No Manhunt 2 in the UK

F-Stop

DarkJager, you can email them at info@ifco.gov.ie I'd be interested in what they say, but I can't imagine there is any sort of appeal process for something like this.

I found the first Manhunt pretty brutal, and pretty repetitive after a while - I probably wouldn't shell out the money for this one. I do understand the notion of protecting children - that's what ratings and parents are for.

I'm an adult, I don't need to be babysat, and I can judge things for myself. I'd be interested to see the content of this game and view how the context of the work and the "the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence" compares with recent movies like the Saw trilogy and Hostel. I don't believe that it is just the content - gratuitous violence - but also the medium - it being a game - that has led to it being banned. If that is the case I disagree with the decision. Of course, as the censor has decided that my adult mind isn't well formed enough to judge this I will never know.

Beelzebub

Seriously though I reckon that no publicty is bad publicity and this game will sell like hot cakes where it's available, as a result.
Like it did for the first in the series.

It remains to be seen whether Rockstar will appeal this decision.
Interestingly the only other game to have been banned by the BBFC was Carmageddon in 1997 which won on appeal.

I can't see Rockstar take this lying down.

Beelzebub

F-Stop wrote:

DarkJager, you can email them at info@ifco.gov.ie I'd be interested in what they say, but I can't imagine there is any sort of appeal process for something like this.

I found the first Manhunt pretty brutal, and pretty repetitive after a while - I probably wouldn't shell out the money for this one. I do understand the notion of protecting children - that's what ratings and parents are for.

I'm an adult, I don't need to be babysat, and I can judge things for myself. I'd be interested to see the content of this game and view how the context of the work and the "the level of gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence" compares with recent movies like the Saw trilogy and Hostel. I don't believe that it is just the content - gratuitous violence - but also the medium - it being a game - that has led to it being banned. If that is the case I disagree with the decision. Of course, as the censor has decided that my adult mind isn't well formed enough to judge this I will never know.

You are wrong, there is an appeal process for something like this!
And Rockstar do have the right to appeal

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Submitting%20Companies/Video_Appeals_Committee_Terms.pdf

from here:
http://news.spong.com/article/12920?cb=797

F-Stop

Beelzebub,

You are linking to the BBFC appeal not IFCO. I don't doubt that Rockstar can appeal it, but as I said I can't "imagine" that there is any sort of appeal process that DarkJager can follow. But thanks anyway.

Jack Thompson is probably dancing right now.

Retr0gamer

DarkJager wrote:

If it was a game where you were just out to kill people in the most violent way possible for no reason at all, and with no storyline of any sort to explain the need for you to kill, then I see why it would be banned. But I would highly doubt that such a game would be made in the first place...every game no matter how bad it is has some story to it..

See the problem is that is what the first Manhunter was all about. You just snuck around killing people in the most violent way possible, getting extra points for how violent the death was. There wasn't even any skill just the more you held down the button the gorier the death. There was a story, something about being kidnapped and forced to do a snuff movie or die trying but it wasn't exactly explaining why the game had to be so violent. I predict the second game follows exactly the same lines as the previous one.

It really is Rockstars own fault that this got banned. Making a game like this with not one good defense for the excessive use of violence was just asking to be banned by a government body for a government which is becoming increasingly PC.

Somebody mentioned it got 90% but the first Manhunter game got some very high scores despite being absolute tosh. I have to say shame on Rockstar for releasing a game that not only will be absolute tosh like the first one (opinion pending but see if I'm wrong if it's out) but also has opened the floodgates for more videogame bannings and mouth piece politicans looking for votes from the political correctness crowd and probably also damaging the industry that they work in.

I haven't played the game but I severely doubt it will have a moving story or even one that remotely justifies the violence portrayed in it.

super_furry

I think the fact that the Wii controls actually require you to physically perform the actions taking place on screan don't help. They remove another barrier between you and the action taking place on screen. To stab someone, you have to make a stabbing motion.

Incidently, everyone mentions Carmaggedon as being the only previously banned game, but wasn't Thrill-Kill on the PSX banned too?

thelordofcheese

super_furry wrote:

I think the fact that the Wii controls actually require you to physically perform the actions taking place on screan don't help. They remove another barrier between you and the action taking place on screen. To stab someone, you have to make a stabbing motion.

Incidently, everyone mentions Carmaggedon as being the only previously banned game, but wasn't Thrill-Kill on the PSX banned too?

i don't think thrill-kill was ever released, but it probably would have been

Beelzebub

F-Stop wrote:

Beelzebub,

You are linking to the BBFC appeal not IFCO. I don't doubt that Rockstar can appeal it, but as I said I can't "imagine" that there is any sort of appeal process that DarkJager can follow. But thanks anyway.

Apologies.

Rockstar would need to appeal themselves, they being the aggrieved party.
And I expect that they will.
I'm not sure they would bother appealing to IFCO though.

I am also not sure if a member of the public has the right to appeal the IFCO's decision.


Here is the process:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0022/sec0010.html

Edit: It's only the distributor who can appeal.

Retr0gamer

Thrill Kill was cancelled and the core game was used for Wu-Tang: taste the pain. There's a completed version of Thrill Kill floating around the intraweb.

DarkJager

In the UK, both parents of murder victim Stefan Pakeerah lashed out at Rockstar for confirming the release of a sequel. Stefan Pakeerah was murdered by Warren Leblanc, who was reportedly inspired by Manhunt (though it was later determined by police that robbery was the motive) and is now serving a life sentence for murder. Patrick and Giselle Pakeerah insist that Warren Leblanc was influenced by Manhunt before assaulting their son, Stefan – despite the judge in Leblanc’s court case dismissing the game of any blame. Mr. Pakeerah, who has campaigned for tighter restrictions on violent games since his son’s death back in 2004, stated: "I'm very disappointed. This is rubbing salt into the wounds in the month we will be marking the anniversary of Stefan's death."

Leicester East MP Keith Vaz has backed both parents, and in his words was "astonished" that producer Rockstar had made a sequel. Mr. Vaz added: "It is contempt for those who are trying very hard to ensure something is done to control the violent nature of these games."

A spokesman for Rockstar told MCV: "The transcript of the Leblanc court case makes it quite clear that the Judge, defence, prosecution and Leicester police all emphasized that Manhunt played no part in the case." It has also become clear that Warren Leblanc was not in possession of the game and ironically, Stefan Pakeerah, aged 14, owned a copy, despite it being legally restricted to 18+ in the UK.

Just seems like his parents don't want to place the blame on anything else. I don't see how making a sequel to a game, which had absolutely nothing to do with his death, is "rubbing salt in the wounds". People really need to get down off their ****ing high horses....

calsatron

I'd say the five (out of six) board members at Take-Two that got the boot at the last sharholders meeting would probably argue that not all publicity is good publicity.

evad_lhorg

Just have to buy it fro mainland europe or AUS now

Rhyme

To be perfectly honest, the game can wait. I bought the first one a month or two back and even though it was an interesting game with some nice touches with the stealth elements and enemy AI, it wouldn't warrant an instant purchase of any sequel. The nice touches in the Wii version are certainly worth a look although perhaps the near perfect 1:1 interaction between you, the Wiimote, a blunt object and an enemies head will get people riled up for months to come.

Once Datel release a Wii-loader (Freeloader :rolleyes: ) all my Wii games will come from the US anyway so these European debacles will fade away.

MooseJam

I will buy this game, damn disgraceful decision to ban

DarkJager

Rockstar makes a statement on the ban:

http://breakingnews.ie/entertainment/mhkfojgbcwgb/

They've really said everything that needs to be said about adult videogames and I'm hoping for the sake of the videogame industry that they appeal this ridiculous decision and win.

o1s1n

Retr0gamer wrote:

See the problem is that is what the first Manhunter was all about. You just snuck around killing people in the most violent way possible, getting extra points for how violent the death was. There wasn't even any skill just the more you held down the button the gorier the death. There was a story, something about being kidnapped and forced to do a snuff movie or die trying but it wasn't exactly explaining why the game had to be so violent. I predict the second game follows exactly the same lines as the previous one.

You were going to be executed. Rather then dying, you wake up and are suddenly starring in a snuff film. You have to commit more violent acts as obviously that is what "The Director" wants so that it will make a better snuff film. This adequately explains why the game is so violent.

Retr0gamer wrote:

It really is Rockstars own fault that this got banned. Making a game like this with not one good defense for the excessive use of violence was just asking to be banned by a government body for a government which is becoming increasingly PC.

There was a reason for the excessive violence in the first Manhunt game. Which I just outlined. It was part of the plot. Maybe a dark one at that. But still a plot. "making a game like this with not one good defense for excellsive violence"? Have you played the game? No you have not. Therefore, you don't know the reasons for the violence. You're just going the same way all those anti violence in videogame campaigners did back in the nineties with Night Trap and Carmageddon. Condemning a game without even playing it.

Retr0gamer wrote:

Somebody mentioned it got 90% but the first Manhunter game got some very high scores despite being absolute tosh. I have to say shame on Rockstar for releasing a game that not only will be absolute tosh like the first one (opinion pending but see if I'm wrong if it's out) but also has opened the floodgates for more videogame bannings and mouth piece politicans looking for votes from the political correctness crowd and probably also damaging the industry that they work in.

I agree that this does add fuel to the anti violence in videogame crowd. However, these people are just wrong. We can't disallow development companies from making certain games to tip toe around these people. And to add to that, the first Manhunt was not absolute tosh. I enjoyed it. And I'm sure others did too.

Retr0gamer wrote:

I haven't played the game but I severely doubt it will have a moving story or even one that remotely justifies the violence portrayed in it.

Not all games need to fill the same criteria. Not all games need to have moving stories. Games should be allowed to explore darker subjects. Films do it. Why shouldn't games?

Oh and just to add, the bbfc recently did a study which concluded that "Video games less engrossing than television" It's worth a read actually.

We were particularly interested to see that this research suggests that, far from having a potentially negative impact on the reaction of the player, the very fact that they have to interact with the game seems to keep them more firmly rooted in reality. People who do not play games raise concerns about their engrossing nature, assuming that players are also emotionally engrossed. This research suggests the opposite; a range of factors seems to make them less emotionally involving than film or television."

Rhyme

o1s1n wrote:

Night Trap

Oh God...

...i don't think it was just the violence the campaigners didn't like about Night Trap.

There is no denying that Rockstar bump up the 'content*' in their games to get people talking and bring a bit of media coverage their way to boost awareness and sales. Perhaps the sensible argument against their games is that they turn up the controversy solely for the publicity and as such, the excessive violence etc might add nothing to the game.

*by content i mean violence, gore, swearing, drugs, drink, crime etc...

o1s1n

Do they really beef up the violence though? Grand theft auto may have been violent in that you can kill "innocent" bystanders. However, the levels of gore/blood/dismemberment is very low. Especially when compared with some other first person shooters out there that haven't received nearly as much media attention. Manhunt 2 was gory. But you yourself weren't really committing the acts. You just watch a playback. Something like Soldier of Fortune is much more graphic in this regard as you're the one doing the mutilating.

Gore and violence have been in games for years. It's nothing new. The first game I ever remember play was Barbarian on the Spectrum. You would behead your opponent and then a little imp like thing would drag his head off screen. Banning one game and not the other is pure hypocrisy in my book. What, you can multilate a face in Soldier of Fortune but not Manhunt 2?

I think Rockstar could be considered media whores to a certain degree. Although, with people out there like Jack Thompson having a go at them all the time, I don't blame them.

steviec

The BBFC have a very good record for being very reasonable and even went to the lengths of making statements defending games that had been banned in other countries. They haven't banned a game in ten years so I'm sure Manhunt 2 must have done something a lot worse than Manhunt 1.

I think the difference between this and a horror movie is that you are actually the one doing the killing, and killing people is the only source of entertainment the game provides. In movies there is certainly gore, but the protagonists are usually the victims and they're the ones you sympathise with, I don't think there's a film out there that's shown entirely through the eyes of a killer as he goes around murdering people in an ever more gorey fashion, and if there was I'd imagine it would be banned too.

Of course it's easy for me to say since I think it's likely a poor game that gives our industry a bad name and just makes money by being controversial rather than by having good gameplay, if you actually wanted the game I guess you'd see things differently.

o1s1n

Again, another person unfamiliar with what the game is about. You're not a killer going around killing people.


An experiment at a secret research facility has gone catastrophically wrong. Daniel Lamb and Leo Kasper are the only surviving subjects. The Pickman Project will stop at nothing to hunt them down and stop the truth from getting out.
Demented screams echo around the dank asylum that has caged you for the last six years. You open your eyes. A white-coated body slumps to the floor through your shaking hands. A bloody syringe slips from your arm. Waves of confusion and paranoia crash over you. You have no idea who you are or how you got here.

The door to your cell is open. One choice. One chance. They took your life. Time to take it back

Call Me Jimmy

Deleted User wrote:

No big loss, the first Manhunt game wasn't exactly great and I've seen nothing about this that makes it look any better. The games only selling point is its violence. Is that really what appeals to people when they buy this game?

That is not the point. I don't care about the game, I'd imagine it's crap. I do care about the fact that adults will not be allowed to purchase it. It is absolutely unbelievable, unless you ban everything with violence etc. (including films and books) then ye can't ban this. Btw there is torture in metal gear solid, that wasn't banned...

Mark Hamill

I'm sick of people saying "violent games make people violent" and "he/she only did that because it was in a violent video game" If kids just mindlessly copied wath they saw in video games then, statisically you'd have to have a olad of kids spontaneously building walls a la Tetris, or driving in go karts tossing turtle shells a la Mario Kart.
If little Johnny Sonofabitch starts suddenly stabbing people then either he is a psychopath (and games don't make you crazy(except the ending to Halo2 )) or a dirtbag (and using "video games made me do it" as an excuse)

Mcj metroid

Everyone email the copycat IFCO. i can't believe that a few hours later they would just ban it and qoute random acts.

EMAIL them i want them to suffer for this.!

o1s1n

FCO’s address is: &nbsp16 Harcourt Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland

How about a march? I'll start making placards!

johnny_ultimate

o1s1n wrote:

FCO’s address is: &nbsp16 Harcourt Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland

How about a march? I'll start making placards!

Careful now.

Beelzebub

Start a petition.

thelordofcheese

o1s1n wrote:

Again, another person unfamiliar with what the game is about. You're not a killer going around killing people.


a PR blurb was here

But, much like the original manhunt it's a flimsy pretence of a 'plot' to justify the meat of the game, which is exceptionally visceral simulated killings.
It's not really about some guy trying to escape generic lab X for whatever reason, the whole point of manhunt is to kill people as horrifically as possible.

I'd be happier if they gave it an 18's and let people make up their mind, but i'm fairly certain that the head of the IFCO has stated that he is in favour of letting people make up their own mind, and this is reflected in the very few bannings that are made yearly. Usually porn of some kind.

Given that, i'm pretty sure that they aren't banning it because it's a video game, or because it is violent, but because it has nothing to offer besides high levels of graphic violence.

Though if you enjoyed the first one, i can see how you'd feel differently, but i can't get worked up for what i think is a substandard game riding on the back of controversy.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Sent this to the IFCO to add my 2 cents:

To whom it may concern,

I read this morning that the game Manhunt 2 has effectively been banned by the IFCO.

I truly hope that this banning does not create a dangerous precedence where censors unfavourably view all violent video games. Like films, video games can have different target audiences, a child should be allowed watch Shrek and not Saw for example.

With a wider age group now enjoying video games than say 10 years ago, a wider range of games are available. There is a market for games more targeted towards a younger audience such as the Shrek and Cars video game spin-offs, and a market for adult themed games such as Gears of War for the Xbox 360. Some people mistakenly think that games are only bought by children and are outraged to see violent games on the market. For the record, I'm a 24 year old male gamer.

Censors should realise that violent video games can be enjoyed by adults, and as long as they are given the appropriate age rating (e.g. 18+) and the law is enforced prohibiting the sales of these games to underage players, I see no reason why most games targeted to an adult audience should not be given a rating and their release allowed.

I respect the decision of the IFCO and hope a sensible, balanced view will be given to video games in the future.

Thanks,

**** ****.

jimi_t

thelordofcheese wrote:

But, much like the original manhunt it's a flimsy pretence of a 'plot' to justify the meat of the game, which is exceptionally visceral simulated killings.
It's not really about some guy trying to escape generic lab X for whatever reason, the whole point of manhunt is to kill people as horrifically as possible.

And? Maybe I'm wrong, but I still can't find conclusive evidence that videogame escapism leads to real-life violence. I mean, it could (and I stress could) even lead to a more stable society, given that it offers people a socially acceptable outlet to vent anti-social tendencies.

I'd be happier if they gave it an 18's and let people make up their mind, but i'm fairly certain that the head of the IFCO has stated that he is in favour of letting people make up their own mind, and this is reflected in the very few bannings that are made yearly. Usually porn of some kind.

He is in favour of letting people make up their own mind, yet bans a video game? Bit of an oxymoron, no? These decisions should NOT be made for us. Regardless of your feelings as to the quality of the game or otherwise, thats the real issue here.

Given that, i'm pretty sure that they aren't banning it because it's a video game, or because it is violent, but because it has nothing to offer besides high levels of graphic violence.

So? Are high levels of graphic violence that much of a risk to a world which has been submitted to 365/24h coverage of the atrocities in Iraq etc... Why should decisions like that be made for us; I'm curious. This draws serious parallels to the banning of everything from "Lolita" to "Rosemary's Baby" in the last century by censors.