Edited version of Manhunt 2 knocked back by the BBFC

[Mr. DNA]

The British Board of Film Classification have once again decided not to permit Manhunt 2 to be allowed to go on sale in the UK. By refusing the game -which hits US store shelves on October 31st- a classification, it has been effectively banned from sale in the UK.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6180554.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0

I've made my views clear on this one in the past, and the hypocrisy charge with regards to the BBFC permitting ultra-violent movies but not games, is once again the most puzzling aspect of this scenario. For the BBFC to maintain any credibility, it must show how it is right to have one rule for movies and another for games.

[Crazy Jamie]

This is an odd decision by the BBFC. After it was knocked down to an M rating in the US, I would have thought that they'd allow it with an 18 rating.

[Mr. DNA]

This is an odd decision by the BBFC. After it was knocked down to an M rating in the US, I would have thought that they'd allow it with an 18 rating.

Of course, I haven't played the game and so I am unfit to comment on the nature of the it's graphic content, but I cannot believe how it could be any worse than the stuff that we've seen in recent gore-fests, such as the Saw series. I can't help but wonder whether it is the fact that it is a video game that is producing these images, as opposed to a more traditional and respected medium, such as film, which is responsible for the product being banned. If the scenes in the game were to be reproduced in a $100m directed by Quentin Tarantino, for instance, would the BBFC be so quick to ban it? I cant see it.

Edit: Please give us mortals an editing option!

[Crazy Jamie]

The idea behind censorship with computer games has always been that they should be slightly harsher than with movies because computer games are actually interactive. In other words, you're not just watching a guy get his head cut off with a carrot, you actually made it happen. Then again, due to using real actors and not masses of pixels movies always look far more realistic and sickening than games anyway. So in effect those differences are balanced out.

[Mr. DNA]

The idea behind censorship with computer games has always been that they should be slightly harsher than with movies because computer games are actually interactive. In other words, you're not just watching a guy get his head cut off with a carrot, you actually made it happen. Then again, due to using real actors and not masses of pixels movies always look far more realistic and sickening than games anyway. So in effect those differences are balanced out.

I can understand that argument, but there is a distinct lack of hard evidence in support of the theory. If all it is is idle speculation, then it cannot justifiably be used to curtail our civil liberties. I wasn't a big fan of the original, but I had been for some reason pretty excited about the sequel before the whole furore began. The fact that a British institution has denied grown adults the right to play the game based on unsubstantiated hearsay is appalling.

[Crazy Jamie]

I don't think that there necessarily needs to be any evidence to hand in order to apply relatively harsher censorship to games based on interaction. I think that it is a logical step. But as I said, I think that that is at least balanced out by the fact that gore in movies looks a lot more real anyway. If anything I would agree that movie gore is worse because of how real it looks and how terrifying it can be despite the lack of interaction. I'm just stating the principle behind such censorship- of course I agree that the principle is being applied in a wholly disproportionate manner.

[Mr. DNA]

I don't think that there necessarily needs to be any evidence to hand in order to apply relatively harsher censorship to games based on interaction. I think that it is a logical step. But as I said, I think that that is at least balanced out by the fact that gore in movies looks a lot more real anyway. If anything I would agree that movie gore is worse because of how real it looks and how terrifying it can be despite the lack of interaction. I'm just stating the principle behind such censorship- of course I agree that the principle is being applied in a wholly disproportionate manner.

I know that you agree that the ban is a bit draconian, and that you're playing devils' advocate to some extent. I just find it hard to accept that the artistic vision of a very talented group of individuals is being suppressed, the decision backed up primarily by nothing more than unsubstantiated and inferred evidence. It might well be the case that actually controlling the myriad of decapitations and sadistic executions found in the likes of Manhunt are more damaging to children if they are allowed to play them, but then again it might not be. There's no evidence either way. Kids shouldn't be playing the game anyway, and so the BBFC are in effect saying that individuals over the age of 18 cannot be trusted to play Manhunt because it might persuade them to partake in violent activities. What patronising buffoonery! I think we adults are savvy enough, and should be given a least a bit of respect with regards to our knowing the difference between "holding down triangle until the icon turns red" and ramming an ice-pick upside some poor sod's jugular. Ooooh, it makes me cross.

[Crazy Jamie]

I know that you agree that the ban is a bit draconian, and that you're playing devils' advocate to some extent. I just find it hard to accept that the artistic vision of a very talented group of individuals is being suppressed, the decision backed up primarily by nothing more than unsubstantiated and inferred evidence. It might well be the case that actually controlling the myriad of decapitations and sadistic executions found in the likes of Manhunt are more damaging to children if they are allowed to play them, but then again it might not be. There's no evidence either way. Kids shouldn't be playing the game anyway, and so the BBFC are in effect saying that individuals over the age of 18 cannot be trusted to play Manhunt because it might persuade them to partake in violent activities. What patronising buffoonery! I think we adults are savvy enough, and should be given a least a bit of respect with regards to our knowing the difference between "holding down triangle until the icon turns red" and ramming an ice-pick upside some poor sod's jugular. Ooooh, it makes me cross.
On that point, there is actually a study that's just been ordered on the effect of video games on those who play them. If the findings of that turn out to be what we've suspected all along (i.e. minimal negative effect), then we might see the BBFC changing its tune in these situations.

[Mr. DNA]

On that point, there is actually a study that's just been ordered on the effect of video games on those who play them. If the findings of that turn out to be what we've suspected all along (i.e. minimal negative effect), then we might see the BBFC changing its tune in these situations.

I'd be interested in finding out whether the study concentrates on children, or if adults are also included in the investigation. A study centred around ascertaining whether games are harmful to children would be useless with respect to Manhunt 2, as it was made strictly for adults. I suspect that games do harm children if all they're doing is sitting around vegetating, not reading books and getting fat. I can remember playing for ridiculous lengths of time on my NES and Mega-Drive, but I was also running around, climbing up trees, making dens and playing football. Jumpers for goalposts. Everything in moderation and all that.

[Crazy Jamie]

As I understand it it is a sweeping study of the effects of video games, not just on children.

[Mr. DNA]

As I understand it it is a sweeping study of the effects of video games, not just on children.

Aha, then perhaps the British government will get to the bottom of this important issue. Although I'm not going to hold my breath.