bit-gamer.net

Manhunt 2 banned by BBFC

Manhunt 2 banned by BBFC

"If you buy this, we'll hunt you down and kill you." - The BBFC has made Manhunt 2 illegal to purchase in the UK.

It's been a little while since we've really had to worry about the Ratings game rearing its ugly head. Bully passed into (and quickly out of) our lives with barely a whisper, and it's been quiet since. At least, until now....Manhunt 2 has been banned by the BBFC.

Banning Manhunt 2 marks the second time that the British Board of Film Classification has outright banned a game, effectively acting as censors for the British populous (the first time was Carmageddon, back in 1997). Without any rating, the game will now be illegal to acquire in the UK. David Cooke, the Director of the BBFC, explained the decision:

"Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game."

The Board's decision has thrilled the family of a Leicester boy who was murdered in 2004. His parents blamed the original Manhunt for his death, saying that the killer trained by playing the game. Granted, the police didn't seem to believe so, saying that the murder was a robbery gone wrong - but who has time for those little details?

They have campaigned actively to ban the sequel, calling it "morally irresponsible". The parents' voices have certainly been amplified by their MP, who called the BBFC's decision "excellent" and said that it showed "that game publishers cannot expect to get interactive games where players take the part of killers engaged in 'casual sadism' and murder."

Unlike in the US, the BBFC's mature (18+) rating is legally enforceable and selling the game to a minor would have carried strict punishment anyway. The game's developer, Rockstar, has six weeks to file an appeal and either modify the game's content to appease the board or agree to not market the game in the UK. If the BBFC maintains its ban, Manhunt 2 will be the first game that actually could not be sold - Carmageddon's ban was lifted after the blood colour was changed and other small gameplay tweaks were added to decrease realism.

Do you have a thought on the censorship? Does this seem like a sensible step to prevent the game's appeal to minors, or does it seem like outright censorship in a country known for its first-class freedoms? Tell us your thoughts in our forums.

50 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Gravemind123 20th June 2007, 09:21 Quote
Can they honestly expect to completely ban a game? If people want something they will get it. Bit-Torrent exists and people can get games that way. Maybe if parents would just stop b****ing about video games and pay some damn attention to what their kids do we wouldn't have to ban things. Even in the US I have not found a store in my area that would sell M rated games to minors, and my parents would always at least look at what I was buying if they had to agree to me buying it. The problem is probably parents buying games for their kids without looking at what they are giving them. They then go and blame their kid's exposure to violence on the video game industry instead of taking responsibility that they screwed up by buying their kids the game. Seriously, take some damn responsibility. I'm not advocating sadism, but if people make a game they should be able to sell it to consenting adults who are mature enough to understand that game != real life. Also about video games training people, that is bull, firing a gun in a game and one in real life are two completely different things!

That ends my caffeine induced 2 in the morning ramble on the subject, sorry if it makes no sense.
DougEdey 20th June 2007, 09:23 Quote
It's not officially banned yet Tim, it's only banned if they don't successfully appeal.
steveo_mcg 20th June 2007, 09:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravemind123
Can they honestly expect to completely ban a game? If people want something they will get it. Bit-Torrent exists and people can get games that way. Maybe if parents would just stop b****ing about video games and pay some damn attention to what their kids do we wouldn't have to ban things. Even in the US I have not found a store in my area that would sell M rated games to minors, and my parents would always at least look at what I was buying if they had to agree to me buying it. The problem is probably parents buying games for their kids without looking at what they are giving them. They then go and blame their kid's exposure to violence on the video game industry instead of taking responsibility that they screwed up by buying their kids the game. Seriously, take some damn responsibility. I'm not advocating sadism, but if people make a game they should be able to sell it to consenting adults who are mature enough to understand that game != real life. Also about video games training people, that is bull, firing a gun in a game and one in real life are two completely different things!
here here...

i've no interest in the game but i'm sick of people passing their responsibility on to others.
Mankz 20th June 2007, 09:32 Quote
Video games don't cause violence! Bad upbringing cases violence.

The original manhunt was quite a good mix of game genres. There was violence, but also a good deal of stealth required.
DougEdey 20th June 2007, 09:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mankz.
Video games don't cause violence! Bad upbringing cases violence.

As discussed in the other thread (Console Gaming) the problem comes when the BBFC can not guarantee that an underage child will not be able to easily obtain the game, parents will just buy or order it not look at the rating and hand it over.

So is that bad upbringing or video games?
Gravemind123 20th June 2007, 09:49 Quote
That's bad upbringing, if your parents can't be bothered to spend a few minutes looking at what they are giving you, then it's not really fair to blame video games which are fine to exist for mature audiences, for the problems caused. Video games should be able to be whatever the designers want, if it's not appropriate for children then make sure it is labeled as such. If parents still buy it for their kids then its the parents fault, not the game.
airchie 20th June 2007, 09:53 Quote
Probably a combination of the two tbh.

Can we really prove that someone with a bad upbringing who played nothing but Mario Bros wouldn't be violent?
I reckon they would and would just stomp on heads instead of shooting.

Having said that, I read somewhere about someone comparing this to the Saw movies and wondered why they were allowed and this was banned.
I think the interactive nature of this where you actually are the killer and are doing the actions (albeit virtually) makes this more visceral.

I do hold parents responsible though tbh.
I had a good upbringing even though I started watching 18rated movies at the age of 12 or something.
I'm not a crazed murderer (honest).
Mainly because I knew right from wrong...
RTT 20th June 2007, 09:57 Quote
Banning video games because they may promote violence is like banning cars because they may be used for ram-raids.
Gravemind123 20th June 2007, 10:00 Quote
Exactly, I've been playing 17+ rated games for a while now, even though I just turned 17 and my parents know that. They also know that I can tell reality from fantasy and am not going on a killing spree from playing too much GTA or Halo. They also did not let me play those games when I was at a younger age and didn't let me watch movies that were too graphic for my maturity level. When they felt I was mature enough, I was allowed to watch those movies and play those games. That is what all parents really need to do, and what it seems like many fail to do and don't blame themselves, but instead blame video games, movies, TV and books. They then proceed to try to take away those things from people who are mature enough to handle the content. When I'm 18 I want to be able to have access to any movie/game I want, not have it banned because parents might give it to their kids. Then the kids grow up and lack the freedoms they should be entitled to because we have to "protect" the next generation of kids.
Mr. Oizo 20th June 2007, 10:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTT
Banning video games because they may promote violence is like banning cars because they may be used for ram-raids.
LOL, yeah. Its kind of the same idea.

I think stores should sell games just like they sell alcoholics: Little alcohol only above 16+ and much alcohol above 18+.
Also, I think that parents should look at what theyre kids are doing on the computer.
Jamie 20th June 2007, 10:15 Quote
Yet again the UK proves that it is aiming towards a bubble-wrapped society...

People have car crashed -> Lower the speed limit and add a speed camera.
People get murdered -> Ban violet influences.
People have accidents -> Try and prevent it from happening again (after trying to find some blame).

We are headed backwards at the moment. The government want us to stop flying, driving, using electricity, doing anything remotely interesting.

I'm surprised you don't have to sign your life away when you get on a train these days.
CardJoe 20th June 2007, 10:26 Quote
I think the BBFC has a good track record. Remember, this is the only game they have banned since Carmageddon in 1997. Two games in ten years, and from what I've found out they've had a large panel looking at the game to come to this deciscion. They are clealry banning this game because it goes past the point of good taste which, from what I've seen of it, I'd agree with.

Also, by refusing to rate it they only stop its sale in shops. Fans needn't whine as they will still be able to get hold of it through other means, thoguh if they break the law in doing so then that is their choice.
DougEdey 20th June 2007, 10:30 Quote
Carmeggedon had it's ban overturned. Because they changed the blood colour.

It's in the Bit article!
[sinz] 20th June 2007, 10:44 Quote
Yes, bad upbringing is the cause of most of these violent crimes, but sadly it seems that the quality of childrens' upbringing is getting worse and worse. While I don't agree with banning anything outright, I can see how these games can play a part in causing certain violent events to occur. I think the issue isn't so much with the game itself but rather with the player's balance of social interaction and game-play. The type of person who plays a particular game for the majority of their day is more likely to be affected by the interaction they experience in the game when it comes to real life and so they may resort to acting out their in-game experiences, violent or not. Again, this isn't wholly the game's fault, but more-so the fault of the individual or those responsible for that individual for not making sure he or she strikes a safe balance of social interaction and non-game activity. The problem is that the governments have no way of enforcing a healthy balance so they resort to the next best thing, banning the game. If parents can't be responsible enough to raise their children to strike that balance then the unfortunate consequence is the government stepping in to become a parent for the entire nation and the only ones who usually take notice are those who were responsible in the first place. I wish the governments would take a different approach and look at raising the standards for parenting but I can understand the reasons behind the ban, just not the overzealous efforts they put forth to achieve them.
mmorgue 20th June 2007, 10:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTT
Banning video games because they may promote violence is like banning cars because they may be used for ram-raids.

Exactly. I completely agree, however i can see the "powers that be" trying to use the arguement that the car in question isn't "implying" that it's nature is to do harm but really to provide a solution to a problem which is a 'netural' action -- i.e., transportation, whereas the video game, while not real and pure fantasy, is suggesting or implying that you "do" violence or that it's enjoyable to watch/imagine/think about the actions in the game.

Again, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with that notion (that games lead to violent behaviour) but it's the people who want to make our decisions for us that can't understand that. And so long as they have that power, to decide what's best for us, we're stuck.

As for appeal -- did Rockstar appeal or did the BBFC not say they had been given time to appeal and they didn't..?
Bursar 20th June 2007, 10:53 Quote
If it stays banned, what's the ruling on importing it? Are you trading in illegal goods?
toric334 20th June 2007, 10:53 Quote
Wasn't interested before, but might get a copy to see what the fuss is all about.
DougEdey 20th June 2007, 11:11 Quote
It was only rated yesterday, they have 6 weeks from then to appeal.

From kotaku:

[quote=]News of Manhunt 2's Adult Only rating was like a "punch to the stomach" of the Rockstar team, a company spokesman told Kotaku today.

"This is completely unexpected to the whole team," said the spokesman. "We love the horror genre. We thought we could do something interesting and entertaining with it in the video game medium. When we had this first Manhunt game, there wasn't this reaction. We thought (Manhunt 2) was consistent with a mature rating."

But the game, which follows in the footsteps of mature-rated Manhunt, will likely not show up on many store shelves if the ESRB's preliminary rating of Adults Only sticks.

Take-Two has the option of either protesting the rating to an Appeals Board, which is made up of publishers, retailers and other professionals, or change the Wii and PS2 game's content and resubmit it.

When asked if the game might receive a work over to tone it down, the spokesman said it was too early to tell.

"We have to explore all of the options," he said. "I think it's too early to go into all of that right now." Brian Crecente
[/quote]
AngelOfRage 20th June 2007, 11:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by toric334
Wasn't interested before, but might get a copy to see what the fuss is all about.

Same here, i only played an hour or so of the original and found it dull, but since all the hype around this, i'd be interested in looking for it.
Particle Man 20th June 2007, 11:36 Quote
Well thats just one step closer giving up our Liberty's. Hey I got an idea, lets just say to hell with and live like people in the middle east! All the women will have to cover thier hair and we can all live our lives the way the government wants us to!

There's nothing wrong with giving something like that a rating, it gives people a chance to make an informed choice about what they are purchasing.

However it is wrong to just out right ban something, just because one person may or may not have harmed another because of it. There has never been a single solitary thread of proof that video games can cause someone to flip out and blur the lines of reality and fiction.

I can tell you for a fact that playing a videogame doesn't prepare you for anything in real life. You can be the best Halo sniper in the world but if you've never picked up a real rifle you're not gonna hit the broad side of a bus. And just because you can knock out free bird on expert in Guitar hero doesn't mean you can play the real thing.

Parents have become lazy, and apathetic. They're not as involved in their childrens lives as they should be. Video games aren't the problem, it's the people trying to use them as scapegoats to cover thier own mistakes and short comings.


.....booh-ya
Dazmeister 20th June 2007, 11:39 Quote
I dont understand their reasons for banning it. Agree with what Jamie said about the "buuble-wrap" society.

The BBFC is taking the choice away from (would be) responsible individuals and forcing them to conform to some rather stupid "law".

In all fairness though, I can't see why a game thats based on casual violence, and disturbing murders would WANT to be bought by the British public anyway. Where's the entertainment in finding the most gruesome way to kill someone??
nakchak 20th June 2007, 12:38 Quote
stupid reaction,

just gonna make the kids want it more, (will be the same as the copies of driller killer and cannibal holocaust i passed round the playground)

If the parents are too negligent to adequately protect there kids/raise them properly, then go crying that they are blaimless(brainless??) and it was all someone else's fault. So be it, society needs protecting from them, not protection from the next thing they want to bitch about.

End of the day people need to start taking responsibility for them selves, and there children until they are legally an adult (18). This whole find maddy thing, if the parents had done there jobs and not left there kids unattended would that have happened? yeah its a shame that there kid is missing, but seriously why are they not in court on grounds of negligence?
As far as censorship goes, im pretty against all forms of it, if nothing else there are always going to be unofficial ways of getting hold of anything, the legality of obtaining is a relative thing. for example hardcore pr0n, pot and any of the US series you have on HDD that havnt aired in the uk yet, i doubt many of you would feel like any laws you may have broken will give you a moral dilemma, all censorship does is drive up the demand, just look at prohibition America, and all the good that did
choupolo 20th June 2007, 13:05 Quote
Owh. :(

I loved the original Manhunt. It had some interesting and some funny social commentary, along with some very atmospheric horror. The violence was just in context.

True Rockstar were trying to push the boundaries to provoke a reaction, but it was interesting to see how far they could go. After all videogames have no bearing whatsoever on reality, so adults should be able to do anything they want in a game without any fear of consequence.

CardJoe mentioned good taste, but good taste is subjective. Offense to one person might be hilarity/interest to another. As long as things remain private if necessary, then what's the dilly?
CardJoe 20th June 2007, 13:40 Quote
True, but we live in a society where we chose the BBFC to make these decisions for us. I'm very anti-censorship, but I've seen the game and I have to agree with them on this one and they are very even-handed:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/04/18/BBFC_releases_gaming_report/1

Yes, offense is subject, but we chose to stay in a society where the BBFC exists and a large panel is used by them to make this decision. We could rise up and stop them if we wanted to, gamers aren't exactly a small group after all, but I don't see anybody willing to cry revoloution over this and fans can still get their games from abroad if they are that commited to doing so.

On the other hand, I'm cynical enough to believe that Rockstar deliberately pushed the boundary too far to get this reaction and will then appeal the BBFC, as they are allowed and as Carmageddon did, and present a toned down product that will hit the shelves - though Nintendo may not back the Wii version anymore knowing them. That gets them lots of free publicity and the attention of the people on here who want to play the game just to understand the controversy despite the fact they found the original a mediocre game. My opinion of the original was that it was a over-violent game which tried to hide behind social issues so people would defend it. There wasn't anything really thought-provoking in there.

My two cents.
TheSaladMan 20th June 2007, 13:47 Quote
The BBFC, eroding your right to choose since 1912.

On my course at uni we study censorship, it comes up in discussion quite a lot and all of us agree that the only reason it exists is so that people can't blame the government for killing sprees etc. Also it demonises the media, so that parents who fail at raising children properly can blame the EVIL video games or the evil movies etc.
DXR_13KE 20th June 2007, 13:58 Quote
green blood made me cut my self and other people to see if they had green blood......NOT!!!!!
this is a step towards a nany state, be careful you British guys.

if you don't want to play the game and think it is extremely disgusting then don't buy it, just stamp a 18+ on it and say that it is the son of the devil and be done with it, if parents are responsible then kids will not get these games, and life it self is more disturbing than most video games i played, so lets ban life.
CardJoe 20th June 2007, 14:24 Quote
The above points may be true, but I don't think everything can realistically be dumped under the parents umbrella. For example, some people are biologically or inherently evil, or abnormal, like it or not and there are a lot of people who have empathy problems etc from a very young age which we cannot completely blame parents for. Thats why so many murderers actually have normal childhoods if you look at it in-depth - parents may try to raise childen as best they can, but children can fail parents just as much as parents can fail children.

By banning the game we also ensure that the game isn't finding its way into the hands of younger children, because like it or not most games store clerks don't give a **** about it and I've personally seen copies of games like GTA and Manhunt sold to under twelves on numerous occasions and have bought such games myself at a young age.

As pointed out before, properly aged fans will still be able to import a copy if they must, the government is just trying to do its best to keep this material restricted.

And a nanny state? No, it's a continued effort to follow the laws which UK citizens continually agree to live by. It's also only the second time this has happened, first if you remember that carmageddon was un-banned after modifications. When it happens ten times then I'll say it's a nanny state and you'll see me at the front of the marches, making my voice heard. Until then, theres no point in over-reacting to the fact that an uber violent game was banned by a government body established to professionally regulate it, for the second time ever.

I also believe that there isn't a clear cut line between parent and childs reponsibility. Before I was 18 I did a lot of crazy, illegal stuff that my parents bought me up not to do and which they actively encouraged me not to do. Thats not my parents fault, they did everything they could to stop it, but it is my fault despite my age and regardless of how everyone would assume it could be the product of a poor upbringing.
C-Sniper 20th June 2007, 14:39 Quote
wasn't there a bit of science done that showed that murderers are effectively "hardwired" to kill (at least they say CAT scans show it) and why would someone "train" on manhunt 2 if they were only try to rob someone?
DriftCarl 20th June 2007, 15:58 Quote
This is stupid. if its 18+ then it is for ADULTS to decide to buy it or not. I don't mind a bunch of old posh fools classifying games, but when they make the decision that i am not allowed to play it then that really annoys me.
I guess this is a game we will have to get through bit-torrent then.

as far as I'm concerned if it hasn't got kiddie porn in it then it shouldn't be banned.
completemadness 20th June 2007, 16:47 Quote
Quote:
Carmageddon's ban was lifted after the blood colour was changed
Seriously, that's just retarded, what f*in difference does having different coloured blood make

when someone decided to replicate a game, axes someones head off, sees the red bloody and goes, ah bollox i thought it was green like in the games

Seriously, WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make, whether the blood is green, red, pink, orange, technicolour, etc

Anyway, this ban isn't going to stop anything, you can get it from bittorrent, or they can just use an online delivery system and ignore the ratings completely
CardJoe 20th June 2007, 17:09 Quote
Carmageddon was changed a bit more than that. Some version had people replaced with slow moving zombies who bled green and a story was supposedly tacked on about aliens, while other versions reportedly had people replaced with walking trashcans IIRC.
wafflesomd 20th June 2007, 17:59 Quote
Who cares, game was going to suck anyways.
CardJoe 20th June 2007, 18:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflesomd
Who cares, game was going to suck anyways.

Very true. Controversy doesn't replace quality.
Drexial 20th June 2007, 21:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
The above points may be true, but I don't think everything can realistically be dumped under the parents umbrella. For example, some people are biologically or inherently evil, or abnormal, like it or not and there are a lot of people who have empathy problems etc from a very young age which we cannot completely blame parents for. Thats why so many murderers actually have normal childhoods if you look at it in-depth - parents may try to raise childen as best they can, but children can fail parents just as much as parents can fail children.

this was the case before video games existed too. there have always been issues with such problems. the same kid that shoots up a school because of lack of empathy was the same kid in the 50s that stomped a kids head in at the playground in the 50s. if a kid is miswired to be evil and have the natural desire to kill, then he will. has nothing to do with what he is exposed to. you are talking about an instinct that is coded in them. no video game, movie, TV show, is going to change that, i mean ****, kids learn about all the violence they need to in history classes. does that mean we should stop teaching kids about the worlds violent history? cause real violence i would imagine is certainly allot more effective then simulated.

i mean who are you gonna blame for things like, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, Son of Sam, the Zodiac killer, Charles Manson. all of those people never even dreamed of a video game before they killed someone. yes they were older at the time they were prevalent, but they had been methodically doing it over years as apposed to one big outburst. Video games have changed nothing.
CardJoe 20th June 2007, 22:35 Quote
History class, where children are taught about the past in a distanced and objective way as much as possible is not comparable to playing Manhunt 2 on the wii, where gamers go through the actions of swinging knives and axes at innocent people before decapitating them. Not comprable at all.

As for this issue about effect of games, yes I agree that some people are miswired to do bad things anyway but it doesn't mean that allowing to them be exposed to things like manhunt is a good idea. It's a good idea to stop people like that being exposed to this game and a good idea to stop children and minors from being exposed also. Meanwhile, adults who really want to get it still can get the game, though they have to acknowledge they are going against the laws of the society they choose to live in.
Zurechial 20th June 2007, 22:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflesomd
Who cares, game was going to suck anyways.

QFT.

I don't normally agree with banning and outright censorship, but since the game was probably going to be dire and shallow anyway it's probably a good thing.

Plus, previous cases of controversy have revolved around games like Grand Theft Auto and Carmageddon which put a tongue-in-cheek twist on the violence, whereas the Manhunt games are decidedly darker and, dare I say it, more perverted.
On top of that, the game was being released on the Wii, a console with associations with the younger, more impressionable demographic - The Mario, Zelda and Pokémon demographic - It may be up to the parents to monitor what games they play, but the majority of parents don't do it, so it's probably for the best that the BBFC stepped in.
Drexial 20th June 2007, 22:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
As for this issue about effect of games, yes I agree that some people are miswired to do bad things anyway but it doesn't mean that allowing to them be exposed to things like manhunt is a good idea.

that part is the responsibility of the parent, and in the case of a miswired kid, swinging around a sward in zelda is still teaching them a violent action. so it again goes to say, that miswired kids are miswired no matter what they are exposed to. you're saying this game should be banned because its pointless violence, but to a kid that has no empathy, all killing is for no reason, its just killing, and killing for revenge is probably worse, because they will think killing for any revenge is acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
It may be up to the parents to monitor what games they play, but the majority of parents don't do it, so it's probably for the best that the BBFC stepped in.

so because most people don't drive the speed limit or don't drive with sensibility when consuming alcohol we should ban cars?
CardJoe 21st June 2007, 00:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexial

so because most people don't drive the speed limit or don't drive with sensibility when consuming alcohol we should ban cars?

No, but we should actively try to stop drink drivers and ban cars which are unsafe from being on the road, as well as banning unsafe drivers...
Tyinsar 21st June 2007, 01:28 Quote
I too am with the BBFC on this one. Frankly I'm appalled to live in a world where people make money off of crap like the Saw & Hostel movies. In my opinion these things have no redeeming qualities - Who really needs this mind filth? What is "freedom" worth if we pollute it until we've destroyed it and ourselves?

May the well-worn paths of your mind lead to happy and productive places.
Ayrto 21st June 2007, 11:33 Quote
The problem is though, if you give the BBFC an inch they'll take a mile. Look at all the stupid nanny state bans on video nasties in the early eighties, that made British adults look like a laughingstock in the rest of europe. Sure, this is only a not so good PS2 title and thus its banning doesn't bother me, but upcoming games I am interested in, such as Bioshock with that title's dubious storyline, could be next. When all said and done games are just artistic expression, banning art is never a good thing IMHO.
CardJoe 21st June 2007, 11:44 Quote
Bioshock will be fine. It handles everything in context and with a mature storyline which conveys itself fine, so the BBFC will allow it. It was the unremitting bleakness and casual (i.e. pointless) sadism which put them off Manhunt 2.

Postal 2 was allowed, wasn't it? Manhunt 2 has to be worse than that to get banned, which should be an indication of its quality and content.
DougEdey 21st June 2007, 11:49 Quote
The BBFC are exceptionally good at deciding game ratings, look at GoW, that has masses of violence but because it's in a distinct context that cannot be mis-interpreted it got an 18. Make it Human Vs. Human at it'd get a ban.

Bioshock is designed to give the player a distinct choice, you can try and kill the girls, but you'd have to first kill the big daddy, then when it comes to the girls, if you kill them you move to one side of the game and get an immediate bonus, if you save them you move to the other side and get a bonus at a later time which is better for you.

Bioshock is set in a distinctly different world as well, and it's killing mutants to save your life, not to kill for the sake of killing.
Edvuld 21st June 2007, 11:51 Quote
I believe that those who do commit violence do this because of many reasons. A screw or two loose, bad upbringing together with that and lots of other reasons. I think that these games won't hurt "normal" people who have a sence of right and wrong, but I do think it can act as a catalyst that helps bring forward violence from the first category I mentioned.

The question though, what stops these guys from beeing "activated" from any other source like movies, comics news, whatever. And what says that these guys aren't adult and can get a hold of the game anyways?
Ayrto 21st June 2007, 11:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
The BBFC are exceptionally good at deciding game ratings, look at GoW, that has masses of violence but because it's in a distinct context that cannot be mis-interpreted it got an 18. Make it Human Vs. Human at it'd get a ban.

Bioshock is designed to give the player a distinct choice, you can try and kill the girls, but you'd have to first kill the big daddy, then when it comes to the girls, if you kill them you move to one side of the game and get an immediate bonus, if you save them you move to the other side and get a bonus at a later time which is better for you.

Bioshock is set in a distinctly different world as well, and it's killing mutants to save your life, not to kill for the sake of killing.

Killing little girls, with the very sad missing Maddie case in the headlines, do you honestly think if the Daily mail for example, pick up on this title it won't be banned?
DougEdey 21st June 2007, 12:02 Quote
Did you not read the sentance? You have to make a moral choice about whether to kill the girl or not, it's not like manhunt where you have to kill a specific person.
Ayrto 21st June 2007, 12:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
Did you not read the sentance? You have to make a moral choice about whether to kill the girl or not, it's not like manhunt where you have to kill a specific person.

Yes I did, I understand what you're saying about Bioshock's in game choices and I agree. I was just playing Devil's advocate, pointing out that normal BBFC reasoning may go out of the window under the pressure of a serious media campaign.
DougEdey 21st June 2007, 12:21 Quote
I strongly doubt it, even though their decisions are law they are not a direct Government body, i.e. Politicians do not have any control over their decisions.
Merciful Death 2nd August 2007, 14:23 Quote
This is stupid. They are not banning it for the publics safety at all, they are doing simply because one family had to place the blame on something, so they chose a random violent game, manhunt 1. It is down to bad parenting pure and simple. If children do not realise at the age of 18 that it is wrong to go and bash someones head in then it is already too late. All they have done now is made this an infamous game that everyone will break the law to get. Otherwise it would of been released people would have played it and it would of disapeared. If we keep protecting society from its self then we are never going to change. The more we keep something a taboo the more people want it. Thats simple human nature. Later it will be released and everyone will go well that was not what I thought it was going to be. Just as they did with films like clockwork orange. Now they all sit there saying how critically briliant the film is.

There have been many psychological experiments regardng this and do you know what they found. NOTHING. Children who played violent video games, watched violent t.v. where no more likely to be violent than those who did. In fact the funny thing was that people playing the video games actually got in less trouble at school and the law because they were in playing video games and didnt have the opportunity to. I am not saying they should stay in all the time and become socially stagnant, but I found it amusing. All this is regardless however because at the end of the day if you can not teach your child that it is wrong to kill, then it is the parents fault full stop.

Despite what CardJoe said there is no inherent 'evil' gene. We may produce more testosteroine or be schizophrenic (paranoid) but the idea that there is a gene is a stupid with no scientific evidence. I know I did degree bilogical Psychology. Blame the parents and allow the game and stop this nanny state from going any further, before we all end up in 1984!!!!!!
cazash 3rd July 2008, 15:05 Quote
The bbfc are stupid. They dont know anything about the way people are and need to grow up and stop being so silly. the place needs to be blown up. Im sure rockstar are really thanking them for all their efforts on a good million quid they could have earnt if it wasnt for these pathetic people. They dont know anything and all deserve to die for being so pathetic.
Armand-[79th] 4th July 2008, 22:45 Quote
<sarcasm> Ok, where's the download? </sarcasm>
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums