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!
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.
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
I can give you a valid reason. Many people (myself included) are angry people, yet we understand and acknowledge that just because we WANT to do something doesn't mean that we SHOULD. If you ever read JTHM from Jhonnen Vasquez, he has said in an interview that JTHM represents things he has wanted to do to people, but he KNOWS that he shouldn't do them. So, as a way of venting his frustration and anger with society, he draws an overly violent comic which, at the same time, has some of the most important and insightful social commentary I have ever read.
Games like Manhunt/Manhunt 2 provide an outlet for those feelings. Yes, I could lift weights (which I do) or play sports (which I don't), but my outlets of choice are music and videogames.
People always talk about how videogames push people over the edge and make them murderers. They never stop to think that maybe the videogames help keep people in check by providing a harmless outlet for their anger.
Living With a Nerd
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.
I'm not against violence like I said..But I used to enjoy doom style games for that. I knew it was fantasy sure, but there is a certain satisfaction to killing a demon.
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.
yeah, It's better taking things out on video game than people.
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).
You confusing the poor graphics of those systems with a lack of violence, there were plenty of violent games on those old machines. River City Ransom, Double Dragon, Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem. The difference is that now the systems are actually capable of creating realistic environments, but the games are just recreating the same game play you had fun with back on the old systems. I think people should have the right to decide if they want to play manhunt or not.
It's a matter of creative freedom. It is very hard to draw concrete lines on what should and should not be censored, especially when everyone is of different opinions. What you consider an abomination of violence and brutality might be someone else's reminder that life is not all roses and rainbows.
The possibility exists that some unstable person will get a hold of these games and go ballistic, but similar arguments have been made about all media over the years. It's the "corrupting our youth" fallacy. Even in a utopia free from any violent media or influences, there's no guarantee that peace itself won't act as a catalyst for some unstable psycho's massacre.
We minimize censorship because of an implicit understanding that everyone is different. We're allowed to judge for ourselves what we should and shouldn't consume. That some people are unable to make that call is a fault of other aspects of society, not the media it produces.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
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
Seriously, I think you have your priorities backwards... we should be concerned about the validity of measures taken to repress freedom, not concerned about the validity of one way in which people choose to express it.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Not to mention the fact that as a society most of our kids are glued to the screen playing video games non-stop. Till I moved out into the country away from everything and my children now have mass expanses of area to SAFELY play outside, I had a hard time getting my oldest son to do something besides play video games. Now I am supposed to allow him vent time because he had a hard day at school before he does his homework?
Do you want to tell me when I have to go to bed too?
Seriously, do you think your opinion of tasteful/necessary/allowable levels of violence/sex/drug references/(taboo material) in games/movies/books/TV is the litmus test that we should go by?
I'll give you a reason. I'm a reality grounded, well educated young man who loves the Walter Mitty aspects these games allow me. I don't want to really experience clearing a room full of terrorists like in Rainbow Six:Vegas - but I sure as hell have fun playing with the scenario. I also don't want to fight Zombies or Vampires in real life, but these damn games sure are cool.
To subjugate the populace to watered down media materials because you think it could help prevent violent outbreaks is ridiculous. The only thing it will do is cut down on the number of times that a specific media type can be labeled the trigger for such an event.
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.
My son was always getting into trouble at school for starting fights (got very close to being excluded). Then I let him loose on some of my PC games to get some of the aggression out of his system. Over a short period of time he got into less and less trouble and is now doing a lot better with his studies and hardly ever gets into fights.
He now saves up all his frustration and anger for games and is a better person for it. Banning him from playing violent games would leave him with no release except for fighting at school...
I think someone needs to re-do their study into game violence and it's effects, not just looking at the very small number of people who Kill (that happen to have played a comuter game in the past).
Fear is the mind killer.
When you get home from work, what do you do? Do you ever watch TV? Smoke a cig? Maybe have a beer? Read the paper? Take a dump?
Everyone has something they do to unwind at the end of the day. EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. To answer your question, yes, you should allow your son vent time. If you were to be an integrel part of that vent time, not only would you understand your son better, but he would understand you better as well.
By all means, give your son vent time.
Living With a Nerd
first of all, it isn't that there are more people with mental illnesses, we are just getting better at knowing who has these disorders. second, it isn't the games themselves that I want away from them, I want to know who it is that is likely to cause the crimes and consequently be more aware. censoring games is a lazy excuse to try and look like you're solving a problem with the minimum amount of effort. why not instead of censoring things, try actually treeating mental illnesses so people don't go off killing each other for real?
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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!
Some people like Madden, other people play the Sims. Some people like stalking around a highly-fortified mansion avoiding heavily-armed personal security on a white-knuckled bloodlusting virtual vendetta to kill an evil sadistic, life-shattering, family-murdering, Brian-Cox-voiced madman in sweet cold-blooded revenge. Some people like Animal Crossing...
well thats how the latest generation is, you can't fight it, he can learn just as much playing video games like online games, working as teams, tactics and stuff like that, which can improve intelligence, people skills and life skills, its not all bad
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.
You reference Rainbow 6 and Zombies and Vampires.. Like I mentioned, I'm not against violence. I am against popularizing it being cool to take a real life scenario like murder, and rape, and pimping. You say you are grounded, but look outside at most of todays youth. I have a 22 (brother-in-law) year old for instance (I am 29) I have to raise because he can't get his ass in gear and do the right thing. This punk has threatened to beat my ass cause he feels that just mowing my yard is equal to room/board for a month. I don't want to make this sound like a stereo-type, but all of his friends (I know of 30+ personally) are all the same. They find it fine to live in there cars, or in one instance, sleep on my porch until I woke up and found them. These aren't grounded individuals, and I would like to say they are a shrinking minority, but that isn't the case. These kids are having kids and raising them with the same values. These are the ones imo are susceptible to going over the edge and slipping into a reality these games offer and taking it away afterwards.
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've posted this before, but my son's homework time is family time. Me and my wife sit down with him, help him with his homework, explain alternatives to get same result, and or just generally explain why something is and why it has to be that way. His teachers are not overly fond that he doesn't always do it there way but the way he understands best, but they say they appreciate the time we take to help him learn. My son can think, and that's not thanks to schools. I largely contribute his prowess to video games. I pushed video games on him early to help with his fine motor skills due to him having mild cerebral palsy. I understand kids especially needing to vent but I don't think him playing a violent video game killing people for sport is the venting anyone needs. What happens when the game isn't available?
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."
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 honestly not sure I care. I don't want my society being made into some sort of padded room for the "fragile" people. If some people can't take certain forms of entertainment, then they, or their caretakers if they're not competent to care for themselves, need to steer themselves away from it. It's that simple.
If you're offended by something, or worse, if something makes you more likely to do something bad/violent/criminal, then you have a responsibility to keep yourself away from it. People do stupid shit when they're intoxicated, but they don't get a free pass because they're drunk -- they chose to ingest alcohol, and are still responsible for their actions. Similarly, "the videogame made me do it" isn't an excuse, either. (Actually, it's far less of one than even the alcohol is.)
Society shouldn't be censored for children or the mentally ill.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Violence isn't cool because the marketing machine says its cool. Violence is cool because people LIKE it.
Before big marketing the most well known media was violent. Beowulf comes to mind. People LOVE violence. Don't confuse the fact that your brother is slipping and his friends are there too as some sort of societal problem. What are the chances your brother is an idiot and that his friends are idiots too? What are the chances they are acting like normal 22 year olds who really have no idea what the world is like.
Try this, instead of enabling his punk ass, kick him out. Instead of letting guys sleep on your porch, call the cops.
The problem isn't that these kids are bombarded with violence, its that they have never felt the full consequences of any action. They were nannied in school, by society, and probably by their parents. They have no clue what the harsh repercussions of the shit actions they take are because many societies have formed an enabling environment where no one is accountable.
Don't try to tell me what I can do because you know someone who can't get their shit together.
I'm not against violence. I understand its point in games as a way to vent. My point is why must we have stuff like this produced where there is no point in the game other than to kill people?
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.
I loved Carmageddon, but you don't see me running down the streets killing cows and pedestrians. Whenever children get influenced by games and do what they portray, blame the parents in 99% of the cases, and I leave 1% out because I'm not a parent so I can't say for sure but it's not because of some rare situations that you won't produce a game that I'd enjoy playing. The more games produced, the better, at least we can look around and see which ones are quality for our entertaining needs.
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.
I'd rather live in a world without safety than a world without freedom.
Of course, no one has ever successfully established a link between violent behavior and violent video games.
If they did, then you would immediately need to go back and prove that it was somehow more harmful than violent music, books, or movies.
But there isn't one. People who are violent aren't violent because of the media. Usually, it's because of their upbringing, which is to say, poor parenting.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.''
"Should" doesn't apply. They are creative works. Unless they're somehow forcing themselves on people, creative works don't have to justify their own existence. It's incumbent upon each person experiencing them to decide whether they have any value, as you just have, but only for themselves. The word for applying that valuation to everyone is "censorship".
If you want to argue that doesn't work for children, sure, you've got a good majority behind you on that. But "not suitable for children", "without value for me", and "shouldn't be produced" are three extremely different evaluations. That last one threatens to step on my rights and the artists' rights.
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?Exactly what are you trying to say numerically? That the majority of people have mental illnesses? Obviously that's not true. "Mental illness" is generally defined against the standard of observed norms, so if it covered a majority of the population it would have to be redefined.
I'm going to guess you're just vaguely alluding to some trend of increased diagnoses of mental illness without any specific reference, and I'll stipulate to that for the sake of argument. Do I want the mentally ill to have Manhunt 2? Unless they've been involuntarily committed, it's no one's business what creative works the mentally ill consume. I don't need the government to protect me from someone playing a video game. I need the government to protect me from someone trying to hurt me, at which job they are already doing their best, thank you.
There are times when governments are at least arguably justified in keeping certain things out of the hands of certain populations. Many things are routinely kept out of the hands of children, and sometimes things like firearms are kept out of the hands of the mentally ill. But any such denial is necessarily an abrogation of their rights and must be undertaken with the utmost care. For you to casually decide to deny something to the mentally ill just because you think it has no value is a gross injustice. For the BBFC to decide to deny something to everybody—not just minors, but everybody—because they think it has no value is grosser than gross.
So sanitized violence in which you kill thousands or millions of people in the abstract is OK, but realistic killing of a single person is not? Do you have a logical argument for that?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Then you as a (good) parent make the decision to not allow him to play them. You have actively decided that they are not for your son, and that's a sign of good parenting.
Don't forget, however, that being a good parent also means knowing when to step out of the way. In my own PERSONAL opinion, if your son shows no real-life violent tendencies, then there is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't play overly violent games. My early exposure (as young as the age of 6) to violent movies and games has allowed me to become desensitized to it.
Many people view this as a bad thing, but I view it as one of the best decisions my parents ever made. Because I am desensitized to it, I can view it and understand it without a knee-jerk reaction. I can understand violence for exactly what it is, because it is something I was raised with since a very young age. I don't have some fantastical fantasy view of it skewed by what the brainwashing of general society gives to kids.
I was provided with an urealistic view of violence in order to identify what is and isn't "real".
Ditto
Living With a Nerd
> 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 might also point out that LA is the home of the riot where people were actually pulled out of their cars and beaten brutally long before rockstar ever did it.
I agree with education. Sadly, the educators of our children (teachers and parents) are failing. Parents now leave it to government to raise our children. Those, like me who want to raise my child now have government telling me how I can and cannot (my children still get the hand on the butt when they act up sometimes even though it is wrong now by gov policy). My children know right from wrong. My children play violent video games I admit (Spiderman, Sonic, Mario and such), but I can tell you, I will not tolerate the ilk coming out now for them until they are much older.
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.
Your son almost certainly has a much harder time of it at school than you do at work, assuming you have a decent job in software / computing / networking. I didn't get to work from home 3 days a week while I was at school, I didn't get to stroll in at 10 AM, I didn't get to take my pick of fancy restaurants for lunch, I didn't get to work on a subject that interested me, or spend hours a web surfing...
If I got a much crap from an employer as I got a school from teachers, I'd quit within the week - and homework is a huge WTF (aka "unpaid overtime" for meaningless work you hate err, no thanks). It's not like kids are getting paid to go to school, or that it's actually rewarding. It's just a poorly run baby-sitting service *mostly* staffed by people who couldn't think of anything better to do with their lives than "become a maths teacher because they were good at maths in school". The exceptions being private schools and teachers on second careers (who are teaching because they enjoy it).
So, I have plenty of disposable income, I am respected at work, I do work I enjoy doing, I can choose to quit if I want (and easily get another job at the drop of a hat) I own my own time, I enjoy a far better quality of life - like most
For some reason a lot of parents live in a fantasy land when it comes to remembering what being a school was actually like.
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!
yes, I did mean unrealistic. ::rethinks the logic::
Nope, still adds up to me. When all is said and done, I know that I have the ability to tell the difference between killing someone in GTA and beating the shit out of someone on the street.
Thanks for playing though.
Living With a Nerd
For reference, I am 11 year NAVY serving on active duty right now. I routinely deploy 6-7 months. 3.5 years at my last tour, I was on land for less than a year. My first command I did 3 years as a submarine rider. Granted, I am on my shore duty right now, but my son even in school has had it FAR easier than me. And my yearly income is roughly 55k USD a year. But, I have a Associated in Criminal Justice and a Bachelors in Computer Science geared towards forensic investigation.
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
Because it is one of the most primal instincts that we as humans have seconded only by sexual desire.
We are violent animals by design. Transform yourself into an insect, or some creature living in the forest or on the savannah. Their lives are just as violent as ours, we are just able to kill more living things in one blow than they are.
The world is a violent place not because of humans, but because of the way that nature functions at it's most basic level. To me, violent videogames commenly reffered to as "murder simulators" are simply a way for us to tap into our primal unconcious that no matter what happens we will never abolish from our race as humans.
Think about this. If EVERYONE played violent video games every time they wanted to kill someone/start a war, the world would be 100% at peace. A strange and slightly warped concept perhaps, but that would indeed be the outcome.
Living With a Nerd
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 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
For all we know the moon may be as conscious as a poet or a realtor, and extremely weary of its monotonous round. - HLM
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.
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.
This is an interesting point that I'd like to consider taking one step further. As you point out, we've gone from killing poorly rendered characters to high definition graphics and audio with realistic scenarios/story and environment. Effectively, the gap between realism and gaming was somewhat shortened.
Is there a realism line where it actually IS reasonable to ban interactive media? What if the future gives us even more realism, further shortening the gap between realism and virtual realism? Do we ban a video game once it's able to replicate the smell of death for the player? The tactile feedback of a knife cutting flesh? Is there a line, and if so, where is it?
I agree that the ban on this video game is uncalled for, but I think the above is an interesting question to ponder and am curious as to what others think about the subject.
They didn't put in the Church of England, did they?
So because your brother-in-law and his friends are stupid bums, this means *I* shouldn't be able to play a video game? Besides, someone has to work fast food jobs.
What's that quote about the plural of anecdote?
I don't know what kind of college party town you live in that their behavior is common, but it's not as if everyone who plays video games acts that way. If this were the case, western society and Japan would grind to a halt.
Also: I do not know of a game that actually features rape. Please cite one. I'd honestly like to know because I hear this but never hear the title being discussed.
As for popularizing it: Well you can keep your Leave it to Beaver DVD collection, but the vast majority of gamers are responsible people who don't go around and do everything they see in a video game. The truth is, those who commit acts of violence -- video game related or not -- are in the tiny minority. The rest of us don't. Most people aren't violent criminals. We aren't mindless drones who ape what we see on screen. Otherwise there would be no turtles left after Super Mario Bros. came out. Don't even get me started on the ramifications of the Kirby series.
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!
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...
Rainbow 6 and Zombies and Vampires...Damn, would I buy THAT game. :)
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.
...I do sometimes wonder what's in the water over there at Rockstar.
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 have no mod points but you know what I mean.
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
Society is actually for the benefit of the "fragile" people. Its most fundamental purpose is to protect the young and the old, the defenseless and the weak. If we were all strong enough to survive without society, there would be no point to creating them, especially since we apparently have all these violent instincts to murder other people. The fact that the majority of people throughout the whole existence of humanity seemed to decide that societies were good or beneficial things should make some folks pause before saying that society is only for the evolutionarily-fit individuals of the world.
That said, however, I agree with your assertion that people should be held responsible for their own actions. Where I disagree with your post is your own version of morality. It seems like (and correct me as I don't actually know your positions fully) you claim the only bad actions are those with physical consequences. That is, the causal chain of events leading up to the actual physical action do not matter in the least, since responsibility only begins when there is material evidence of deviant behavior. A man standing apart from a park screaming at the children playing that he will disembowel them has no moral quality, since there are no physical consequences yet. Sticks and stones and all. An alcoholic is responsible for any actions he takes, even if he was tempted beyond his own ability to control himself knowingly by others (who share no part in the blame, since their actions were not physical). A pedophile is responsible for any actions he takes, even if he was tempted beyond his own limits knowingly by others (who again share no part in the blame). For many people in the world, all three of those examples have an incorrect moral judgement. The screaming man is guilty of harassment. The alcoholic and pedophile, while absolutely guilty, have mitigating circumstances which imply that the coercers share part of the responsibility. All three people are "fragile" and many feel they should be protected (from themselves) (though as I understand it, not you).
On the topic of games, certainly people should have a wide range of freedom to express themselves in both the game content that they consume and produce. Even if the games push a few fragile individuals past their limits of temptation. But if you have a particular situation in England where many people are scared of violent youth (arguably created by this terrified generation) then maybe there are a few more fragile individuals that might be influenced. So really, the question is how many fragile people does it take before society should protect them. Maybe for some people, the number is 1% of the population. Perhaps 5% or 10%. The point is that society should be determining where that number actually is and then holding content producers responsible for their actions for helping those fragile people enter a more violent state of mind. Certainly, even in England, the majority of the population is not going to go about murdering people simply after tens of hours in front of a violent game (otherwise, recent movies would have incited considerable violence). But then the majority of England isn't going to go buy this game (despite Rockstar's best attempts). Most consumers will be absolutely in control of their faculties and some may not be fully in control. Still, those few that are assisted in doing morally bad actions by the game might warrant closer analysis and not a wholesale rightoff as being unworthy of society. And it might be that certain content is inadvisable in a particular culture because it can cause people to do morally bad things, even by your standards. Freedom of speech, like all rights, is not without reasonable limits and those limits definitely depend on the societal context. In other words, don't simplify a right to a personal choice, even freedom of speech.
In a free society, actions or creative works are allowed until it can be compellingly shown that such actions or creative works cause demonstratable harm to society. A society that requires creators of works to justify their creations rather than society justifying the banning of these creationis is not free.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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 do notice, however, that after some sustained gameplay that as I'm driving down the road in real life, I'm checking out banks and ramps for how much airtime they'd give me :)
Rich
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 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.
Not a freedom of speech issue? Freedom of speech is about allowing those thing that you *don't* like. So as long as everything is virtual it is a freedom of speech issue, if it is not virtual then of course the developers should go right into jail, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
I am all for having a rating system in place, but 'age 18' (or 'age 21' if you prefer) really should be the upper limit, anything beyond that is de facto censorship.
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.
'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.
Thanks a lot for revealing your psychological problems. You proved why these games should be banned.
You are angry? seriously? why? you can't get laid? you don't have a good job? you don't have a car? guess what:
YOU ARE NOT EVEN TRYING.
You saw a very nice looking girl yesterday at the mall. What did you do? nothing. You should have talked to her...you did not. Why? you get angry because all the others get the good looking girls, the money and the cars, right? Well, you can do that too, if you only tried. And even if you did not succeed in getting the most beautiful girl, you will be satisfied with yourself, because you tried really hard.
If you are angry because the world is in a sad state, you can run for mayor/governor/president. You can start out as a representative in your neighborhood's council, and from there, you can climb up the social ladder. I guarantee you that by the time you reach any significant position, you would have all the money and women you ever wanted. Aside from that, you would have totally forgotten your mission and idealism, and you would have accepted the fact that corruption, political backstabbing, under-the-table deals run the world.
Enjoying killing others, even if in a virtual environment, is pretty dangerous. The reason is that you view the other people as objects instead of real human beings with the same feelings as you. If you view the other people as objects of pleasure, then you exploit them; if you view them as objects of pain, you want to kill them.
The real hypocrisy with video game banning is that movies don't get banned, even if movies are orders of magnitude more graphic than video games. For example, I recently tried to view (not my choice!) a movie where the serial killer decapitated women and used their heads for oral sex (he did other shameful acts as well). Now what a sick bastard was whoever filmed this! people like that should be banned for making movies whatsoever and should get their head examined. It was one of the sickest things to have ever passed my eyes, and Manhunt or GTA is a newborn's dream compared to that...
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
Funny you should think that way.
I have a beautiful woman, a fantastic job, a house, a car, food in my stomach...if you were to meet me in person, you would see I am the happiest (and luckiest) person around.
When I say I am angry, I am angry at this society. Not just the US, but the entire human race. For every good thing we accomplish, we do 10 bad things.
However, that is just the human race for you...it's in our nature. As a result, I am going to continue living my lavish and lucky life (considering there are litterally BILLIONS of people in the world who have it worse than I do) and I am going to die happy.
That doesn't mean I can't be angry.
Living With a Nerd
"When I say I am angry, I am angry at this society."
I already covered that case. See my comment that starts with 'If you are angry because the world is in a sad state...'. You will stop being angry when you see how things are from the inside.
I didn't say I was angry because the world was in a sad state. I said I was angry at society.
There is a big distinction between being angry with the way things are going and being angry with people in general. My anger is not limited to just now, or even just the past 100 years. My anger is with the way we as humans function as a society.
The instant we banded together for materialistic gain and not for survival is the starting point of my anger. It has nothing to do with politics, or money, or war, or famine, or anything else.
It has to do with the very fundamental nature of our species.
Living With a Nerd
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!
"I didn't say I was angry because the world was in a sad state. I said I was angry at society."
...people kill people.
...as I told you above. But you can't just be angry at the level of wanting to kill people. Instead of frustrating yourself, why don't you be an activist and help improve this fsckin world?
It's the same, please don't play with words.
"There is a big distinction between being angry with the way things are going and being angry with people in general. My anger is not limited to just now, or even just the past 100 years. My anger is with the way we as humans function as a society."
That's what I was talking about. It is not justified to wanting to kill people because
"The instant we banded together for materialistic gain and not for survival is the starting point of my anger. It has nothing to do with politics, or money, or war, or famine, or anything else."
But materialistic gain is part of our survival plan. By gathering lots of energy/material around us, we maximize the chances of surviving (or so we think).
"It has to do with the very fundamental nature of our species."