii might actually be putting out a true NTSC colour subcarrier but the chances of that are about zero considering the cost reduction pressure on a Wii. (BTW: higher end TVs will understand the NTSC colour too)
Can the Wii do RGB scart? That's only frequency dependant.
Yes it can, but as other posters have commented, the main problem seems to be that the games are region coded, so the only option is to find a copy in the same region.
All this banning of stuff is getting me angry ... I feel like getting a cricket bat and bashing a few politicians around the head.
;-) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6220684.stm
Hold on a second, I've noticed a direct correlation between people banning things and it causing violence.
The solution is obvious - ban banning things. Sorted.
The way it's going they'll ban adverts for eggs soon
Some nazi games have been developed in Germany, not released publicly. They were using shoah/holocaust as a theme for a game, a death camp RTS & management.
./ers feel no game should be banned (even kid pr0n theme), how do you feel regarding this kind of final solution game ?
Those developers and games dealers go to prison if found.
Since many
Would you play to such a game? Could you manage to reach the 20000 "units" per day for next level ?
There is no entertainment value to be gotten from them except for people who need help.
The line is simple; when REAL people get hurt. Unless you believe the government should enforce what is moral, in which case you do not believe in freedom. Slavery, witch burnings, racism, etc. were all opinions that majorities of populations have felt were moral.Since it'd probably be a no-no for non-UK retailers to ship copies there, I bet it wouldn't be hard to buy the game off eBay if they really want it. That would help Rockstar (assuming they aren't duplicated copies, naturally).
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
When does the video game about raping women and kids, blowing up an elementary school filled with children and committing genocide against various races, cultures, and sexual orientations come out? What differentiates those acts from cold-blooded random killings? The severity of the penalties despite the length of the punishment? Or that those acts draw more concern because they affect us more as a nation rather than a random killing? Can it be that so called "freedom of speech" and "right of censorship" have altered our views of what's right and wrong? I can understand your Harry Potters, Spiderman, or Batman storylines (obvious good vs evil) are easier to comprehend, however random acts of violence like cold-blooded killing glorified in video games are just wrong.
I think the politicians who come up with silly bans like that are much more likely to provoke violence than the games they ban.
Violent revolution is a response to tyranny!