Manhunt 2 Rejected By BBFC Again, Rockstar Appeals Again

Gamespot is reporting that, for a second time, the UK's British Board of Film Classification has declined to assign a rating to Rockstar's Manhunt 2. And, again, Rockstar is appealing that decision. "As for why the edits weren't to the BBFC's liking, the board stated that the 'reduction in visual detail in some of the execution kills' was still not enough to bring the title in line with an 18 rating. The director of the BBFC, David Cooke, also said the organisation had suggested further changes to the game be made, although some requests were ignored. Rockstar responded with a statement shortly after the announcement, stating that it would also be appealing this decision, and that the extra changes it was requested to make were 'unacceptable.'"

Comments

Well then...

[Otter]

As for why the edits weren't to the BBFC's liking, the board stated that the 'reduction in visual detail in some of the execution kills' was still not enough to bring the title in line with an 18 rating.

Frankly, if they're reducing visual detail "in some of the execution kills", I'm not buying the game anyway! Certainly not when I can instead go the mall and watch iPod users' pants catch on fire.

F&*! the nanny state

[Neon Aardvark]

Not the kind of game I would normally be interested in, but this ban makes me want to obtain this by other means, and donate a fair price to Rockstar (if this is somehow possible).

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[7Prime]

Hold on, how is this a Nanny-state situation? I love how the fact that a private rating organization whose decision affects the decision for private console manufacturing companies to release games, and the decision for private retailers to sell the game suddenly constitutes a "Nanny state". If you extend the "Nanny" to mean private corporations, than I will agree with you, but you do realize that there is absolutely no government involvement here.

What you're seeing is Capitalism at its most uninterrupted... do you like it, Ms. Rand?

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[plague3106]

No, not uninterupted at all. This private ratings organization only came about because otherwise the GOVERNMENT was threatening to do so. If the government hadn't said otherwise, its likely ratings wouldn't have been adopted at all.

This is how any ratings systems have come to be; whether for movies, music and now video games.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[Volante3192]

What you're seeing is Capitalism at its most uninterrupted... do you like it, Ms. Rand?

Umm, I fail to see how the British Board of Film Classification is in any way a capitalist entity. What do they sell? What do they produce? What are their quarterly net profits? What do they stand to gain or lose in the market by banning this game?

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[meringuoid]

Not the kind of game I would normally be interested in, but this ban makes me want to obtain this by other means, and donate a fair price to Rockstar (if this is somehow possible).

The Dutch have ok'd it, and they're the same region as the UK. A solution presents itself.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[meringuoid]

Hold on, how is this a Nanny-state situation?

Because the BBFC are a government body whose job it is to tell adults which films they're allowed to watch and which games they're allowed to play.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[7Prime]

You do realize that if the government hadn't demanded one, than Wal-Mart and other "morally obligated" retailers would have demanded the same thing, and then we're back to the same exact outcome (which is what we have here in the US). The fact is, one way or another, a society that condones the enforcing of values on other individuals (and show me a society that doesn't) will make it happen one way or another. Better the government does it than private business, because at least the government is more quickly swayed by current public ideology.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[lubricated]

It doesn't matter how the nanny state came to be either by overpowerful corps or government or whatever. These guys have a product and they can't sell it in a country.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[7Prime]

Good for them. Better them than Walmart, who will do the same, anyway. At least government leaders can be theoretically voted in and out.

Don't you get it? Society demands censorship. Blame your neighbor, not big government, not big corporations. Does that make it "right"? I don't really think this is really a question of right or wrong. But censorship is an innevitable part of any society, if you don't like the current trends of censorship, then fight it, by all means.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[Volante3192]

At least if it was only the companies, you would have been justified in saying it's Capitalism at its finest. When there's a government entity involving itself, the purity of capitalism is diluted.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[7Prime]

Probably the most objective and pragmatic statement I've heard all day, thank you. You've highlighted the problem completely, freeing the blame from one particular group. Now it's up to "US" to decide what we can and should do about it, if at all.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[7Prime]

Yeah, well, I'll admit my ignorance of the inner-workings of the British information control scheme, but the outcome is identical to the US, which is completely privitized, so it's not really all that important, is it?

When will people understand that power is power, regardless of whether it's in the private sector or the public sector, and too much power in one area leads to a few people with iron fists. Pure Capitalism deligates too much power to the private sector, and pure Socialism deligates too much power to the public sector. And yes, I do consider the "private sector" to be on consolidated power, for companies tend to work together for their own ends just as much as they tend to compete, JUST LIKE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[VJ42]

Actually, the BBFC is a Private company. I'm not sure about games, but IIRC when it comes to films, local authorities (being the bodies that licence cinemas) don't even have to accept the BBFCs classification recommendations.

Not that any of this makes it an any more acceptable decision; and I'll be emailing them to let them know what I think of their nanny-stateist approach.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[squiggleslash]

Well, let's start with the small point that Asda's marketshare of the computer game market (Asda being, so far as I'm aware, Wal-Mart's sole presence in the UK) is pretty tiny.

And then let's point out that two censors is not better than one. I'd rather Asda refuses to sell games 1, 2, and 3 of games 1-5, than Asda refuses to sell games 1, 2, and 3, and is unable to sell game 4, of games 1-5, because game 4 is banned by the government mandated BBFC. Especially as Asda can always be by-passed by, say, buying the games from Tesco. Or, you know, a real vendor of computer games rather than a supermarket chain owned by a US company that happens to, when operating in the US, be infamous for a censorious conservative content policy.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[provigilman]

Well, I don't know about the Britis counterpart, but in the US we have the ESRB. The ESRB gets paid a fee by the publishers to review and rate the game. Any games not reviewed would be "unrated" and Wal-Mart would not sell them (althought for some reason unrated DVD's are fine).

The ESRB's interests are also very much tied into the industries. Since Wal-Mart sells the most games, if they won't carry many distributors won't either, and so the game industry tends to shy away not getting their games rated. Being rated AO (18+) has essentially the same effect.

If the ESRB suddenly started skewing ratings to make it easier for stuff to get through then there would be public outcry and the government would try to get legislation passed that would allow them to rate the games. If that were to happen the medium would inevitably be stifled as the government would be much more controlling that the ESRB. Oh, and the ESRB would be out of a job.

So, the games industry needs the ESRB, and the ESRB needs them. It is captialism... It's no different than say, a construction inspector. His job ensures that the industry stays healthy and up to code, and it keeps the government out of it. In return, he gets paid and has a job thanks to the industry.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[RxScram]

Why is it up to the United States to decide what we can and should do about it? Isn't the U.S. in enough trouble already?

<ducks head and runs>

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[westlake]

What you're seeing is Capitalism at its most uninterrupted... do you like it, Ms. Rand?

If by "capitalism" you mean "the console manufacturers that don't want and don't need the grief that comes with being identified with a game like Manhunt 2," then she likes it just fine.

their platform, their choice.

if you don't like it, you can pick up your marbles and play elsewhere.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for them. Better them than Walmart, who will do the same, anyway. At least government leaders can be theoretically voted in and out. So first you state that "there is absolutely no government involvement here" and, when that's shown to be 100% false -- for the UK market, which is the point of this article -- you retort back saying "good for them"? Why not just retract your original statement since the entirety of your posting has been demonstrated to be false? But since you've been shown to be wrong, you're now going off on some tangent trying to redeem yourself by blaming society for censorship. Cognitive dissonance much?

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[lubricated]

I've become way to cynical to do anything about it, I just want to know how to profit from it.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[StikyPad]

TBH, I don't really care what they rate the game(s). I do care that console manufacturers prohibit certain ratings on their platforms, that stores refuse to carry unrated titles, and that not enough people to make a difference seem to care. If we want to change that, we need to A) make more noise and inform more people than the opposition, and/or B) convince the relevant parties that we are a larger portion of their market than those who wish to maintain or tighten the current restrictions.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[drsquare]

You do realize that if the government hadn't demanded one, than Wal-Mart and other "morally obligated" retailers would have demanded the same thing, and then we're back to the same exact outcome (which is what we have here in the US). The fact is, one way or another, a society that condones the enforcing of values on other individuals

A private shop refusing to sell an item is not enforcing anything, no more than if McDonald's declined to include hard-core gay porn as prizes in Happy Meals.

Re:F&*! the nanny state

[plague3106]

You do realize that if the government hadn't demanded one, than Wal-Mart and other "morally obligated" retailers would have demanded the same thing, and then we're back to the same exact outcome (which is what we have here in the US).

Bull. People would buy the content at other, amoral, stores, and WalMart would lose out big time. Then it would rethink its policy.

Its not the majority of society that is trying to force their values on others, its a very loud minority.

Even if what you think is true (its not), goverment is NOT more quickly swayed. Look how long junk laws stay on the books. And they'll keep on pressing for restrictions, because they do NOT want to give up power. See the War on drugs for an example.

Now compare that to how graphic games were getting once businesses saw how popular things like Mortal Kombat were.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I can instead go the mall and watch iPod users' pants catch on fire.

Are you implying that iPod users are liars? Or just the ones at the mall?

Re:Hmm

[oyenstikker]

Are there any iPod users who aren't at the mall?

Just my $.02...

[Cleon]

At this point they really ought to just release the game for the PC as free software, and use the strategy guides, web sites, forums, etc to generate revenue.

As an added bonus, it would be a huge middle finger to the jackasses who think it's acceptable to "ban" a video game.

If they keep on appealing, it's just going to be a bigger money pit--and it probably won't get them anywhere. Time to cut your losses, guys.

Re:Just my $.02...

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, yeah, or they could sell it using something like Steam. Not that I'd be opposed to your idea, mind you.
(note that I'm operating under the assumption that the BBFC is the same as the ESRB in that the ratings are only enforced because most retailers won't carry unrated stuff. If the BBFC has actual government power to censor stuff, I suppose this might not work so well)

Re:Just my $.02...

[Cleon]

I wasn't familiar with Steam and had to google it. Fair point, there.

The reason I suggested making it free is that if everyone is free to (re)distribute the application, even if the BBFC does have the actual legal authority to censor stuff, they wouldn't be able to stop it. If the RIAA can't stop the torrents, I doubt the BBFC could.

Re:Just my $.02...

[Fred Or Alive]

BBFC ratings are enforced by law, although the BBFC isn't strictly speaking a part of the government, they're an independent body. Theoretically another body could be given the same certifying powers over video releases. The law doesn't cover digital downloads though, so a release over something like Steam would be legal AFAIK.

Re:Just my $.02...

[morari]

I agree that they SHOULD just release the game, completely uncensored, on the PC. Though they'd never do so for free. Rockstar has tried to make the claim that their games are art, but the simple fact that they'll bowing to censorship to reach the largest audience possible shows that they really just care about the money. Personally however, I couldn't care less about playing their games, they're usually not of the highest quality. That said, I'd hate to see this kind of ratings board bullying hold actually artistic games back sometime in the future.

Re:Just my $.02...

[KDR_11k]

The difference is that the BBFC would be working against a commercial entity. The govt may end up saying Steam isn't permitted to do business in the UK if it carries banned games. Peer to peer can't be stopped because noone is responsible but a commercial system has people who are responsible and can be held accountable.

Rockstar

[n0dna]

Selling Crap through Controversy.

Re:Rockstar

[Jedi Alec]

Perhaps. Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed GTA: San Andreas. Not because of all the Hot Coffee crap, but because it was a game I had fun playing. Cruising around town with that weird old rockstation on the radio(and Axl Rose on the mike) and just checking out the scenery. Most of the missions were so completely over the top that it was more funny than violent. Money well spent, in my opinion.

Re:Rockstar

[The Analog Kid]

I'd rather them be controversial and push the envelope then succumb to the pressures of soccer moms everywhere.

Re:Rockstar

[scribblej]

I didn't enjoy Manhunt, the original, but it's a far cry from crap. Crap is something like the output (I hesitate to call them "games") of Derek Smart. Try Universal Combat and then get back to me on what makes a game crap.

Re:Rockstar

[7Prime]

When you put it like that, I can't help but agree with you. Still, I think it's a flaming pile of dung and should never see the light of day.

Re:Rockstar

[KDR_11k]

GTA sells for being a good game but most of their other "successes" were only out of controversy. I guess that's why GTA is their bestselling series.

Re:Rockstar

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider table tennis a sucess. What was the contraversy that caused that?

Strange

[jmpeax]

It blows my mind that the BBFC is allowed to ban things at all - they're like some kind of elitist gatekeepers who are able to dictate what entertainment adults can and cannot enjoy. It's so insane.

Re:Strange

[7Prime]

How is that so strange? People have controlled the flow of information for millenia. It's human nature. In fact, it's one of the sanist and most understandable things out there. You might not agree with it, but SOMEONE is going to control the flow of information, the only question is 'who'?

Re:Strange

[Hatta]

So you've finally grown to love your chains. Good for you.

Re:Strange

[7Prime]

Here's a reality check:

Civilization = bondage

If you don't like civilization, fine, abandon it. The fact that you choose to be a part of civilization means that you've agreed to relinquish some level of power. That's not going to change until you throw off the bonds of civilization and become a one-man society. The only question is "which powers"? Some states value physical safety above all else, some value ecconomic fairness (in various deffinitions). That's what civiliation IS. The very fact that you are communicating over this vast network construct that our civilization has made, means that you have agreed to some degree of power relinquishment, so don't blame me for doing the same!

Re:Strange

[jmpeax]

You call that reality? How about:

Civilization != Appointing an elite organisation to ban art because they feel it could adversely affect the masses

This isn't about abandoning civilization. This is about making civilization not take powers away from us it doesn't need to.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite a ban. I'm sure they could sell it privately. Or give it away.

And you can import it (privately)

Why do I try to justify this shit?

Re:Strange

[Opportunist]

There is only one person who should be granted the permission to "filter" information: Me. And only for one person: Me.

The same applies to you and everyone else. You, and only you, should be the person deciding what information is "good" for you and which is not.

Re:Strange

[Opportunist]

Civilization crumbles and dies because someone can play a crappy game? Whoa, Nelly, I guess Jack is right!

We're talking about a game here, ok? Not that someone wants to own a nuclear warhead and insists in sleeping on the trigger. Care to explain how limitation of access to information harms civilisation?

Re:Strange

[Opportunist]

Rats, that happens when you construct two sentences at once. Let me rephrase that last sentence:

Care to explain how the limitation of access to information stabilizes civilisation? How does allowing this information (i.e. a bloody game) to get into the hands of adults bring civilisation to its knees? By "suggesting" something like this should be done? If people really feel like what's being done in the game is the right thing to do, "civilisation" has far, far worse problems.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, nice strawman. I especially like the part where you talk about physical safety and economic fairness, but conveniently leave out the part where you give up the right to think for yourself. The only 'power' that free men give up is the power to violate the rights of others.

The really sad thing is that you are smart enough to equate government with bondage, but too stupid to realize that civilization is another thing entirely. Oh well, what should we expect from someone who is happy to have his government tell him what is not okay to think or say?

Re:Strange

[7Prime]

Heh, well, you're right on one account, there are FAR worse problems, and in the grand scheme, this amounts to little or nothing. But blatent violence as shock value is just another form of social control, as it triggers our deeply seeded animal-like fascination with death and dominance, basically it attempts to undo everything that civilization stands for. Sure, one game isn't going to singlehandedly cause the distruction of the human race as we know it, but shouldn't we actively be trying to reject forms of entertainment that attempt to use our negative attributes in order to sell us things?

The fact is, this is all about making money, if you think it's about free-speech or some kind of altruism, then you're deluding yourselves. Rockstar is a company, just like any other, but they're using shock value in order to make a profit. That, in itself, to me, is reason enough not to buy it. To ban it? Maybe not, but to do everything possible to inform people that they shouldn't give in to Rockstar's trap, I'm all for.

Re:Strange

[KDR_11k]

But which does it need to take? Censorship like this isn't there because the govt wants more control, the govt really doesn't care how violent your videogames are (they might care about things that oppose them politically but they haven't banned the Sun yet so that's not happening). This censorship came because the PEOPLE wanted it to be. In a democracy the only real way to determine what laws should exist is to look at what the people want and in this case the people want censorship. YOU may not want censorship but apparently you're in the minority.

Re:Strange

[KDR_11k]

Well, there's a reason this government system is called a democracy (okay, the UK has a figurehead monarch as well but same effect), not freedomization or whatever. Democracy means laws are passed as the people see a need for them and the people saw a need for restricting overly disgusting media. If the people wanted total freedom they'd have total freedom but they don't want it so they don't get it. Is there a greater freedom than the freedom to decide how your society should work?

Re:Strange

[Opportunist]

I'm quite aware that Rockstar uses shock as a selling point. Their games ain't much more than shock and awe. They ain't the first to use a shocking concept as a way to publish their content, and I'm fairly sure they won't be the last ones. If it's a consolation for you, I don't have any of their games.

The point is, though, that it's still about freedom of speech. It's like with the Playboy (or was it Hustler?), I don't care about their opinion, but I want them to be able to voice it. Yes, even if it's not about opinion but about money.

If an adult is not set well enough in his moral makeup that a game can turn him from a civilized being into a savage, again, society has far worse problems at its hands.

Re:Strange

[jmpeax]

I think at one time, people may well have wanted censorship based on religious beliefs, for example. However, you ask people now whether they're OK with being told what entertainment they can and cannot enjoy, in any context, and they won't be OK with it.

Re:Strange

[KDR_11k]

I think that depends on how you word it because that changes what they think you're going to forbid. "Are you okay with your access to media being restricted?" would give a much more negative response than "Do you think games about brutally murdering people should be sold in stores?".

Re:Strange

[jmpeax]

[...] more negative response than "Do you think games about brutally murdering people should be sold in stores?" Really? Even if you reminded them about films like Saw, and if you also made it clear that an organisation would have access to these things and be judging them to be "too violent" or "too callous" for them to handle? I think people would react quite negatively to that. For all the things that people blame on bad influences like video games, they never see themselves as being able to succumb to such "influences". The idea of some committee having jurisdiction over deciding what's best for adults is ludicrous. And it's not because I reject the idea of government having to impose some restrictions on the public, but more because I think that if any entertainment is harmless enough for a committee of middle-aged, middle-class (i.e. the largest demographic in the UK) censors to watch/play, then deeming it dangerous for the rest of society is not only absurd, but wildly patronising.

I can't believe that there is a small group of people somewhere deciding what content I can and can't handle. And even worse, people defend them! It makes me so angry.

Unacceptable!

[BoChen456]

I'm pretty sure BBCF is the one that decides whether manhunt is 'Acceptable' for a rating.

Re:Unacceptable!

[Opportunist]

Says who?

I'm dead serious and not trying to be provocative, but honestly: Who died and made them king, and me a peasant, needing them to dictate what's "good" and "acceptable" for me?

Re:Unacceptable!

[nbannerman]

If the industry didn't do it, the Government would've done... the industry chose to do it's own dirty work.

Re:Unacceptable!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, this one is down to the govenment, remember, this is the UK not the US.

Re:Unacceptable!

[iainl]

George VI died and made Elizabeth II Queen. The BBFC is a part of the British State. It's also a far, far superior organisation than the "violence fine, as long as it's from a major studio" MPAA.

Re:Unacceptable!

[KDR_11k]

England has a royal family, I guess you could look their ancestors up and decide who you deem dead enough for your purposes. That aside, obviously the government that was voted into power by the people. Which was probably driven by the religious morals hamemred into them by the church. So in closing, Jesus died and made them king.

Re:Unacceptable!

[Opportunist]

What a sad day for religion. Until now, we assumed Jesus died for our sins. Now we know that he died so we won't get to see sins.

seriously

[lucky130]

All this talk about how graphic it is makes me want to play it all the more.

what the hell?

[Pojut]

Wait wait wait...they are saying it is still unsuitable for an 18 rating...that implies that THEY are deeming it "unfit" for anyone, up to and including adults of consenting and legal age.

Who the fuck are YOU to tell ME what is innapropriate in terms of SIMULATED violence?

Realize that some people actually enjoy simulated violence and that you are not their mother. Fucking hell.

Re:what the hell?

[GuyverDH]

Why is this flamebait? It's a true feeling expression of someone's outrage that someone else believes they know better than they do as to what is and isn't appropriate for them....

It's just like claiming someone is a terrorist just because they happen to have a recipe for something akin to napalm, or a fuel-air explosive....

Re:what the hell?

[Opportunist]

Even if they were my mom. I'm past the age of "legality" for anything there is. I can take a mortgage and ruin my life, I can sign contracts to pyramide schemes, I can join our army and let some idiot punch a hole into my head, I can return the favor and turn him into a fine, red mist, I can sign with pharma corps and let them use my body in any kind of testing, in short, I am legally permitted to destroy my life in any way I deem fit, but I can't play a game?

WTF?

Re:what the hell?

[LightPhoenix7]

I don't know if the rating system works in the UK like the ESRB system here in the US. If it does, then Rockstar's problem isn't that it's not getting the rating, but that retailers won't carry the game if it doesn't. Obviously that undercuts the profit of the game, so Rockstar makes no money and thus no games.

So, (again, assuming the system is similar between countries) no one is telling you what is inappropriate. However if retailers don't carry the game, you can't buy the game in a brick and mortar store. Of course they could sell it online, but again, that severely undercuts their profit margin. That's the reason Rockstar is fighting this in the first place, instead of simply not releasing the game in the UK.

Re:what the hell?

[StikyPad]

Because the game teaches you how to effectively become a mass murderer. Duh! Just drive into any garage to change your paint (unless you're in a taxi or LEV) and you can get away with anything.

But seriously, the idea that teaching people how to be effective killers is somehow equivalent to creating a mass murderer is absurd. True, there was the ex-Marine clocktower killer, but the overwhelming majority of the military do not go on killing sprees. Hell, most rifle hunters are effective killers, but likewise, I haven't heard of any statistically significant correlation between hunting and serial/spree killers.

Moreover, any determined individual can and likely will gain access to the tools and information necessary to perpetrate his crime. If strict gun regulations don't prevent criminals from obtaining firearms in the UK, how is a ban supposed to prevent access to a game? Clearly it doesn't; it only prevents people with a casual interest from obtaining it (to a very limited extent) -- the very people I'd argue are least likely to act out their violent fantasies.

Finally, there's a strong argument to be made that videogame violence can have a cathartic effect, much the same way it's been demonstrated that profanity is an effective, but largely innocuous, release of anger and frustration. Had a bad day? Fire up GTA and create some mayhem. Spent the ride home stuck in agonizingly slow traffic? Nothing quite like a virtual rocket launcher to deal with those pesky turtles in front of you. We are emotional beings, and while most of us balance our emotions with reason (with varying levels of success), everyone gets angry, everyone gets frustrated, and dealing with those emotions in a non-destructive manner is an important part of creating a functional society. Other forms of entertainment clearly serve that purpose (my life could be that good/thank God my life isn't that bad/my life is like that and it's funny), and we should embrace any tool which further helps to evoke the same effects.

Re:what the hell?

[Bios_Hakr]

In the US, you can't legally use drugs. You also can't drive without a seatbelt. If you knowingly partake in a pyramid scheme, you can be held criminally liable. If you violate the "laws of war" you can and will be prosecuted for murder.

You most certainly do not have the right to destroy your life in any way you see fit.

However, in this case, the solution is simple: digital distribution.

Rockstar should partner with Steam and allow the game to be downloaded with credit card verification. UK stores lose out and the publisher and customer win.

Re:what the hell?

[Dunbal]

Because the game teaches you how to effectively become a mass murderer.

      So does the army, pal.

Re:what the hell?

[Dunbal]

If you violate the "laws of war" you can and will be prosecuted for murder.

So when does the GW Bush trial begin?

1. No formal declaration of war
2. No concrete political objective to end the "war"
3. Unnecessary prolongation of the "war".
4. Classification of non-uniformed combatants as "terrorists" and claiming they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions since they are "unlawful combatants". Yet the military obviously can recognize them enough to shoot at them.

Atricle 44 of Protocol I:
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

( a ) During each military engagement, and

( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.

5. Guantanamo, with all that implies.

So, when do we ship the Bush administration to The Hague?

They are the organization put in charge of doing

[SmallFurryCreature]

They are the organization put in charge of rating games and have the backing that un-rated games may not be sold, given to them by the politicians and perhaps ultimately the voter (who either voted for the politician because he thought that was a good idea, thought something else was a good idea and didn't think this important, voted because well his dad voted for this party, didn't vote, voted for the guy that lost)

Anyway, that is who they are.

A simple google could have told you that much more clearly.

Perhaps you should have asked WHY this organisation has been created and why it has been given the powers that it has. Because england always "enjoyed" heavy regulation of what can and cannot be shown, it keeps the masses in line. Worked too, you won't find many european countries were the elite are still the elite. Regulate what the plebs can see so they don't any silly ideas, the powers that be can always get around regulations, and have, and will.

Just check the various indecency acts, then try to find a private library WITHOUT books that violate it. Classic nude art? Yesterday's playboy. Not for the common man, but those of breeding.

And to be fair, you got to admit the system works, why england is what it is today because of its rigid class system. What do you mean lapdog to the US? At least it is lapdog with a pedigree.

Tired game ideas

[ThirdPrize]

Lets face it Rockstar are the GWAR of the computer games industry. Using 'supposed' shock tactics to look a bit rebellious and hip in an attempt to sell units. GTA was good, Bully was a bit sick and this just seems a bit sad. It's like the team behind the film Scarface doing a cheap straight to DVD nasty afterwards.

My real complaint is that ever since Tekken first ripped someone's spine out and dangled it in their face, games have been trying to out gore each other . It doesn't really add much to the game and just appeals to teenage boys the same way "Dead or Alive" games do. Maybe they could do a Mike Diana game. The kids would really love that.

Re:Tired game ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

My real complaint is that ever since Tekken first ripped someone's spine out and dangled it in their face

That was Mortal Kombat, FYI.

Re:Tired game ideas

[ThirdPrize]

Cheers. My mistake.

Re:Tired game ideas

[biovoid]

...Bully was a bit sick...

Huh? At worst it was "Revenge of the Nerds", and at best it was a decent GTA-style sandbox-with-missions game set in a boarding school with much less violence and no hookers.

Hell YES!

[goldcd]

I remember when my bootleg of THRILL KILL turned up in a jiffy bag on my door step.
60 seconds later (including bootup) I realized the game was a steaming pile of shite. Nothing like censorship to wet my loins though.

How much public coverage of 'thwarted free-speech' will it take to get this game to #1? My money's on a pre-Christmas final release - nothing says "Baby Jesus Birthday Cheer" more than graphic dismemberment.

Anyone know

[Anonymous Coward]

How we can put forward official complaints about the BBFC? The goverment petitions are worthless as I've yet to see one possitively responded to or acted upon. Who oversees the BBFC? It seems like their powers are what require regulation if anything.

Just release it under the GPL!

[Doug52392]

Relase it as a GPL'd downlaod for Windows and Linux! The power of free and open-source software is the only way we can fight back against the censorship! Thats what I said since this issue began. That'll teach those "I don't liek this, so I'll go to Washington and force everyone else to think the same" political people!

Rockstar

[westlake]

Selling Crap through Controversy.

Rockstar defines "adult content" as the psycho killing spree which is Manhunt 2. Torture porn as video game entertainment. While the intense, visually splendid, and morally ambiguous Bioshock - an adult game by any reasonable definition - is released to rave reviews and sells 1.5 million copies with scarcely a hint of moral outrage from anyone.

Money

[mqduck]

I realize that Rockstar has to worry about actually selling copies, but the libertine gamer in me wants Rockstar to love their appeal, say "fuck it" and release the game via download or whatever, with all the censorship removed. They should add in the hot coffee minigame for good measure.

Re:Money

[Petrushka]

According to Wikipedia it was the Vienna branch of Rockstar that developed it (or at least started the development). Not in the UK, but within the EU. I imagine Rockstar could get into all kinds of trouble for doing what you suggest. (Pity.)

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, why not go all the way and have a minigame where you strap a Jack Thompson-a-like to a chair, drill a hole in his forehead and squick him - with the aim to finish before he expires from blood loss...

I mean if you're going to try to offend and pi55 off a censorship board who get to decide whether you can sell any of your products then you may as well go all out and _really_ offend the bas^H^H^H Lovely People

Re:Money

[mqduck]

Hell, why not go all the way and have a minigame where you strap a Jack Thompson-a-like to a chair, drill a hole in his forehead and squick him Something tells me I don't want to know what "squick" means. Anyway, as far as I know, no one owns the right to that concept, so you should make the game yourself. Send me a link when it's done.

BBFC? BBC? Big (Fat) Daddy Brown is watching you?

[Smid]

Its all part and parcel of the culture of denial at large in Britain at the moment. Its aim to have a Calvinist state where our purity will save us...

BBFC denies adults things because we can't be trusted. We must be children.

The salt has been removed from our food because we can't be trusted to measure it for ourselves. The BBC news seems obsessed about smoking, salt and childhood obesity.

Brown tells us all the problems of britain are all our fault. Its too much salt. Too much video game violence. We should just live on fresh air and think clean thoughts.

And of course, this does nothing to stop the rise of violence and drug addiction in the UK.

Of course not, we're not thinking pure enough thoughts to stop it...

I bloody well hope they don't do it to GTA IV. I'd hate to _have_ to pirate a video game.