Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rockstar Fights Back Against BBFC

Posted by Zonk on from the with-angry-words-words-that-hurt dept.

Rockstar has launched its appeal against Manhunt 2's rating rejection in the UK. At the first hearing on the matter, Rockstar representative Geoffrey Robertson took the British Board of Film Classification to task: "Robertson went on to accuse the BBFC of being 'simply ignorant of the gaming experience' and 'throwing adjectives with hyperbolic abandon at the game ... Their reputation is not at stake; if it were we could show how, over the last century, they've been derided for some of the most stupid decisions in censorship history ... But we're not going to go down that road.'"

47 comments

  1. Re:FIST SPORT! by jasen666 · · Score: 0, Troll

    And meanwhile, by churning out the same scrotum-popping torture porn that they've been accused of....

    fap...fap...fapfapfapfapfapfap

    Is it really Rockstar's fault that there are a ton of people who want to buy scrotum-popping torture porn? If no one bought it, they wouldn't make it.

  2. "Their reputation is not at stake" by JamesRose · · Score: 0, Troll

    Smooth, frankly, after rockstar got caught lying to the ratings boards with GTA:VC, they should at the very least be treated very harshly. PLUS who, after rockstar's recent history of incompetence, would start going round attacking the reputation of others? This smacks of the whole childish nature of the company.

    1. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      When people want something done, they do what it takes to get it done. Well, productive people anyways.

      If this is something Rockstar can leverage, then why not? I mean if they want something done, and this isn't a lie, then why not take advantage of it?

      Suppose you wanted something, lets say a pair of shoes. Now the question is, do you Steal them, buy them at a discount center or on sale somewhere, - buy cheap knockoffs shoes made by child slave labor in some foreign country that your sure you never heard of or at least cannot pronounce the name correctly if you have, or get gouged at retail prices? I'll tell your which option you will take, what ever option gets you a pair of shoes. I can come back and make fun of you for any of those options but the bottom line is that you got what you wanted. Rockstar is attempting to do the same.

    2. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by FaithC · · Score: 1

      So, how, exactly, did they lie to the ratings board about GTA Vice City? the Hot Coffee mod? it wouldn't have been a mod, if they were allowed the first amendment freedom to publish the game as it was written. When will you self-righteous pious hypocrites quit dictating your moral values to the rest of the world? I understand if they want to slap an adults-only label on the title... but what I do with MY video game console in MY home is really none of ANYONES business but my own. These same pious hypocrites will starve you, enslave you, and steal from you, all while they protect your morality.... PLEASE SOMEONE GIVE THESE FOLKS A CLUE!

    3. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by JamesRose · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that i thought the rating was right, I didn't say whether or not censorship is right (as it is, I personally beleive as long as the user is forewarned about the content, anything should be publishable) I was merely saying, rockstar's behaviour within what is the current framework of ratings, not only seems to be a situation of pot calling the kettle black, but that it was doing this in a way to annoy the people who's approval they need. I mean, there's no reason rockstar should've made a comment to the press about this at all.

    4. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by Sigma+7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Smooth, frankly, after rockstar got caught lying to the ratings boards with GTA:VC, Citation needed. In particular, there's no way you can reach the hidden content without attempting to mod the game - and furthermore, the rating change was from 17+ to 18+ (one year.) Just remember that the ESRB at the time did not factor game modifications into account even if it was a minor 1 byte change in a file that's not easily modified.

      Oblivion was also re-rated by the ESRB as well, with the 'T'een rating changed to 'M'ature. The developer's response claimed that they already advised the ESRB on the violent content (although they disagree that red pixels and "inaccessible" content should bump a rating from 'T' to 'M'.)
    5. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by moranar · · Score: 1

      The "Hot Coffee" mod was for GTA San Andreas, not Vice City.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    6. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by FaithC · · Score: 1

      Doh. oops... but still, how exactly did they lie? I would love to know how they should be punished for lying to these agencies. I would also like to know when the British decided that democracy in their country didn't include freedom of expression. I know their system is different than that of say, the US or even that of the other Commonwealth Countries, but still, I had though that freedom of expression was a basic tenant of democracy... and how is it that if I want to buy pornography in the UK, it is perfectly legal, but if its in a video game, its a problem?

    7. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Smooth, frankly, after rockstar got caught lying to the ratings boards with GTA:VC, they should at the very least be treated very harshly.

      I'm sorry? What are you referring to? The only thing I'm aware of is the scandal around "Hot Coffee" for GTA:SA. And although the content was technically "on the disk", it wasn't accessible in any form without downloading and installing a mod. Functionally not any different than not including it at all.

      PLUS who, after rockstar's recent history of incompetence, would start going round attacking the reputation of others? This smacks of the whole childish nature of the company.

      "History of incompetence"? Meaning what - producing fun, interactive games that people like? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

      Rockstar produces great games that are fun to play. If you call their stuff "porn" then you really need to get acquainted with Google's "SafeSearch" feature...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    8. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is your point?

    9. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by JamesRose · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, becuase it being released in SA rather than VC completely negates my arguement [/sarcasm], and "it wasn't accessible" if it was on the disk and distributed it should have been shown to the ratings board like everything else. And the history of incompetence is the release (over p2p, pirating etc.) of manhunt 2 unmodified. Then the closure of one of their offices and jsut trying to pretend the office never existed etc. Then of course the fact they mis-judged how the BBFC would act in the first place. So yeah, there are screw ups.

    10. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The point is, no matter how you see them or their image, it doesn't matter as long as they didn't break a law. They set out to do something and are in the process of doing it. No matter what it takes. And it doesn't matter what you think, as long as they don't break a law.

    11. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's most likely a simple mistake by a single person that left the content on disc but inaccessible. You're saying it was deliberately put in there to piss off the ratings boards, which is complete nonsense. Rockstar has made some mistakes... well, Take2 has anyway, but the BBFC is horribly incompetent and have too much power.

      GP is right, Rockstar has a history of making great games with a wide appeal. What in the world could possibly make BBFC -- a non-creative censorship board -- more worthy of respect?

    12. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      buy cheap knockoffs shoes made by child slave labor in some foreign country that your sure you never heard of or at least cannot pronounce the name correctly if you have, or get gouged at retail prices?

      The name brand is probably made by child slave labor in the same country, so what's your point? That we can all make "fun of you" for not realizing this?

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    13. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Your the second "what's your point" reply I have got. Evidently I didn't word my post clear enough.

      The point is, that it doesn't really matter who has legitimacy, you are attempting to do something and as long as you don't break the law when getting it done, you have accomplished your objective. Similarly, Rockstar's blasting the ratings things is only an attempt to some end that they want to accomplish. Any objection to their methods to achieving a goal, unless something is illegal (or should be) is somewhat pointless because they are doing the same thing anyone else would do. They are attempting to achieve a goal and using the available avenues to do it.

      And this was a response to PLUS who, after rockstar's recent history of incompetence, would start going round attacking the reputation of others? This smacks of the whole childish nature of the company. It could be anything anyone wants to call it but it is nothing more then working to achieve a goal that they set out to achieve. In the parent's case, childish seems to describe an attempt to persuade other people's opinion based from past experiences to get their way. Hardly something a child would be able to pull off. More likely something an ex-girlfriend or wife would do.

    14. Re:"Their reputation is not at stake" by moranar · · Score: 1

      If you agree that the mod was a lie, it was a lie because the content was included in the game and Rockstar didn't say so to the ratings boards. On the other hand, the content wasn't easily available at all, so that's why they might have thought it wasn't necessary to warn of it.

      The reason this doesn't fall under "Freedom of expression" is that the porn wasn't explicited. Porn movies and mags don't conceal their content from rating boards or censors. Indeed, with titles such as "romantic rectal reamings 4" there's not much to conceal, I guess. If a videogame was about porn, said so, and didn't hide that fact, it would be perfectly legal to sell it to adults. The problem then would be to find a publisher (I believe Nintendo and Sony refuse to allow AO titles on their consoles). Still, there are erotic videogames, mainly for the PC. Freedom of expression don't enter into this.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
  3. Sour grapes by ddrichardson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From TFA:

    Rockstar today launched its appeal against the BBFC's decision to refuse Manhunt 2 certification, accusing the board of putting its reputation above the interests of gamers.

    I should hope that the BBFC puts its reputation above that of gamers, movie goes or anyone else for that matter.

    The article talks of the BBFC's use of hyperbole but if you read their press release, they say:

    Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.

    None of this to me suggests that the BBFC is out of touch with games. In fact I'd accuse Mr Robertson of hyperbole suggesting the BBFC is the British Board of Videogame Censors as a quick search of their records shows that Manhunt 2 is the only game currently listed as rejected.

    --
    A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
    1. Re:Sour grapes by Xest · · Score: 1

      "In fact I'd accuse Mr Robertson of hyperbole suggesting the BBFC is the British Board of Videogame Censors as a quick search of their records [bbfc.org.uk] shows that Manhunt 2 is the only game currently listed as rejected."

      Isn't that the point? Manhunt 2 whilst being a crappy game is certainly no more violent than various other films and not really worse than some other games out there.

      The BBFC has banned Manhunt 2 because to this day the media is still blaming Manhunt for the death of Stephen Pakeerah despite the copy of the game involved in the murder investigation being owned by Stephen himself as stated by the police. Unfortunately, the general media such as the BBC aren't willing to correct their misreporting partly because if they can save face they will and partly because they make money reporting about the evils of video games as it pulls the readers/viewers in.

      The real problem is that the BBFC has absolutely no balls in dealing with the issue, they need to stand up and accept that the game is perfectly acceptable in a mature society and should anyone criticise a decision to allow it through they should also have the balls to put forward the police report regarding the fact that Manhunt was absolutely in no way to blame for the murder of Stephen Pakeerah.

      It's not a decision about fair ratings, the decision to ban Manhunt 2 in the UK is political, period.

    2. Re:Sour grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, compare that with Gears of War in which you can chainsaw someone, view shiney internal organs, stomp on head, and just good old fashion shoot them in the head so you can see brain material (a brain cleaved in half really). But THAT's nothing. I remember good old Rise of the Triad. Man, trampolines and trenchcoats never seemed like such fun. When you put the extra gibbs code on and blew someone up you wouldn't be surprised to see 1-3 feet, arms, and or eyeballs flying at you or sliding down walls with copious amounts of blood. You want to indict society fine. Lots of entertainment, world wide, says it's ok to kill, often with little provocation (so long as one at least personally has secret knowledge indicating the killee deserved it). That with a little delusion, stunted social skills, poor impulse control or narcissism probably leads to more than a few killings. However, it's not like anyone is banning pulp novels. Maybe leave Manhunt 2 and other video games alone and just ban the ginsue attachment for the wiimote. I could also bring up Assassin's Creed, which can be pretty visceral itself. Although when you murder poor women and retards, you are punished, at least until you beat the game; then it's ok.

      People like the BBFC are wrong. They've ALWAYS been wrong. Once upon a time waltzing was immoral, as was rock, soul, various forms of forbidden dancing, comic books, classic works of literature, movies, rap et al. But fortunately some good minister came along and invented grahmn crackers to prevent us from masterbaiting.

      At the end of the day, we're a very violent species learning to be much less violent than we were in the past, largely thanks to the wealth and widely available cheap high quality food we've collectively been able to produce. To the extent that we wish to imaging this was different and instead suppose that the media we produce is the source of this bloodlust as opposed to a means of quenching it is more than a little irrational.

  4. Curious... by wattrlz · · Score: 1

    If the game is not harmful to gamers then how will letting it through harm the reputation of the BBFC? Isn't their job to keep the populace from seeing harmful things?

    1. Re:Curious... by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      This kind of thinking truly makes no sense to me. Some people don't want to see it, so they just make it illegal for anyone to see it? How does that make any sense?

    2. Re:Curious... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Some material is judged to be dangerous, especially material that serves to incite hate or violence. I suppose Manhunt was above that threshold. At that point it becomes "protecting the wellbeing of society".

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...do you really buy into that garbage? If you do, you're a docile sheep that deserves the inevitable slaughter.

    4. Re:Curious... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that a book can never incite violence or hatred, no matter what was said?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:Curious... by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      We're saying that if people are incited, it's their problem. The government can't just censor everything that could incite violence.

  5. BFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey now, leave my BFF Jill out of this

  6. Re:FIST SPORT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iraq is only a disaster because we haven't slaughtered enough of them! And you have issues with scrotum-popping torture porn ?? Your sig says otherwise.
  7. Classification by Carrot007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the BBFC ought to be doing is Classification.

    As such everything should come under one of their classifications, even if that is R18.

    They are not about censorship, that should fall down to one of two places. a. the content owner self censoring in order to gain a certain certification or, b. the government, for not allowing illegal things.

    Other that that please certify things and leave it up to the consumer.

    --
    +----------------- | What is the question!
    1. Re:Classification by ddrichardson · · Score: 1

      Fair enough but how do you propose to deal with something such as this where the objection is the fundamental premise of the game? It's not like Rockstar can cut the offending part.

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
    2. Re:Classification by Fluffy+the+attack+ki · · Score: 1

      By giving it a R18/"Adults Only" rating. Say "It's horrible and we hate everything it stands for," and then give it the most restrictive rating possible. What is so hard about that? I mean why even HAVE that rating if you aren't going to use it?

  8. Manhunt 3 by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

    Just imagine the next one they release in a couple of years time (ha, i know). Hi def graphics with photo realistic body and face textures. Nintendo will have released their WiiAxe and WiiCleaver by then and you will be able to watch the blood spray from a victims jugular using the most realistic fluid modelling physics engine money can buy. It will be indistinguishable from real murder except no one really dies. or do they?

    --
    I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    1. Re:Manhunt 3 by Von+Helmet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meanwhile, the grown ups will be playing the follow up to Mario Galaxy.

    2. Re:Manhunt 3 by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

      is it still fun when you can hear the begging and screaming in 5.1?

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
  9. Nanny State at Work by Krinsath · · Score: 1

    Rockstar today launched its appeal against the BBFC's decision to refuse Manhunt 2 certification It is this sort of thing that annoys me; that the the BBFC refuses to grant it any classification and on those grounds I agree with Rockstar. Now, please hold while I wash that taste out of my mouth.

    Moving on, while I feel that most of Rockstar's titles are over-hyped "shock" titles they are certainly able to be classified. While I personally enjoyed the GTA series, I would not want it in the hands of my children (were I to have any I was responsible for) unless I knew they could handle it BUT that would be MY decision as the child's parent/caregiver to make and not the government's. The end of the government's involvement should be to make available the information for me to make an informed choice that aligns with my personal beliefs, not to tell me what those beliefs are in the first place. I realize this is England where their ideas of personal freedom and the US's don't always line up. I also realize that the US is turning into more a Nanny State as well, but the fact remains.

    Back on the immediate point, I really don't like this particular title for a variety of reasons, but to claim that something is "unclassifiable" says they've stepped over the line from classification to censorship, and that SHOULD be brought to people's attention in a free society. They are "classifiers," not "censors." Do your job and classify it. It's Adult Only (or the English equivalent anyway) and call it a day.
    1. Re:Nanny State at Work by ddrichardson · · Score: 1

      I can't believe I'm saying this, as I hate the whole nanny state thing, having worked in video game stores though - the vast majority of parents have no idea about a games content even if it is rated 18. I quite agree that it should be my decision as a parent but in a situation where many parents don't vet the games they are playing, your decision to prevent your child playing it is irrelevant when they visit their friends whose parents never bothered to check and bought it anyway.

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
    2. Re:Nanny State at Work by Krinsath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And short of requiring licenses to pro-create, there's not much you can really do to stop parents who don't pay attention. However, these parents have been a constant since before technology and video games were even thought, so clearly society hasn't found a way to fix that particular problem in the past few centuries.

      I agree with your point that many parents are oblivious, and that even one such parent can destroy the diligence of an entire neighborhood's worth of them, however it does go back to staying involved with your child's life and teaching them right from wrong (and wrong is not "when you get caught" like many people seem to think). As a personal example, my mother forbade me from playing Mortal Kombat as a child...but I played it anyway at friend's houses. Did it make me a violent criminal? Not until they find the bodies! Kidding. However, I know exactly of whence you speak but in the grand-scheme it would have been more productive for my mother to go over WHY she didn't want us playing it (*cough*mediahype*cough*) instead of simply saying no. Still, she had taught us that violence against other humans is wrong, and for some reason neither I nor my brothers grew up to take part in fighting or mass murder rings. Still, going over the reasoning of "why not" places proper context on the title, as well as giving the child a chance to demonstrate if they're ready for such a thing through debate and discussion.

      All in all however, one simply cannot shelter children indefinitely, and there's a strong case that you shouldn't do that since they will hopefully at some point stop being children. One day, they must grow up and become their own person, and all the "bad" things they're exposed to will have just as much meaning as the "good". As long as the parent has been conscientious about making sure their child understands the context of everything, I don't think there's any more that can be done. Will every child be able to cope with all these things at once? Odds are no, but children have this funny way of meeting the expectations that people have of them (for good or ill).

      Once again I'm drifting from the main topic, but the national government's role is not to meddle in family (or neighborhood) affairs. If another parent makes different choices than I do, that's their right. It's not the government's place to say "No, nobody can have any sort of access to this material because we said so", which is effectively what the BBFC has taken upon itself to do.

    3. Re:Nanny State at Work by rtechie · · Score: 1

      the vast majority of parents have no idea about a games content even if it is rated 18. Nothing can help kids whose parents don't give a shit about them. Those aren't the people that complain about violent video games.

      The people who complain about violent video games want the games banned for EVERYONE. They are usually the same people that want to ban rap music, pornography, Harry Potter and Dungeons and Dragons. These people believe that "violent" or "sexual" media is fundamentally bad and they want it banned. "For the children" is just an excuse.

  10. Game Over by westlake · · Score: 1
    Manhunt 2 was nothing but a chance to cash in on the fleeting success of exploitation flicks like Saw and Hostel.

    The PR machine - in overdrive as usual - touted how the game used the Wii controller to immerse the player in his role as the psycho killer.
    The censors only had to stand by and watch as Rockstar dug its own grave.

  11. Why by DeeQ · · Score: 1

    Why do they give rockstar so much free publicity?

    1. Re:Why by erdraug · · Score: 1

      My thought exactly :)

  12. Re:FIST SPORT! by jasen666 · · Score: 1

    How the bloody fuck is this a troll? It's a valid statement, idiot mod.
    If no one wanted their product, they wouldn't make it.

  13. It ain't been free to Take-Two by westlake · · Score: 1
    Why do they give rockstar so much free publicity?

    Take-Two has been in and out of financial trouble. Having products banned from release or pulled off the shelves is not the kind of publicity that keeps you in business.

  14. Rockstar fights back by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Really? Which one?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  15. Re:FIST SPORT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Is it really Rockstar's fault that there are a ton of people who want to buy scrotum-popping torture porn? If no one bought it, they wouldn't make it." ...Or is it the other way around? Supply and demand, baby. Is it that people really want a game in which they can carve people's faces off with a piece of broken glass, so Rockstar designs it...or is it that they design the game first, and use the game's gratuitous violence to generate controversy, which generates word of mouth, which generates mondo sales? It's a chicken-and-egg problem, but I'd bet money that Rockstar is the start of it all.