Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rockstar Appeals British Ban on Manhunt 2

Posted by Zonk on from the we're-not-dead-yet dept.

1up is reporting (via MCV) that Rockstar has decided to appeal the BBFC ruling on their uber-violent Manhunt 2 title. The 'next step' is to get a hearing scheduled, which will allow the game to be demo'd and arguments given. "Rockstar Games had been given six weeks to appeal the decision, and with that opportunity about to expire, the company lodged its formal appeal yesterday ... The appeal was filed with the Video Appeals Committee, which can overturn the BBFC decision. As noted in our first article about the ban, the VAC overturned the BBFC's ban of Carmageddon back in 1997, giving Rockstar a glimmer of hope in its current situation."

56 comments

  1. Interesting... by MeanderingMind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm wondering what the arguments are going to be. Any bets on more Ebert-esque debates on the status of video games as art?

    --
    Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    1. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe something about free speech?

    2. Re:Interesting... by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do they even have laws protecting free speech in England? As bad as the U.S. seems to be getting, at least Manhunt 2 is legal here. I just wish various nice European cars were legal here as well.

    3. Re:Interesting... by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes. Britain, as well as the rest of the EU, follows the EU Convention of Human Rights. Article 10 of that states:

      1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
            2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. I believe this is exactly what SCi did with Carmageddon. Basically it requires that the BBFC prove that Manhunt 2 will cause one of those things listed in item 2. Which seems pretty much impossible to do seeing as there's no conclusive evidence linking playing computer games with real life criminal activity.
      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    4. Re:Interesting... by Kelbear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given what the first Manhunt was like, the debate will be pretty short. Manhunt kinda...sucked. Snuff-film violence for the sake of violence is no substitute for interesting gameplay. It was similar to Splintercell in that stealth was emphasized, and nothing like Splinter Cell in that the elements composing the gameplay were heavily dumbed down or not included. The major feature was a "grainy" filter when doing an execution, as seen from the spectating audience.

      Some might be fascinated by the violence at first, but most will get bored of recycling the same tired animations and notice that the game is repetitive. Gamers like good gameplay, and the violence fails to cover up Manhunt's lacking gameplay.

      Games can be art I would say. Games aren't necessarily art. Pictures can be pr0n or Mona Lisa. Text can be "_____ For Dummies!" or deathless prose. Comics can range from "Archie" to "The Watchmen" or "V for Vendetta". It's just a medium, the substance being borne by that medium is how the end result will distinguish itself.

      This game doesn't really have a place in such a discussion.

    5. Re:Interesting... by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      However, we aren't talking about the original Manhunt, we're talking about Manhunt 2. Unless you are N'gai Croal or a contemporary of his who have actually played the game, I'm not sure your (or I) are qualified to classify this game as "art" or "not-art".

      I'd agree that the original manhunt wasn't particularly artful. However, it is entirely possible (considering what I've read by journalists who have played the game) that Manhunt 2 might be artistic in a demented, horrific fashion.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    6. Re:Interesting... by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, IANAL etc...

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    7. Re:Interesting... by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      Barely. Because of the rating, they can't get the game manufactured for any console.

    8. Re:Interesting... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'm wondering what the arguments are going to be...

      Given everything I've learned about Rockstar Games from the media, I'd assume their argument would have to be:

      Unban our game or we'll fucking kill you and rape your daughter then kill your wife with your daughter's bloodied still breathing body and then steal your car and drive it into a station full of police-puppies and make them all explode you fucking coffee-fucking assholes.
      --
      UTF-8: There and Back Again
    9. Re:Interesting... by RexRhino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow... #2 pretty much eliminates any garantee of freedom of speech at all!

      So they can ban speech "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."... Talk about catch-all.

      So basicly the poster is right. There is no garantee of freedom of speech in England. Virtually anything can be argued to fall under one of those categories.

    10. Re:Interesting... by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Well the whole document describes fundamental rights that can be accepted and applied to over 30 countries, so it had to be pretty general.

      It's important to remember that the onus is on the accuser/censor/banning body/whatever to show that the offending material falls into one of those categories. So if the person whose freedom of speech is being impeded challenges it (as Rockstar now are) it's should actually be pretty damn difficult for the BBFC to prove that it does cross one of those lines.

      Again though: IANAL, your rights may vary depending on interpretation.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    11. Re:Interesting... by db32 · · Score: 1

      I am waiting for "The hackers put the blood and gore in the game" Our original game was about raising puppies, cute little harmless puppies, those evil hackers made it about violence and murder...

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    12. Re:Interesting... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well the whole document describes fundamental rights that can be accepted and applied to over 30 countries, so it had to be pretty general.
      Which is one of the chief reasons the EU is such a joke. If you have to water down a legal document guaranteeing rights so Polish politicians can pick on homosexuals with impunity and British officials can ban video games, then I think what you've got is a worthless piece of paper.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Interesting... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except the opposite is entirely true. At least the guarantee of freedom of speech presented is true and valid insofar as it is written; namely, it is legally plausible for the judiciary of the EU to follow that law, every time, without fail.

      Contrast this to the First Amendment, which has never been enforced as written and which will never be enforced as written, as it provides no room for compromise of any kind, as with most of the Bill of Rights.

      While you are correct in that it is a catch-all, it is not as wide a catch-all as you are suggesting it to be. Only a few of those exemptions can be widely applied, and even then, they must undergo judicial scrutiny to be applied.

      With the First Amendment, the judiciary can come up with whatever exemptions it feels like- and does.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    14. Re:Interesting... by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Well odds are British officials won't be able to ban video games (as Carmageddon established and hopefully Manhunt 2 will reinforce) so it does have some value.

      I don't know if there's something specific you're referring to in Poland. I believe protection of homosexuals would be covered by Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination). Whether it's correctly enforced or not is another matter, but if so that's a problem with the EU and that particular national government, not with the Convention itself.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    15. Re:Interesting... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      I agree, I had posted an addendum to my post noting exactly that, but it looks like it was nixed for posting twice so quickly.

    16. Re:Interesting... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Except, the same applies to the US. You have slander laws that inhibit free speech. National security laws, public safety laws, protection orders, fraud laws, perjury laws, disorderly conduct laws etc. At least with this it is defined clearly and articulately, if still somewhat open to interpretation.

    17. Re:Interesting... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Except the opposite is entirely true. At least the guarantee of freedom of speech presented is true and valid insofar as it is written; namely, it is legally plausible for the judiciary of the EU to follow that law, every time, without fail.

      "The Republic of Theoneandonlystan guarantees freedom of speech, thought, and action to all persons, except when it doesn't." Legally plausible to follow, but not a good guarantee of rights.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    18. Re:Interesting... by fozzmeister · · Score: 1

      But you have a constitution, which is often used to repeal bad laws. England does not, We even ripped up our innocent till proven guilty thing a few years ago.

    19. Re:Interesting... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      So you're saying a guarantee of rights that sounds perfect but is never, and can never, be enforced is any better? At least the Europeans are honest with themselves.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    20. Re:Interesting... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      So you're saying a guarantee of rights that sounds perfect but is never, and can never, be enforced is any better? At least the Europeans are honest with themselves. First of all, the First Amendment is not "enforced" per say. The First Amendment is supposed to be "respected", in that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting speech. The First Amendments is perfectly functional: If the government simply refuses to regulate speech and expression, it is simple as that. It isn't something like "stopping crime" that might not be possible, even if the government chooses to pursue that goal. Any violation of the First Amendment by the U.S. government is both willfull and deliberate.

      The First Amendment, even when it is being violated by the U.S. government, is better than the EU "garantee", because it established a legal principle by which we can fight any and all censorship. We might lose the fight some times, we might win the fight other times... there are some very powerful people who want to restrict freedom of speech... But we have an extremly powerful weapon to use in the fight. Virtually any regulation of speech by the U.S. government can be attacked as being unconstitutional. And if the First Amendment fails to protect freedom of speech, if people are dedicated enough they can fall back on the Second Amendment.

      In general, the United States has far more freedom of speech than Europe... and when the U.S. government does restrict speech, European censorship is the model and inspiration for U.S. censorship. We would do poorly to imitate the EU on freedom of speech, when the enemies of freedom of speech in America hold up European style censorship as the goal of what they are trying to accomplish. When politicians in the U.S. want to restrict freedom of speech, they usually argue how the UK, or Sweden, or Germany have similiar laws so "they can't be all that bad".

      If you want to argue that the U.S. government violates its constitution, well I agree with you 100%. There is way too much censorship in the U.S. as it is. It is an outrage. But immitating Europe would be the worst possible way to reverse that trend in the United States, because Europe is far far worse when it comes to censorship.
    21. Re:Interesting... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      First of all, the First Amendment is not "enforced" per say. The First Amendment is supposed to be "respected", in that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting speech. The First Amendments is perfectly functional: If the government simply refuses to regulate speech and expression, it is simple as that. It isn't something like "stopping crime" that might not be possible, even if the government chooses to pursue that goal. Any violation of the First Amendment by the U.S. government is both willfull and deliberate.

      I think enforced is a reasonable term to use. After all, it is the highest law in the land, presumably. Ensuring it is followed is indeed enforcement.

      However, while you might believe the government could simply refuse to restrict and regulate speech, in practice this simply isn't true. Filing false tax returns? Freedom of speech! Inciting riots? Freedom of speech! Passing classified data to the enemy? Freedom of speech! Extortion? Freedom of speech!

      It is not now, and never has been, reasonable for all speech to be free. A free and democratic society relies on the fact that every freedom has its limits, and that as a matter of course we give up some of our freedoms in exchange for protection from the exercise of those freedoms by others.

      The First Amendment, even when it is being violated by the U.S. government, is better than the EU "garantee", because it established a legal principle by which we can fight any and all censorship. We might lose the fight some times, we might win the fight other times... there are some very powerful people who want to restrict freedom of speech... But we have an extremely powerful weapon to use in the fight. Virtually any regulation of speech by the U.S. government can be attacked as being unconstitutional. And if the First Amendment fails to protect freedom of speech, if people are dedicated enough they can fall back on the Second Amendment.

      And yet the second Amendment has exactly the same problems as the first- it is unreasonably vague and will never be enforced as written, because to do so is not only stupid, but dangerous.

      Further, the difference between the EU guarantee and the First Amendment guarantee is that the government can, in the EU, only fall back on certain defenses in its restriction of freedom of speech. Remember that such restrictions are not automatically valid- they must be proven in a court of law. The alternative, American approach is that the government can come up with whatever excuse it damn well feels like and throw it before court, which is totally at its leisure as to whether to accept or deny said excuse as valid, depending on the prevailing political winds.

      In practice, of course, there is likely no real difference between the two decrees. More important is the judges who interpret and define what falls under and what is acceptable under them.

      In general, the United States has far more freedom of speech than Europe... and when the U.S. government does restrict speech, European censorship is the model and inspiration for U.S. censorship. We would do poorly to imitate the EU on freedom of speech, when the enemies of freedom of speech in America hold up European style censorship as the goal of what they are trying to accomplish. When politicians in the U.S. want to restrict freedom of speech, they usually argue how the UK, or Sweden, or Germany have similiar laws so "they can't be all that bad".

      Europe is comprised of many different countries, in general that follow many different political models- all of which are different from the US in one way or another. All Western states (theoretically) attempt to find a balance between granting maximum freedom to their citizens and yet protecting those citizens in the most effective way. It is disingenuous and somewhat offensive to call these people 'enemies of free speech'. For one thing, it assumes that Free Speech is something

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    22. Re:Interesting... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      However, while you might believe the government could simply refuse to restrict and regulate speech, in practice this simply isn't true. Filing false tax returns? Freedom of speech! Inciting riots? Freedom of speech! Passing classified data to the enemy? Freedom of speech! Extortion? Freedom of speech! Actually, I think the first amendment SHOULD apply to all these things.

      Filing false tax returns? The tax laws are so complicated, that anyone could accidently and innocently file a false tax return. It shouldn't be a crime. Inciting riots? There were many people who tried to ban Malcolm X, The Black Panthers, and crazily enough even Martin Luther King from speaking arguing they would incite a riot. Yet all these people had important things to say, and America is better off that they said it. Passing classified data to the enemy? If you don't sign a security agreement with the government beforehand explicitly stating you will keep the information secret, then you SHOULD be allowed to pass classified data to anyone you want! If the U.S. government accidentaly mailed me its secret plans to invade Canada next week, I sure as hell would tell the media (and, by extension, the "enemy"). I am not a government employee, so I have no obligation to respect the government's secrets.

      Extortion is a vauge one, since extortion can involve real physical violence (If someone walks into your house, and demands money at gunpoint, they should be punished... not for what they say, but for the fact that they pointed a firearm at you, which is a physical act beyond speech). But if the police can't find evidence of some PHYSICAL ACT, such as planting bombs, pointing weapons, attacking people, etc., I don't think extortion is a crime.

      I think the U.S. government IS violating the First Amendment by banning all such things.

      For one thing, it assumes that Free Speech is something that one would want all the time and under every condition, when that's not even remotely true I *DO* think that free speech is something that we want all the time and under every condition.

      If a leader feels that there is some situation that is so dire, so aweful, so dangerous that free speech must be curtailed in THAT specific instance, then that leader should restrict that speech, and then step down from office and turn themselves into the authorities for a criminal act. The same way I would steal a car, something I consider to be an immoral and criminal act, if I had to take a critically injured friend to the hospital in an emergency and it was the only way to do so. But I would expect to suffer some punishment for making that decision, I would only steal the car if the consequences for not doing so (having a friend die) where worse than going to jail for auto theft. Under no circumstances should I casually be allowed to steal a car.

      Given that, then, how do you define 'worse' when it comes to censorship? How is Europe 'worse'? In the UK, you can go to jail for insulting a religion, for example. As an athiest, this is a very chilling law, because I believe that all religions are fair game for ridicule. Especially when people bring their religious beliefs into politics. I believe it was John Cleese who said it (but it was one of the Monty Python guys), that many of the Monty Python works would be considered 'hate speech' today because of their attacks on religion. It is kind of 'grandfathered' in, because it is already such a part of popular culture, but something like Monty Python would most certainly be banned from public airwaves today.
    23. Re:Interesting... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the first amendment SHOULD apply to all these things.

      Filing false tax returns? The tax laws are so complicated, that anyone could accidentally and innocently file a false tax return. It shouldn't be a crime. Inciting riots? There were many people who tried to ban Malcolm X, The Black Panthers, and crazily enough even Martin Luther King from speaking arguing they would incite a riot. Yet all these people had important things to say, and America is better off that they said it. Passing classified data to the enemy? If you don't sign a security agreement with the government beforehand explicitly stating you will keep the information secret, then you SHOULD be allowed to pass classified data to anyone you want! If the U.S. government accidentaly mailed me its secret plans to invade Canada next week, I sure as hell would tell the media (and, by extension, the "enemy"). I am not a government employee, so I have no obligation to respect the government's secrets.

      Extortion is a vauge one, since extortion can involve real physical violence (If someone walks into your house, and demands money at gunpoint, they should be punished... not for what they say, but for the fact that they pointed a firearm at you, which is a physical act beyond speech). But if the police can't find evidence of some PHYSICAL ACT, such as planting bombs, pointing weapons, attacking people, etc., I don't think extortion is a crime.

      I think the U.S. government IS violating the First Amendment by banning all such things.

      And it is violating the text First Amendment by banning them- we have no difference of opinion there.

      The only difference is that courts have consistently held that the First Amendment cannot be that vague. In practice, it would essentially lead to significant civil breakdown.

      For example, there are many religions which advocate stoning adulterers. And, of course, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

      Presumably, therefore, it is a violation of the first amendment to prevent religious individuals from stoning adulterers...

      I *DO* think that free speech is something that we want all the time and under every condition.

      A difference of opinion, I suppose. I see no particular benefit to allowing every tom dick or harry to run his mouth off in the public forum.

      If a leader feels that there is some situation that is so dire, so aweful, so dangerous that free speech must be curtailed in THAT specific instance, then that leader should restrict that speech, and then step down from office and turn themselves into the authorities for a criminal act. The same way I would steal a car, something I consider to be an immoral and criminal act, if I had to take a critically injured friend to the hospital in an emergency and it was the only way to do so. But I would expect to suffer some punishment for making that decision, I would only steal the car if the consequences for not doing so (having a friend die) where worse than going to jail for auto theft. Under no circumstances should I casually be allowed to steal a car.

      Except that realistically speaking, that wouldn't happen; if you had a civil service so inclined, the rest of the civil service would refuse to follow an illegal order and nothing would happen...

      n the UK, you can go to jail for insulting a religion, for example. As an athiest, this is a very chilling law, because I believe that all religions are fair game for ridicule. Especially when people bring their religious beliefs into politics. I believe it was John Cleese who said it (but it was one of the Monty Python guys), that many of the Monty Python works would be considered 'hate speech' today because of their attacks on religion. It is kind of 'grandfathered' in, because it is already such a part of popular culture, but something like Monty Python would

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    24. Re:Interesting... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      I'm saying it's better for your bill of rights to place actual restrictions on your government. If there are exceptions written into it, that's fine, but don't make them stupid exceptions like "protecting public morality" that totally compromise the freedom that's supposedly being guaranteed so that it's not guaranteed at all.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    25. Re:Interesting... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      And if you had read the rest of the thread, you would realize that the US bill of rights places no more restrictions on the US government than the European declaration of rights places on its government- that is to say, it places no restrictions on that government other than those restrictions the judiciary are willing to impose.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    26. Re:Interesting... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      When did you ever get the idea I was advocating for the language used in the American bill of rights? I did read the rest of the thread. It isn't that simple--a written bill of rights allows the public to keep check of whether or not the judiciary is making a good-faith attempt at upholding those rights instead of just making it up as they go along. If your written bill of rights provides no real guarantee of rights, the judiciary can get away with never violating the words on the paper while ruling away each and every one of your supposed rights.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  2. Ah, carmageddon... by Cervantes · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ah, the Carmageddon banning. So many memories. :)

    For the uninitiated, they decided to ban the original Carmageddon because one of your goals was to run down pixelated pedestrians in a uniform-but-still-gorey shower of blood. So, to appease those who would protect our values by not letting us run over people in a video game, they changed it so all the pedestrians became zombies, and their blood splatter was now green.

    Because, as we all know, it's much less damaging to our youth to imagine that the entire world is infested with the walking undead.

    --
    If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
    1. Re:Ah, carmageddon... by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      I thought Germany had zombies with green blood and UK had robots. Or was it the other way around?

      Anyway... that saved lives... well, not really.

    2. Re:Ah, carmageddon... by LiquidMind · · Score: 1

      nope, i happened to play the german version back in the day....robots and black 'blood'...
      however, there was an easy way to change that in one of the config / ini files (or a command line switch, etc)
      oh the memories....i wish they'd make an updated version of carmageddon (or something like it).

      --
      This sig contains repetition and redundancy.
  3. demoed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The word is demoed. The apostrophe is neither necessary nor correct.

    1. Re:demoed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is unnecessary, but technically correct in that it represents a missing letter.

    2. Re:demoed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, really you're both wrong, it represents nstrate.

  4. The Coyote and The Road Runner by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As noted in our first article about the ban, the VAC overturned the BBFC's ban of Carmageddon back in 1997, giving Rockstar a glimmer of hope in its current situation."

    Carmageddon was staged as a cartoon.

    The pedestrian targets and obstacles never allowed to become too real.

    Manhunt 2 is unmistakably derived from the sadistic and malign torture porn flicks - exploitation films - like Saw and Hostel.

    If you can't see that distinction - if you can't make that distinction - then the critics of video game violence have won their point.

    1. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by searchr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Manhunt 2 is unmistakably derived from the sadistic and malign torture porn flicks - exploitation films - like Saw and Hostel"

      Really? Well both of those movies, Saw and Hostel, received "R" ratings in the U.S., considered restricted for 17 and up.

      So why shouldn't Manhunt 2 receive the comparative rating (for games) of "M" for Mature, which is also identically restricted to 17 and up?

      And whether or not you personally feel those movies were "maligned", they were actually quite popular with the intended audience that CHOSE to watch them. Why should your personal judgement override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it?

    2. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by Raconteur · · Score: 1

      >Why should your personal judgement override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it? Do you think we should allow young sexual predators to view pornography? The intended audience has violent proclivities. Games with this level of realistic depictions of ultra-violence feeds those neuroses. An AO rating is perfectly appropriate.

    3. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by searchr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The intended audience has violent proclivities. Games with this level of realistic depictions of ultra-violence feeds those neuroses. An AO rating is perfectly appropriate."

      "violent proclivities"? welcome to the human race. Watch a football game lately? How about boxing? Those are actual really-real people beating each other to a bloody pulp, resulting occasionally in actually-actual death.

      Yet those spectacles are approved for all ages.

      Elevating FICTIONAL violence as more harmful or indecent than ACTUAL violence is nonsensical. Unlike you, I can't speak for every single person who views or plays violent media. But I can speak for myself. I'm a well-educated, well-adjusted, non-violent adult, who often enjoys viewing or playing fictionalized media with dark and/or violent content. So far, my "neuroses" have gone hungry. My "violent proclivities" remain buried, and mostly likely fictional.

      I can't stand football or boxing, though. Too violent. And actually realistic. In a really-real way.

      If you don't like it, don't play it or watch it, and be a parent to your children and take responsibility for what they play and watch. But leave MY responsibility to ME.

      [PS: "AO" rating effectively does not exist, since retail chains won't carry an AO game, in the same way that movie theatres won't show an "X" rated movie. Since it's thus financially impossible to release an AO rated game, that rating effectively blocks a game from being released. Which may be fine for your nanny-world, but in my really-real world, I'd rather make that choice for myself.]

    4. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by badasscat · · Score: 1

      Watch a football game lately? How about boxing? Those are actual really-real people beating each other to a bloody pulp, resulting occasionally in actually-actual death.

      I can't remember any instance of a football player dying from physical contact on the field. It may have happened once or twice, but it would be a freak accident, not a result of regular contact. Oh, and btw, have YOU watched a football game lately? Because "beating each other to a bloody pulp" is kind of against the rules.

      As for boxing, yeah, it's a barbaric "sport" that really has no place in a civilized society. It's the modern-day equivalent of the Roman gladiators. So probably not a good example to support your argument. Saying Manhunt's not so bad because all these other totally barbaric things are worse is not really convincing. Yeah, you know, I hear *real* rape and murder are pretty bad too, so because the real thing is so bad, a game about them is just peachy-keen? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

      Elevating FICTIONAL violence as more harmful or indecent than ACTUAL violence is nonsensical. Unlike you, I can't speak for every single person who views or plays violent media. But I can speak for myself. I'm a well-educated, well-adjusted, non-violent adult, who often enjoys viewing or playing fictionalized media with dark and/or violent content. So far, my "neuroses" have gone hungry. My "violent proclivities" remain buried, and mostly likely fictional.

      Well you've obviously got some overt aggressiveness in your post. Why do you think that is?

      I get annoyed by people who claim that they're somehow completely unaffected by both the culture in which they live and the things they surround themselves with. It defies both common sense and every study that's ever been done. I'm not talking about cherry picking one game or one genre and studying it and looking for a direct causal link between the media and violence. I'm talking about linking general behavior and attitudes with the culture that's all around you. Are people in the United States the same as people in Japan? Vietnam? Tibet? No? Then you must agree that culture has an affect on people.

      Games are part of culture. And culture has obviously affected you, because you're talking in such a way that nobody would dare do in certain other countries, not out of fear, but out of sheer politeness. Culture has affected me too; I won't deny that this reply is just as aggressive as yours.

      Whether or not what happens in a game translates directly into a violent real-life act I think is missing the point completely. Games are entertainment and entertainment is culture, and we are all products of our culture. To deny that is both stupid and elitist, because you're saying you have some power to resist everything around you that none of the rest of us have. Culture is by definition shared.

      At what point do you look at a piece of our culture and say "I do not accept this; this is bad for society and in turn bad for me." Is there nothing that would make you say that? What if the game involved real images of babies being raped? What if it was just simulated 3D images instead? And if you make a distinction between the two, what is that distinction? Aren't you tacitly accepting baby rape either way by not rejecting it?

      You can argue that it all depends on context, and I wouldn't argue with that. Then what is it about Manhunt's context that makes its violence acceptable? And what is it about Manhunt 2, which you have never played? How can you argue that the context of its violence is a net positive for both you individually and society as a whole when you don't even know yet what that context is? The various ratings boards around the world have played the game; you haven't. They're in a better position than you to determine the quality of content and its context.

      I don't buy any of your arguments or the arguments put forth by those who say generally that entertainment does not have

    5. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by nacturation · · Score: 1

      The intended audience has violent proclivities. Games with this level of realistic depictions of ultra-violence feeds those neuroses. An AO rating is perfectly appropriate. So instead of having to be 17 in order to purchase the M-rated game, we should get really tough on this type of senseless garbage and make it AO-rated so that only those who are 18 can purchase it. </irony>
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    6. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Well you've obviously got some overt aggressiveness in your post. Why do you think that is?

      How can you see that as aggressive? Do capital letters trigger some primal fear in you?

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    7. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by westlake · · Score: 1
      And whether or not you personally feel those movies were "maligned", they were actually quite popular with the intended audience that CHOSE to watch them

      Malign

      1 a : evil in nature, influence, or effect. malignant.
      2 : having or showing intense often vicious ill will. sinister.

      The audience has faded to black. The genre summer box office poison. Captivity grossed $2.6 million. Rockstar tried to catch the wave and missed.

      . Why should your personal judgment override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it?

      A video game is not a movie.

      The movies put you at a physical and psychological distance from the action. Manhunt 2 encouraged you to mime a disembowelment using the Wii controller as your weapon.

      A good read in this context is Gene Wolfe's "When I Was Ming The Merciless."

      As you grow older, you grow weary of attending a high school graduation one week and a funeral the next. The adolescent's judgment is not mature, and his choices are often wrong.

    8. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      As for boxing, yeah, it's a barbaric "sport" that really has no place in a civilized society. It's the modern-day equivalent of the Roman gladiators.

      Except it's performed by consenting adults instead of conscripted prisoners and is specifically set up to avoid fatalities or permanent injuries instead of a fight to the death, you're exactly correct. Of course, being performed by consenting adults and not being set up specifically to have a death at the end are the defining features. By your logic, soccer should be illegal because it resembles ancient Aztec soccer, in which the losing team was sacrificed to the gods at the end.

      And, considering that all the fighting, promotion, training, spectating, and betting is done by consenting adults, I'm not sure entirely how you intend to prevent it. I'm envisioning a team of riot police wading into an underground boxing match, tasers and nightsticks drawn, forcibly breaking it up for the sake of nonviolence. I'm sure the irony would be lost to them, though.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    9. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Why should your personal judgement override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it? Do you think we should allow young sexual predators to view pornography? The intended audience has violent proclivities. Games with this level of realistic depictions of ultra-violence feeds those neuroses. An AO rating is perfectly appropriate. Yes, exactly, pornography should be legal and the existence of sexual predators doesn't change that.
    10. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by fozzmeister · · Score: 1

      Saw and Hostel, neither of which has been banned.

    11. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by richy+freeway · · Score: 1
      Manhunt 2 encouraged you to mime a disembowelment using the Wii controller as your weapon.

      Bring it on!!!

      I think I'm just about able to stop myself from murdering anyone after playing this game, I doubt I'll even have any nightmares!

    12. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1
      I think he's just getting off a bit. Check out this part:

      Culture has affected me too; I won't deny that this reply is just as aggressive as yours. Is he really saying that exposure to culture makes him aggressive?
    13. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by pnakotus · · Score: 1
      You've already been rightly mocked for confusing emphatic speech with violent aggression, and for comparing boxing to the Circus Maximus. The rest of your post isn't much better.

      People are a product of their culture, but their behaviour is mostly shaped by the real parts of their culture - family, school, church, day to day activities, not by the make-believe parts, the things they see on television or in games. You use the example of America's high crime rate, but you also mention Japan, which has a tremendous amount of violent and sexually explicit media of its own. People aren't substantially inspired to murder by the television, but by the circumstances of their own lives.

      Most people do not learn their problem-solving skills from television, so it's not elitist to suggest that you don't either. It's just another way of saying you're not mentally deficient.

      That '4000' murders figure is obviously bunk. Someone presumably totalled the number of days a ten year old has been alive and rounded it up to the nearest thousand, because kids watch a lot of TV and there's a cop show with a murder on pretty much every day, right? If the methodology was any more rigorous than that, I'll be surprised.

      Your accusation that the previous poster is 'tacitly accepting baby rape' is absurd and manipulative. Real baby rape isn't a free speech issue; it's a physical act that nobody outside a rubber-padded cell approves of. Simulated disgusting imagery is just that, simulated. Refusing to ban the simulation doesn't mean you approve of the reality, otherwise anyone who didn't declare that Schindler's List should be banned would be guilty of tacitly accepting fucking genocide.

      There are lots of things that are so disgusting I'd like to ban them, but other than books clearly intended as guides for committing murder (which can be categorised as not only information but as actual tools of the trade) I try to resist my censorious urges. As vile as I might find a given piece of speech, the freedom to say what we want matters more than our right not to be offended.

      You're even wrong about games being singled out. Games are immersive, they teach skills (whether those skills are useable in real life depends on the game) and they generally involve direct identification with a character or group in the game world, while movies cast you as a detached observer. The reason games shouldn't be banned isn't that they aren't more potentially influential than movies - they are - but that censorship in general is pointless and wrong.

    14. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by searchr · · Score: 1

      Argument is aggression. Forcefully creating and defending an idea or opinion is sort of the foundation of most societies and governments. Politeness is often a hindrance to direct discourse, obfuscating truth behind veils of false niceties. Equating the written word with the violence and barbarism of movies, games, and real life, is hilarious.

      And yet, interestingly to my point. With the written word, it seems anything goes. Why do none of these issues come up with the novel, or the non-fiction? Imagery many times more violent or depraved than any movie or game is written about every day, with nary a shrug. You wrote "baby rape", but why is that less appalling than you illustrating "baby rape"? Or should we begin a ban on our own imaginations?

      But, as with you cleverly trying to tie "baby rape" to anyone advocating freedom of expression, there are limits. Just as, in my supposedly "aggressive" argument, I made no personal attacks nor used foul or abusive language, because there is a point where the content fails to serve the purpose. There would be no point in my trying to "flame" or outright attack someone for their opinion, as it would halt any possibility of discussion or exchange of ideas.

      With games and movies and other media, there are ALREADY limits, laws banning the depiction of certain illegal acts (like your ever popular "baby rape"). Banning games that contain NONE of these already illegal things, is simply doing an "end run" around existing law, attempting to stifle free expression that is not stifled in other mediums. If you feel, and if enough people feel that all other media with similar violent content should be banned, then a law should be passed. But holding one form of media, games, up to a different standard than other forms (books, movies, sports), is inherently flawed and unfair.

      You wrote: "what is it about Manhunt 2, which you have never played? How can you argue that the context of its violence is a net positive for both you individually and society as a whole when you don't even know yet what that context is? The various ratings boards around the world have played the game; you haven't. They're in a better position than you to determine the quality of content and its context."

      Yes, exactly. I have never been given the opportunity to decide for myself how I feel about Manhunt2. Interestingly enough, you seem to feel comfortable condemning it while in the very same have-never-seen-nor-played-it position as I. But for a bit of clarification, the "various ratings boards around the world" have in fact, NOT PLAYED THE GAME EITHER. They can't, by virtue of how many games they have to rate and how many dozens, sometimes hundreds of hours, of gameplay many games contain. So they make their decisions based on a worksheet filled out by the game developer, sometimes some video and sample gameplay. That's it.

      The ONLY position they are in is one that determines what age level a game is appropriate for. They are NOT in a position to unilaterally dictate personal morals onto me or the general populace. Neither are you, nor am I. Those boards are not public officials, no one voted for them, they do not represent any constituency. To completely ban a creative work that in any other media would not be banned, is quite simply, an overstepping of their authority.

      I just want to have the choice to make my own opinion. Which as it is, has been stripped away from me by a small group of people that, for all I know, is equally offended at Huck Finn and Moby Dick.

      I do not want you to be forced to play or endure something that you do not wish to. I'm just asking for the same privilege. Some might even call it a right.

    15. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Why should your personal judgement override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it?

      Indeed - but this argument can be used about almost anything. So, if I CHOOSE to use illegal drugs, why should I not be allowed? The fact is that your right to choose according to your whim and personal preference is not considered as important as eg. the impact it would have on society in general if certain things - like drugs, child abuse and video games that glorify extreme violence - were just set free. This may be wrong in your opinion, but then we can win them all, can we?

    16. Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as what choose to do doesnt affect other then we should be allowed to do what we want. Using Illegal drugs doesnt affect anyone apart from myself, so I should be allowed to take them if I want to. The same as playing violent video games, they dont affect anyone apart from me, so whats the problem?

  5. The brutal, savage sport that was football by westlake · · Score: 3, Informative
    I can't remember any instance of a football player dying from physical contact on the field. It may have happened once or twice, but it would be a freak accident, not a result of regular contact. Oh, and btw, have YOU watched a football game lately? Because "beating each other to a bloody pulp" is kind of against the rules.

    The violence of the college game came within a hair of destroying American football in 1905 - 23 deaths - and 1909:

    In a match between Harvard and West Point, the Army captain, Eugene Byrne, exhausted by continual plays to his side of the line, was fatally injured. Earl Wilson of the Naval Academy was paralyzed and later died as a result of a flying tackle. And the University of Virginia's halfback Archer Christian died after a game against Georgetown, probably from a cerebral hemorrhage suffered in a plunge through the line. "Does the public need any more proof," wrote the Washington Post, "that football is a brutal, savage, murderous sport? Is it necessary to kill many more promising young men before the game is revised or stopped altogether?" At both Georgetown and Virginia, football was suspended for the remainder of the season, and the District of Columbia school system banned it altogether. Even Col. John Mosby, the old Confederate raider, used Christian's death to rail against football as "murder." Inventing Modern Football

    1. Re:The brutal, savage sport that was football by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      Good point. But the sport has been 'refined' somewhat since then. If you'll take a look at football's history you'll find that safety is a primary concern. It's always been just as intense, with many players sacrificing their bodies for a tackle, but safety equipment is constantly revised. Also rules are strictly enforced to keep players safer. Injuries are commonplace in any contact sport. The GP poster's point was most likely that recently there have been no deaths. The last football related death that I recall would be Korey Stringer of the MN Vikings in 2001, exactly six years and one day ago. The man was popping ephedrine on an extremely hot day, which helped cause massive heat stroke.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  6. Because the UK is not part of USA (yet!) by fantomas · · Score: 1

    "both of those movies, Saw and Hostel, received "R" ratings in the U.S., considered restricted for 17 and up.

    So why shouldn't Manhunt 2 receive the comparative rating (for games) of "M" for Mature, which is also identically restricted to 17 and up?"

    Because the UK might have a different cultural approach than the USA? Just because a USA ratings authority decides on how to rate movies and video games doesn't mean the UK has to follow the same guidelines. UK is not part of the USA ...yet... (still waiting to see if Gordon Brown is as desperate as Tony Blair to be Goerge Bush's poodle).

    The USA still has some quite different cultural norms to the UK - my impression is that it's a country where violence and gun culture is more tolerated. Your authorities are more comfortable with graphic violence than ours, I think. Whereas the US seems to be more puritanical about displays of the human body (e.g. the Janet Jackson flashing her breast episode).

    1. Re:Because the UK is not part of USA (yet!) by searchr · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that these apparently comparably violent films recieved the same treatment as Manhunt2 in the UK? Saw and Hostel (and sequels 1,2,3 and 1,2, respectively) were outright BANNED? That's interesting, I hadn't heard that. Maybe along with your moral indignation at the cesspool that is the U.S., you could mention when that occurred?

      Yes the UK is so far playing much more fast and loose with civil liberties, that is true. So I guess it isn't surprising in a country with over four MILLION closed circuit cameras keeping an eye on everything everyone ever does, that a small group of people making decisions for what consenting adults want to watch and/or play with, is considered a good idea.

      As #$%*ed up as the U.S. has been lately, I think I prefer our cultural "norms" to those.

      [PS: more boobies in mainstream culture in the U.S.? I couldn't agree nor wish for that more.]