What Would Make Manhunt 2 Acceptable To BBFC?

MTV's Multiplayer Blog wonders aloud what would make Manhunt 2 acceptable to the BBFC. The BBFC rejected the game for a second time a few days ago, and now MCV is reporting that the version they rejected was identical to the US version approved for an 'M' rating by the ESRB. From the BBFC's response: "Unfortunately I cannot list the changes we suggested as this is a matter between us and the distributor and if they are not happy to give you chapter and verse I'm afraid I can't either. I can say, however, that the changes were to the level of visual detail in the kills and to some of the dialogue. As our news release said, 'The impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the gameplay, is clearly insufficient. There has been a reduction in the visual detail in some of the 'execution kills', but in others they retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature.'"

Comments

What?

[stonecypher]

The idea that a regulatory or inspectory agency should be unable to cite reasons for its decision is essentially the exposition that it has no rules. I'm an American video game developer, and whereas I write kids' games and have dodged this bullet, I can say for certain that the ESRB is full of crap and has no idea what it's doing. It sounds, however, like Europe is winning the war in arbitrary judgements based on personal beliefs and associations with retailers.

This is absurd, and the BBFC should be replaced with an agency willing to set their rules out in black and white.

Re:What?

[meringuoid]

Their decision basically boils down to "we don't like it, so it's banned."

In fairness to the BBFC, this is the second game they've ever banned. The only other case was Carmageddon.

Remember how America had such a fuss over San Andreas? Because with only the violence it was rated for 17+, while with the sex scene it had to be rated 18+, and this was a major issue? Well, here it was rated 18 with the violence (the next rating down is 15) and with the sex it was, er... 18. No problems at all.

Re:What?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Uh, the BBFC cited the reasons for the decision. They do it with every decision they make, in fact, and just because the reasons haven't been clearly outlined in news stories on Gamespot and Slashdot that doesn't mean that they weren't clearly outlined to Rockstar.

Have a look at what's on the BBFC's website and you'll see that they don't operate in secrecy, so your reaction seems a little harsh to me.

I don't care...

[meringuoid]

... I'm going to order it from Holland.

It's 2007. International borders mean little, information is weightless. Organisations like the BBFC are only going to become less and less relevant as time goes by.

Re:Title Change

[ozbon]

Whereas by comparison, the UK has plenty of open-ness with nudity, semi-nudity etc., but in the US the sight of one breast at the Superbowl leads to a whole new age of broadcast puritanism...

Personally, I'd far rather that a game (or film) with a (and I'm quoting) "visceral and casually sadistic nature" was censored or limited than something containing semi-nudity. I'm not even referring to porn per se, but just nudity and profanity in a TV programme. Much as it's utter shite, the current "Secrets of a Call Girl", based on that blog by Belle du Jour, is fairly open about the entire sexuality thing.

I figure I'd rather be in a nation that's desensitised to the appearance of a normal human body sans clothing than to one that's desensitised to guns and violence. But that's just my own personal viewpoint.