Should Games be banned

cavedave

Manhunter 2 is first game ever to be banned in ireland
http://www.rte.ie/arts/2007/0620/manhunt2.html

he said that in the case of this game, there was no context and the brutality was unrelenting and gratuitous.

My opinion is that I doubt film censors have the neccesary critical abilities to discern the true nature of a computer game and so them being able to ban them is probably a bad idea.

What is your opinion on the government moving into regulating this form of entertainment?

hamsterboy

What......he's never seen a boxing match, hare coursing, so called "Ultimate Fighting", ice hockey? etc........
This is just more backward crap from the "won't somebody think of the children" brigade.

Nuff Said!

More kneejerk reactions from people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. That is what should be banned. This is the only game in a decade to be banned. Uninformed people eg. liveline callers, will take manhunt as representative of the games industry as a whole and blow this issue out of all proportion. Most games reflect modern culture, so if you ban games why stop there, ban a couple of movies and them some books while you are at it.

RedPlanet

tbh i've never even heard of the title before this newstory.
I'll definately be checking it out now.

DarkJager

No games should not be banned. The parents are at fault for letting children purchase or own "Adult" games. Adult is the keyword there, the majority of gamers being over the age of 18 and being disallowed the right to play this form of entertainment because of irresponisble parents.

To balance the blame, the video game retailers are also at fault. Ratings are there for a reason, and under no circumstances should an 18's title be sold to a minor. A video shop wouldn't rent an 18's to anyone under the age, so why do games shop continue to break this rule?

The banning of Manhunt 2 is an example of the Irish Censor board, simply following the British, unable to make up their own mind or allow people to decide for themselves what they would like to play. Granted the game may be "ultraviolent", but the IFCO don't seem to realise that most normal people can distinguish reality from pixelated fiction.

When you see movies like Hostel, in which people get blowtorched to the face, toes cut off and other gruesome violent scenes, it makes you wonder if its any worse than whats contained in this game.

Spyral

evidnetly if its been banned so I will make sure to buy it

flogen

The following is pretty much what I've said elsewhere on the issue:

I don't think the game should be banned as it isn't real violence and an 18 year old should be able to make that distinction - if they can't that's not the game's fault.

As for under 18s playing the game, well that's the parent's responsibility and they shouldn't try and pass the buck on that.

That said I think Manhunt was created for this very reason - the first edition of it came out shortly after GTA3 and it's obvious to me that Rockstar realised the connection between negative publicity and positive revenues. It's a cynical and opportunistic game which was created to shock and will relish any kind of bannings it gets. It's entire purpose is to be violent and by most accounts Manhunt 1 is a poor game that sold well because of the hype surrounding it.

For that reason, while not supporting the ban, I cannot support its creation and I won't get up in arms about "free speech" or any of that crap - because this game isn't saying anything anyway. I also realise that this censor is probably the most liberal we have ever had in Ireland and I respect his decision because of this, even if I don't agree with it.

From a gameplayer's point of view, this is no great loss. As I said on the Nintendo forum, Manhunt reminds me of Marilyn Manson and his increasingly desperate attempts to offend and shock - I got bored of that when I was in my mid-teens, to be honest.

cavedave

I won't get up in arms about "free speech" or any of that crap - because this game isn't saying anything anyway.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.

Thomas Paine

You might have a point, the game could have all the freedom of speech qualities of shouting "FIRE" in a cinema and so should be banned. I do not feel competent to judge the free speech merit of this game though and I have my doubts the film censor does either.

mike65

What is your opinion on the government moving into regulating this form of entertainment?

The state, all states have sought to control arts and entertainment to varying degrees down the centuries. Nothing to see here.

Mike.

flogen

cavedave wrote:

You might have a point, the game could have all the freedom of speech qualities of shouting "FIRE" in a cinema and so should be banned. I do not feel competent to judge the free speech merit of this game though and I have my doubts the film censor does either.

The Paine quote is all well and good, and reminds me of the saying "I don't agree with what he's saying, but I'd defend to the death his right to say it".

In other words, everyone should have a right to hold strong opinion on something, whatever that opinion may be.

What I believe with this game, however, is that Rockstar isn't trying to make a point and it doesn't really believe what it's doing is right or proper - it just believes that it's profitable. I wouldn't defend to the death someone who said something just to provoke a reaction because they're abusing the system for their own gain. That's not what free speech is about and it forgets that all rights come with responsibilities.

That said, I'm not arguing that a game or film or picture has to have a moral message to be deemed acceptable - I just believe that a game which exists to cause controversy isn't a game I can stand behind and defend.

I don't support its banning, nor do I support its existence.

Owen

If you don't want to see the gore, don't buy it. Similarly with TV, if you won't want to watch a show due to language/sex/violence, change the channel. The rest of us with open minds able to comprehend that it's only fantasy will thank you for it.

heyjude

flogen wrote:

The following is pretty much what I've said elsewhere on the issue:

I don't think the game should be banned as it isn't real violence and an 18 year old should be able to make that distinction - if they can't that's not the game's fault.

As for under 18s playing the game, well that's the parent's responsibility and they shouldn't try and pass the buck on that.

That said I think Manhunt was created for this very reason - the first edition of it came out shortly after GTA3 and it's obvious to me that Rockstar realised the connection between negative publicity and positive revenues. It's a cynical and opportunistic game which was created to shock and will relish any kind of bannings it gets. It's entire purpose is to be violent and by most accounts Manhunt 1 is a poor game that sold well because of the hype surrounding it.

For that reason, while not supporting the ban, I cannot support its creation and I won't get up in arms about "free speech" or any of that crap - because this game isn't saying anything anyway. I also realise that this censor is probably the most liberal we have ever had in Ireland and I respect his decision because of this, even if I don't agree with it.

From a gameplayer's point of view, this is no great loss. As I said on the Nintendo forum, Manhunt reminds me of Marilyn Manson and his increasingly desperate attempts to offend and shock - I got bored of that when I was in my mid-teens, to be honest.

This pretty much sums up my thinking about banning this game. As regards the issue of censorship in general, I've often wondered why the censor doesn't become some sex/violence crazed maniac, as it is claimed that these films/games/books etc are banned due to their ability to corrupt people so much that they might replicate what they see/read.

So if the censor/s have to sit through hour of such dodgy films/games etc. then why aren't they damaged in this way ? Or is it just the ordinary Joe/Jane that might be damaged by exposure to such material ?

Isn't there also the danger that rather than protecting society through censorship, instead all we get is a reflection of the censors own morals and prejudices ?

I mean if I was the censor on TV at the moment, I could think of at least a dozen programmes that while very popular, I would be delighted to see the back of !

flogen

heyjude wrote:

Isn't there also the danger that rather than protecting society through censorship, instead all we get is a reflection of the censors own morals and prejudices

There was in the past, but as I said, the current censor has been extremely liberal.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he said himself that the role is no longer about "protecting" the public, but is now about informing their own decisions (this kind of contradicts what he's done here)

The fact that he gave 9 Songs an 18 cert and allowed it for cinematic release speaks volumes - as does the introduction of the 15A certificate and the general relaxation of things to allow (gasp!) curses in films other than ones marked 18s.

cavedave

I wouldn't defend to the death someone who said something just to provoke a reaction because they're abusing the system for their own gain. That's not what free speech is about and it forgets that all rights come with responsibilities.

Just because something is deliberately trying to provke the public does not mean it should be banned does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce#Legal_troubles

Also you get into all sorts of problems if all you have to do to get something banned is to say "they only said that to be controversial". You are probably right though I do think rockstar are very happy with the controversy.

Zambia

No its a product , the purchase is in the realm of the user.

Banning it serves no purpose but to heighten its publication

flogen

cavedave wrote:

Just because something is deliberately trying to provke the public does not mean it should be banned does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce#Legal_troubles

Also you get into all sorts of problems if all you have to do to get something banned is to say "they only said that to be controversial". You are probably right though I do think rockstar are very happy with the controversy.

Was the war of the worlds trying to be controversial? I'm sure it was just a radio series, with plenty of warnings, that people didn't realise was fictional.

You make a fair point though, but I don't think there's much of a comparison.
The difference between, say, Lenny Bruce and Manhunt is that Bruce was controversial because he pushed boundaries and questioned social norms - he probably knew he was going to cause controversy but he didn't act as he did for that reason alone, he did it because he wanted to question the way society was working.

Of course, as you say, policing this is akin to reading someone's mind at times and it's hard to find the line. You could also say that Rockstar are trying to question social norms too, but I don't believe they are. At least I cannot see what questions of society are being raised in this game, or what point the game has other than to provoke anger.

Dave!

DarkJager wrote:

The banning of Manhunt 2 is an example of the Irish Censor board, simply following the British, unable to make up their own mind or allow people to decide for themselves what they would like to play.

In fairness to the censor, he said today that he banned it before the British did (take his word for it or check it out).

I don't think the game should be banned. For one thing, it serves no purpose really, since people are increasingly buying games off the internet. If they want it, then that's all they have to do.

But what was pointed out on the radio today, which I thought was a good point, was that the censor is essentially an adult (who is not elected AFAIK) who watches films etc., and then tells other adults that THEY cannot watch them! Seems pretty silly when you think of it like that.

Ya really need to rethink what the job of the censor should be... He's responsible for classifying the films, etc., into age groups, which is grand. It means that parents (as well as cinemas, video shops, etc) can be guided in what films kids should be allowed to see. But once you're over 18, why should you still be subject to the opinion of a censor? Surely you can make your own mind up at that stage?

The argument is made that the game should never fall into the hands of kids, and that inevitably games rated 18s will do that. But if the certificates are to mean anything, then surely they should be strictly adhered to anyway. I mean, Scarface is rated 18s -- so therefore it should NEVER be shown to kids. Or is there a grey area here? Scarface is 18s, but sure if a kiddo watches it, it's no big deal.......

They should either be adhered to or abolished. Banning games is ridiculous.

The other thing that has been pointed out already is that the censor just gave Manhunt 2 the best publicity it could ever have gotten. What audience does he think the creators are aiming at? Middle aged women? Or young lads who want to see blood and guts? The answer is the latter, and most of those people, if they've played Manhunt 1 (which was sh*te), would probably have steered clear of Manhunt 2 -- except for now they hear it's "so gruesome they had to ban it!" I'd be interested to know whether sales went up for the first one after the papers started blaming it for the death of some bloke. I'd say the sales of this one will be 10 times that.

Liam Byrne

There's a difference between passively watching a DVD and actively playing a game.

Also, I took part in a discussion on Red FM where some idiot was saying that he regularly bought and let his 15-year-old son play over 18 games.

I quizzed him on whether he'd take his son out for a pint, and also whether it put a mental note in the kid's head that bending the law was OK, but he wasn't interested in comparing the scenario or having a proper discussion.

That said, though, given some of the ****e that passes as a film (Saw II/III, can't remember which, but which I went to because someone else wanted to see it) the game must be pretty bad for it to be banned.

And where would you guys draw the line in that "it's not real violence" ? If there was a game about kiddie porn would that be OK, because "it's not real abuse" ?

cavedave

There's a difference between passively watching a DVD and actively playing a game.

There is. Is there any research on how video games effect people in comparison to films?

some idiot was saying that he regularly bought and let his 15-year-old son play over 18 games.

However bad people are about letting their kids watch the violent DVDs they are even worse with letting kids play computer games.

And where would you guys draw the line in that "it's not real violence" ? If there was a game about kiddie porn would that be OK, because "it's not real abuse" ?

This is a really good question. When computers get photo realistic can we really just claim "ah well it is only a game" anymore? On the other side should Lolita be banned just because it deals with this subject?

My generation all played pacman for years. If video games effected kids we would all spend our time in dark rooms eating pills listening to repetitive music.

o1s1n

cavedave wrote:

There is. Is there any research on how video games effect people in comparison to films?

Yes there is. Ironically enough, it's a BBFC study which reached the conclusion that "violent games are less harmful then violent films and television"

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/24/british-ratings-board-violent-video-games-less-harmful-than-mov/

Can download the whole study here; http://www.isfe-eu.org/index.php?&template%5B0%5D=matrice.html&template%5B1%5D=rubrique.html&oidit=T001:662b16536388a7260921599321365911

Goodshape

Liam Byrne wrote:

I quizzed him on whether he'd take his son out for a pint and also whether it put a mental note in the kid's head that bending the law was OK, but he wasn't interested in comparing the scenario or having a proper discussion.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be drawn into such a comparison either. A 15 year old is perfectly capable of understanding the difference between reality and what is shown on a television screen. Film certificates exist for a reason -- as a rule for retailers and a guideline for consumers -- but really, I think it's a guideline that can be broken at the parents/guardians discretion.

Treating it as 'bending the law' is totally obtuse, imho. Sure he'll be onto the homicide next! (it's all 'laws', innit?).

Oirthir

cavedave wrote:

My generation all played pacman for years. If video games effected kids we would all spend our time in dark rooms eating pills listening to repetitive music.

Don't forget going "oga-oga-oga-oga-oga-oga-oga"

Mick86

Internet shopping has rendered the banning of games, films and books redundant.

cooker3

I have yet to ever see a reason for banning any type of art or form of entertainment for any reason other then it shows an illegal act child porn etc, this is no differant.

It will only increase the sales

Victor

Deleted User wrote:

More kneejerk reactions from people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Can we take it that you have seen the game then?

This is the only game in a decade to be banned.

Which will mark it out from the others to people like, eh, liveline callers

Most games reflect modern culture,

Let me see:

Battlefield 1942 - no
Super Mario series - not really
Command & Conquer - no
Space Invaders - no
Football Manager type games - vaguely
Doom - no
Quake - no
Counter Strike - not really - unless you are a counter/terrorist
Resident Evil - no
GTA - some related themes
Those hack & slash medieval type games - no

so if you ban games why stop there, ban a couple of movies and them some books while you are at it.

They do that occassionally.

barrett1965

I'm not into video games, but it pisses me off the some guy in the censors office can just ban games or whatever. No-one individual ought to have this kind of power.

Liam Byrne

cooker3 wrote:

I have yet to ever see a reason for banning any type of art or form of entertainment for any reason other then it shows an illegal act child porn etc.

So you're basically saying that if a film or game shows people blowing the crap out of each other or violently beating each other up - or even robbing a car and "joyriding", that it should be banned ?

Those are all illegal acts too, y'know!

That's a lot more restrictive than just banning something because it shows sick violence.....

cooker3

Liam Byrne wrote:

So you're basically saying that if a film or game shows people blowing the crap out of each other or violently beating each other up - or even robbing a car and "joyriding", that it should be banned ?

Those are all illegal acts too, y'know!

That's a lot more restrictive than just banning something because it shows sick violence.....

No, I didn't mean protraying illegal acts, I meant showing real life serious illegal acts such as if a film showed a genuine clip of child abuse.
Anything simulated such as GTA, Manhunt etc, I wouldn't ban.

flogen

cooker3 wrote:

No, I didn't mean protraying illegal acts, I meant showing real life serious illegal acts such as if a film showed a genuine clip of child abuse.
Anything simulated such as GTA, Manhunt etc, I wouldn't ban.

So you're OK with a video game that shows simulated child abuse? What about a rape or child rape sim?

cooker3

flogen wrote:

So you're OK with a video game that shows simulated child abuse? What about a rape or child rape sim?

Yep, fine by me. Well doubt I would play it myself but certainly wouldn't ban it.

flogen

cooker3 wrote:

Yep, fine by me. Well doubt I would play it myself but certainly wouldn't ban it.

Fair enough.
I wouldn't be so sure of it myself, especially considering the fact that someone who doesn't get pleasure from the concept of child rape would be unlikely to touch the game at all.