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."

12 of 56 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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
  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.
  3. 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 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. 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