NationStates Jolt Archive

Calm down, only "game". No plural.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/6767623.stm

Censors ban 'brutal' video game

British censors have banned a violent video game from the UK for the first time in a decade.

The video game Manhunt 2 was rejected for its "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying", the British Board of Film Classification said.

It means the Manhunt sequel cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK.

The parents of a Leicester schoolboy who blamed the original game for the murder of their 14-year-old son said they were "absolutely elated".

The original Manhunt game was given an 18 classification in 2003.

Manhunt 2, for PS2 and Nintendo Wii consoles, is made by Rockstar Games.

The company has six weeks to submit an appeal.

The last game to be refused classification was Carmageddon in 1997. That decision was overturned on appeal.

David Cooke, director of the BBFC, said: "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."

'Morally irresponsible'

The original Manhunt game caused huge controversy and was blamed for the murder of Stefan Pakeerah.

The boy was stabbed and beaten to death in Leicester in February 2004.

His parents believe the killer, Warren LeBlanc, 17, was inspired by the game.

Stefan's mother, Giselle Pakeerah, had condemned the sequel, branding the gaming industry "morally irresponsible".

"We have been campaigning against these games for a long time and the BBFC made the right decision," she said.

Police said robbery was the motive behind the attack on Stefan in Stokes Wood Park on 26 February 2004 - and not the video game blamed by Stefan's parents.

Manhunt's maker Rockstar North has always insisted its games are geared towards mature audiences and are marketed responsibly.

Leicester MP Keith Vaz, who campaigned with the Pakeerahs against the original version of Manhunt, praised the decision to ban Manhunt 2.

He said: "This is an excellent decision by the British Board of Film Classification, showing that game publishers cannot expect to get interactive games where players take the part of killers engaged in 'casual sadism' and murder."

The parents are idiots, so are the censors.

The parents are idiots, so are the censors.

QFT

Video games don't cause this. The cause is rooted deep somewhere in our society.

The parents are idiots, so are the censors.

I would say it's more stupid to blindly scream "there's nothing wrong with any game, no matter what!"

You don't know what this game was like; the censors do. The fact that it's the first time they've banned a game in ten years shows that they're not exactly trigger happy with a ban, suggesting it must have been really quite unpleasant.

I would say it's more stupid to blindly scream "there's nothing wrong with any game, no matter what!"

You don't know what this game was like; the censors do. The fact that it's the first time they've banned a game in ten years shows that they're not exactly trigger happy with a ban, suggesting it must have been really quite unpleasant.

They banned postal 2, I have that. If it's anything like that, it's not so bad.

I would say it's more stupid to blindly scream "there's nothing wrong with any game, no matter what!"

You don't know what this game was like; the censors do. The fact that it's the first time they've banned a game in ten years shows that they're not exactly trigger happy with a ban, suggesting it must have been really quite unpleasant.
Calm down, only "game". No plural.
The parents are idiots, so are the censors.
I'm somewhere between these two views, but closer to the 'fuck censorship' end. I think the game may well have been disgusting and unforgivable, but;
A. There has never been any credible evidence to blame video games for any crime.
B. Censorship, cliched though this may be, is a dangerous road. I am against any and all of it, strictly because, repugnant though the media in question may be, the alternative is simply too horrible.

I remember the trial of the two lads from Liverpool who killed Jamie Bulger....The media started going on about the movie "Childs play" with chuckie. The judge said it had fuck all to do with it, the cops said it had fuck all to do with it...no heed paid whatsover. Its the usual "none of this in my day" shite. News without context towards a population insufficiently aware of either human nature or history (and thats towards countries in General, not just the Brits).

I would say it's more stupid to blindly scream "there's nothing wrong with any game, no matter what!"

You don't know what this game was like; the censors do. The fact that it's the first time they've banned a game in ten years shows that they're not exactly trigger happy with a ban, suggesting it must have been really quite unpleasant.

So, some unpleasant books should also be banned?

This is the story where the anti-game fanatics, thompson et al. leaped on the connection of the game to the murder, and then it was revealed later that it was the victim that owned the game, not the killer, isn't it?

It probably is a pretty nasty game, but trying to link it to a murder like that is stretching thing a bit too far. With a sample of one, you'll never be able to disentangle cause and effect.

I would say it's more stupid to blindly scream "there's nothing wrong with any game, no matter what!"

You don't know what this game was like; the censors do. The fact that it's the first time they've banned a game in ten years shows that they're not exactly trigger happy with a ban, suggesting it must have been really quite unpleasant.

Life is equally, of not more, unpleasant. Do you genuinely believe that murderers are motivated more by what CJ did on San Andreas than by psychological flaws and social pressures?

The same applies to music; objectionable though music glorifying gang violence, homophobia and the like is, nothing is served in banning it.

It's the video game/music/RPG/clothes/internets fault. It always is.

Damn that evil media! Down with video games! Down with violent movies! Down with violent books! BURN THEM ALL!


Oh wait..

Wow... I haven't heard the phrase "home-skillet" for... nearly a decade. Damn.


The parents are idiots. They're too lazy to raise their own children, so they try to get the government to do it for them. And it's not like this kind of thing didn't happen before video games were widespread... I forget their names, but there was a case in the UK (I'm pretty sure it was the UK) where a couple of pre-teens kidnapped and murdered a pre-schooler, back in the 80's, I think.

Banning a single videogame isn't going to change that some people will commit senseless violence. Banning every video game won't change that, either. The fact of the matter is that parents need to take responsibility with their children, or not have children, period.

EDIT: Jamie Bulger! That was the kid's name...

So, some unpleasant books should also be banned?

Firstly, no one is talking about 'unpleasant'. We are talking about a game that has an "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying".

Secondly, no one is talking about 'games', plural. It is a single game, and the first one they have banned in a long time. This isn't exactly censorship gone wild, but a game that pushed the already extremely flexible guidelines too far.

Censorship is not a legitimate power of the government. It is tyrannical. It violates our rights to think, learn and create as we wish and it has no place in a society that dares to call itself a liberal democracy.

I would say it's more stupid to blindly scream "there's nothing wrong with any game, no matter what!"

You don't know what this game was like; the censors do. The fact that it's the first time they've banned a game in ten years shows that they're not exactly trigger happy with a ban, suggesting it must have been really quite unpleasant.

Or the current censor(s) is a new boy and wants to justify his/her job/jurisdiction or says "theres so much of this we can't keep track" so they can get a new office and a secretary...

Or in the great ironic cycle of life, somebody has taken the decison that showing problem solving by violence in any context is utterly unnacceptable in todays world....

Firstly, no one is talking about 'unpleasant'. We are talking about a game that has an "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying".

Secondly, no one is talking about 'games', plural. It is a single game, and the first one they have banned in a long time. This isn't exactly censorship gone wild, but a game that pushed the already extremely flexible guidelines too far.

Why must there be limits of a product already delegated out of the children's reach? (I'm not even going into the delegation bit...)

They banned "Carmaggedon". I played it. It was funny.

The parents are idiots. They're too lazy to raise their own children, so they try to get the government to do it for them. And it's not like this kind of thing didn't happen before video games were widespread... I forget their names, but there was a case in the UK (I'm pretty sure it was the UK) where a couple of pre-teens kidnapped and murdered a pre-schooler, back in the 80's, I think.


That was the Bulger case I mentioned. Then it was "video nasties" as they were termed. There was Mary Bell in the 1960's - she killed two lads when she was 11.


(offtopic -Even up to two or three years ago I'd get chain e-mails saying 'sign to keep these evil killers blah blah blah'. I used to send it back, asking what would be the reaction if I dealt with a 10 year old that kicked me in the leg the same way I would with a grown man...)

Firstly, no one is talking about 'unpleasant'. We are talking about a game that has an "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying".

Secondly, no one is talking about 'games', plural. It is a single game, and the first one they have banned in a long time. This isn't exactly censorship gone wild, but a game that pushed the already extremely flexible guidelines too far.

The person I quoted said, "unpleasant". And I change my "books" to "book".

Enforce the rating system if that is what needs to be done.

Hey, if we're banning stuff with a common theme of brutal slaying, there goes Sherlock Holmes, that disgusting purveyor of filth.

Hey, if we're banning stuff with a common theme of brutal slaying, there goes Sherlock Holmes, that disgusting purveyor of filth.

There goes Bernard Cornwell, and that frankly evil J.R.R Tolkein, as well....

Massacring goblins, Balrogs, orcs and the like, whatever next?

yes if we just censor out any bad thoughts, bad things will stop happening...

now take your pills and proceed to sterilization unit 2

The censors hadn't banned anything for ages. Manhunt 2 must have really freaked em out. Give em a break.

What a truly ridiculous thing to do. "They haven't done it in a while and that is what they do by definition, so no complaining, now. Suck it up."

The censors hadn't banned anything for ages. Manhunt 2 must have really freaked em out. Give em a break.

In my opinion censorship will never work and humans will always be violent creatures. There will never be a perfect world as violence will forever be around. Video games/movies/porn etc. are not to blame. I've never played Manhunt so I'm not to bothered. However if they ban the sequel to Mercenaries I will not be happy.

There goes Bernard Cornwell, and that frankly evil J.R.R Tolkein, as well....

Massacring goblins, Balrogs, orcs and the like, whatever next?

Howabout the Old Testament. Lots of incest and murder there.

The censors hadn't banned anything for ages. Manhunt 2 must have really freaked em out. Give em a break.

surely if it was that bad parents wouldn't buy it for there under 18 kids

wait..you mean parents would still buy it...hmmm so I guess this is one of those crazy groups trying to bring the dead back to life again

if they ban the sequel to Mercenaries I will not be happy.

I never liked parliament anyway ;)

Howabout the Old Testament. Lots of incest and murder there.

Please, won't you just think of the children!

Well done BBFC (I'm fairly sure that's the censorship board in question). You've just guarenteeded that this game, which would probably have gone on to be a mediocre seller, will be played by every under 18 with an active broadband connextion.

While Manhunt 2 is going to be very violent and somewhat psychotic, banning it won't do anything. The game developers are probably psyched about the press coverage, in fact. They can add "So violent it was banned in Britain!" to their ads now.

It just pisses me off when things are banned for these kinds of things. Censorship is always wrong, no exceptions, and it has been proven that video games don't make people more any violent.

Video games don't kill people, people kill people. It's almost the same with the gun scenerio... "That there gun drove Jimbob's mind to go and kill that other man." Come on! If in fact, a game "makes" a person kill another, then that person is completely dependent on other people or machines to make the decisions for them. Sure, censor the game or whatnot, but don't ban it based on opinion or speculation.

I don't know...I'm gonna side with the censors on this one. I mean, if they banned it, they're gonna have a good reason. I mean, for crying out loud, they let Hostel into this country. That...unspeakably bad film. Bad. Bad bad bad bad bad.

If they banned it, chances are it was horrendously bad. I mean, the original was gruesome...and they released a sequel? It does not bode well.

Oh FFS.
Parents and censors are idiots are in this case. Mind you, in this context, parents tend to be idiots a lot of the time. Any time a relatively violent game comes out, a cry of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" can be heard.
Surprisingly, most kids do have small amounts of intelligence, and can tell the difference between a game and a real life. It's retarded to ban a game because people THINK it might badly influence children. If there's no solid proof, then there's no point.

You haven't met British parents then. A significant amount don't seem to give much of a toss about their kids.

Then that there is the problem to be dealt with, pardner.

You haven't met British parents then. A significant amount don't seem to give much of a toss about their kids.

That's a wee stereotypical, don't you think?

You haven't met British parents then. A significant amount don't seem to give much of a toss about their kids.

They played to much pong and pac man when they were kids.

surely if it was that bad parents wouldn't buy it for there under 18 kids

You haven't met British parents then. A significant amount don't seem to give much of a toss about their kids.

You haven't met British parents then. A significant amount don't seem to give much of a toss about their kids.

and thus banning a game for 18 year olds is the least of our problems, perhaps we should have a maximum age limit on games...

P.s. I never said the censors were right. They have a job to do and they felt that in this specific instance it was best to ban the game. And under their reasons for banning the game, the Bible and the Qur'an and the Torah should be banned too - but books are not their remit.

Oh FFS.
Parents and censors are idiots are in this case. Mind you, in this context, parents tend to be idiots a lot of the time. Any time a relatively violent game comes out, a cry of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" can be heard.
Surprisingly, most kids do have small amounts of intelligence, and can tell the difference between a game and a real life. It's retarded to ban a game because people THINK it might badly influence children. If there's no solid proof, then there's no point.

Not to mention Rockstar's repeated, explicit warnings of "Our games aren't for children"...

That "M" don't stand for "Merry," mom...

I support the censors. They have a lot of different aspects to consider when assigning certification to any new film, game or the like. The British Board of Film have to make a judgement call on whether to certify something at a certain age range, or whether to recommend (they have no specific power over this, that must be enforced by the UK Film Council and various other QUANGO's) that the film or game be banned from high-street and online retailers within Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Personally I don't know if you can put all the blame of violent crime on such video-games, I am not an expert by any means. In my own opinion they probably contribute, but I think that fact that people blame them is a reflection more on society and the standards we set (along with various nature/nurture situation surrounding the more violent people) than we might wish to think. I do however think a more active level of research needs to be conducted into video-games. When I did my degree some years ago, I remember reading some preliminary research showing that video-games stimulate the release of dopamine into the players brain. Now I seem to recall that dopamine is related to both addiction and behaviour changing patterns, depending upon the source of the stimulant.

Firstly, no one is talking about 'unpleasant'. We are talking about a game that has an "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying".

Secondly, no one is talking about 'games', plural. It is a single game, and the first one they have banned in a long time. This isn't exactly censorship gone wild, but a game that pushed the already extremely flexible guidelines too far.

so it's okay to censor, as long as we don't do it too often? What is too often? Once a decade? Every 5 years? Monthly? Personally, I think that a single instance of censorship is too much. If you don't want your kids playing the game, or you don't want to play it, then that is your choice and your job to figure out how to do so. But you have no right telling me I can't play it or allow my kids to.

While Manhunt 2 is going to be very violent and somewhat psychotic, banning it won't do anything. The game developers are probably psyched about the press coverage, in fact. They can add "So violent it was banned in Britain!" to their ads now.

It's life of Brian all over again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian#_note-Python.27s_Jones_Passionate_About_.27Life_Of_Brian.27s.27_Return)


"So funny it was banned in Norway" was the tagline in Sweden.

You haven't met British parents then. A significant amount don't seem to give much of a toss about their kids.
That is a gross over-generalisation. I worked as an abused child case worker and social worker for some years. In my experience, even some of those so-called "bad-parents" cared enough to try for a little influence over their child's perceptions of right and wrong. Yes, I am not denying it, there are parents who don't care about their children, and I've seen more of them than I might like, but I stand by my convictions that more than 95% of parents are fundamentally decent and moral. Yes some may be rather stressed and tired, perhaps suffering their own issues, and so they may appear less than worried about their child's development, and it is these people we really try and help as much as possible.
And just out of interest, where in Britain (if indeed you are from Britain) do you live in?

I support the censors. They have a lot of different aspects to consider when assigning certification to any new film, game or the like. The British Board of Film have to make a judgement call on whether to certify something at a certain age range, or whether to recommend (they have no specific power over this, that must be enforced by the UK Film Council and various other QUANGO's) that the film or game be banned from high-street and online retailers within Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Personally I don't know if you can put all the blame of violent crime on such video-games, I am not an expert by any means. In my own opinion they probably contribute, but I think that fact that people blame them is a reflection more on society and the standards we set (along with various nature/nurture situation surrounding the more violent people) than we might wish to think. I do however think a more active level of research needs to be conducted into video-games. When I did my degree some years ago, I remember reading some preliminary research showing that video-games stimulate the release of dopamine into the players brain. Now I seem to recall that dopamine is related to both addiction and behaviour changing patterns, depending upon the source of the stimulant.

Should we ban food, too? That releases dopamine into the eaters brain. People might choke from getting a bit too overzealous with that bag of pretzels.

I'm not saying some really extreme rule breaking games shouldn't be banned (for instance those games made by the KKK), but from what i've heard, Manhunt 2 isn't actually that bad.

Should we ban food, too? That releases dopamine into the eaters brain. People might choke from getting a bit too overzealous with that bag of pretzels.

I never claimed to be an expert, in fact I pointed out that I am not. I was merely making comment that research does show a much increased release of dopamine, through a rather more artificial source than something required by basic biology (I apologise if I did not make this clear), and that it can have some influence over peoples actions and perception of reality. I once came across someone who believed themselves to be living in a popular television programme of the time.
I would also point out that over the years there have been many films, and in recent years games, censored, some which may seem rather silly to us now, and even at the time had opposition against banning. But the BBFC has to draw its lines somewhere, and they have made their recommendation. It is now up the the courts.

I'm not saying some really extreme rule breaking games shouldn't be banned (for instance those games made by the KKK), but from what i've heard, Manhunt 2 isn't actually that bad.

is there really a point in banning a game made by the KKK its not like anyone will buy it

the wonders of the market...

I never claimed to be an expert, in fact I pointed out that I am not. I was merely making comment that research does show a much increased release of dopamine, through a rather more artificial source than something required by basic biology (I apologise if I did not make this clear), and that it can have some influence over peoples actions and perception of reality. I once came across someone who believed themselves to be living in a popular television programme of the time.

Did this person of other issues of mental instability to begin with? Or was it simply a show that him where the reality gear is located in the brain?


I'm truly not being sarcastic. Not too much, anyway. Not sarcastic enough that I intend for you to take offense.

is there really a point in banning a game made by the KKK its not like anyone will buy it

the wonders of the market...

I probably would, not because i'm a racist, but to say that I own the most "evil" game possible and then id be TEH COOLZ!

Did this person of other issues of mental instability to begin with? Or was it simply a show that him where the reality gear is located in the brain?


I'm truly not being sarcastic. Not too much, anyway. Not sarcastic enough that I intend for you to take offense.

It would take a fair bit more than an anonymous posting on an Internet board to offend me I assure you.
The person I was referring to most likely did have some MH issues, but the watching of this programme for some 20 hours a day didn't help. I wasn't the case worker, so I cannot comment much more than that, I merely found the fellow whilst covering for a colleague.
However my previous points still stand. The BBFC have made their recommendation, and baring in mind that you can never please everyone, they choose to recommend the banning of the game. I support that decision, even if I were to privately disagree with it, because they have to take into account dozens of factors, and make an informed choice about how the treat every game and film that is presented to them. It may well be overturned by the legal system, and that to will garner both support and opposition. I just believe that the various officers working at the BBFC made a very carefully considered choice, and should not be vilified for it. I also believe that a lot more careful, independent research needs to be conducted into the links between interactive video-games, social circumstances and violence.

His parents believe the killer, Warren LeBlanc, 17, was inspired by the game.
His parents are buffoons.

It would take a fair bit more than an anonymous posting on an Internet board to offend me I assure you.
The person I was referring to most likely did have some MH issues, but the watching of this programme for some 20 hours a day didn't help. I wasn't the case worker, so I cannot comment much more than that, I merely found the fellow whilst covering for a colleague.
However my previous points still stand. The BBFC have made their recommendation, and baring in mind that you can never please everyone, they choose to recommend the banning of the game. I support that decision, even if I were to privately disagree with it, because they have to take into account dozens of factors, and make an informed choice about how the treat every game and film that is presented to them. It may well be overturned by the legal system, and that to will garner both support and opposition. I just believe that the various officers working at the BBFC made a very carefully considered choice, and should not be vilified for it. I also believe that a lot more careful, independent research needs to be conducted into the links between interactive video-games, social circumstances and violence.

I disagree with censorship when it comes to any artform short of age regulation (which I'm privately not all that happy about).

As for research into the links, I know that there are many studies and that many more will be done. I really don't think there is much difference to be found between this and comic books or heavy metal or...

His parents are buffoons.

Fear, suffering and anger are possibly the three greatest incentives known to humans. I can understand why they are saying this. They want to try and find a reason to why their son was killed, and they latched onto the video-game one. I cannot possibly say whether they are right or wrong, but I can say I understand why they have picked that reason.

I disagree with censorship when it comes to any artform short of age regulation (which I'm privately not all that happy about).

One mans art-form is another mans violence inspiring video-game. I will not say that censorship is wrong, I agree with age certificating, if only as a good guide to parents about whether or not something may contain elements that may (and I stress the word may) have either a detrimental effect on their children or otherwise affect them adversely. Too many times have I found gross neglect of what a child may be viewing, that has caused significant problems in some cases. But I can see your point. You feel that people should be able to make their own choices about what they and their children can view, and to an extent I may even agree with it (I know that sounds contradictory to what I said above, but I have my reasons, both professional and personal).

One mans art-form is another mans violence inspiring video-game. I will not say that censorship is wrong, I agree with age certificating, if only as a good guide to parents about whether or not something may contain elements that may (and I stress the word may) have either a detrimental effect on their children or otherwise affect them adversely. Too many times have I found gross neglect of what a child may be viewing, that has caused significant problems in some cases. But I can see your point. You feel that people should be able to make their own choices about what they and their children can view, and to an extent I may even agree with it (I know that sounds contradictory to what I said above, but I have my reasons, both professional and personal).

We've come to an understanding. May I have this dance?

There goes Bernard Cornwell, and that frankly evil J.R.R Tolkein, as well....

Massacring goblins, Balrogs, orcs and the like, whatever next?

Damn right! Its downright disgusting how the 'Company' (obvious military recruiting drive) brutally and calously bust into the Orcs home in Moria, off half the population, chuck their leader in a pit and get off scott free with the help of some neighboring Elves.
I wont even go into The Hobbit. Just freakin' break into Goblin Town and kill the Goblin King, who hadnt even done anything to them, because he was understandably upset at the fact that they had a sword with them that was used by the Elves to commit genocide against his people.

We've come to an understanding. May I have this dance?

As long as our understanding is that we may both have differing opinions about certificating and the possible side effects of certain films and games, then yes you may have this waltz. I ask only this, don't yell if I step on your toes, my wife once told me I was a rather clumsy dancer.

Yo, check it, home-skillet, this hood be called SPAAARRRRTTAAAAA!!!

I think that sums up my opinion


The parents are idiots, so are the censors.

And that too...

Just another case of the idiots trying to dumb down society...

I can't say I'm surprised, considering Britain's track record, but oh well. Parents and censors are at fault for this. Censors should've just laughed the parents out the door because they can't raise their kids properly...

Just another case of the idiots trying to dumb down society...

I can't say I'm surprised, considering Britain's track record, but oh well. Parents and censors are at fault for this. Censors should've just laughed the parents out the door because they can't raise their kids properly...

Have you ever lost a friend or colleague to cancer or a traffic accident? What about a son to a vicious, apparently motiveless murder? How on earth do you feel qualified to say that the parents didn't raise their kids properly. Dear Lord, how can you even suggest such a thing could possibly be the fault of parents campaigning against violent video-games?! Forget feeling ashamed of yourself, you need to go see a psychiatric professional if that is your life outlook, and by gods you need to think much more carefully before posting such things again.

As for:
Just another case of the idiots trying to dumb down society...
How can banning a mindless, violent video-game possibly be contrived as being a dumbing down of society? Good grief, either you are drinking to much or have a desperate need for an education.

(Edit: Spelling error)

Have you ever lost a friend or colleague to cancer or a traffic accident? What about a son to a vicious, apparently motiveless murder? How on earth do you feel qualified to say that the parents didn't raise their kids properly. Dear Lord, how can you even suggest such a thing could possibly be the fault of parents campaigning against violent video-games?! Forget feeling ashamed of yourself, you need to go see a therapist if that is your life outlook, and by gods you need to think much more carefully before posting such things again.

As for:

How can banning a mindless, violent video-game possibly be contrived as being a dumbing down of society? Good grief, either you are drinking to much or have a desperate need for an education.

And I urge you to go seek debate coaching, so perhaps you can come back without making ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with you.

Dear Lord, how can you even suggest such a thing could possibly be the fault of parents campaigning against violent video-games?! Forget feeling ashamed of yourself, you need to go see a psychiatric professional if that is your life outlook, and by gods you need to think much more carefully before posting such things again.

What on earth are you on about? All he said is that parents campaigning against violent video games got this game banned.

Manhunt is a fucked up game, but blaming it isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

Have you ever lost a friend or colleague to cancer or a traffic accident? What about a son to a vicious, apparently motiveless murder?

I have not. How does this equate to the argument?

How on earth do you feel qualified to say that the parents didn't raise their kids properly. Dear Lord, how can you even suggest such a thing could possibly be the fault of parents campaigning against violent video-games?!

Because parents can say no and put the game back on the store shelf. A simple act proves that, even by your logic, the parents could've prevented the entire incident.

Forget feeling ashamed of yourself, you need to go see a psychiatric professional if that is your life outlook, and by gods you need to think much more carefully before posting such things again.

Why would I feel ashamed? Furthermore, psychiatrists prescribe medication, so I believe you're referring to a psychologist. As for the rest of it, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Why is expressing my opinion so wrong?

As for:

How can banning a mindless, violent video-game possibly be contrived as being a dumbing down of society? Good grief, either you are drinking to much or have a desperate need for an education.

(Edit: Spelling error)

Because, again, the parents could've said no instead of making the government do it for them. And, for the record, I'm quite sober and am very well educated. Please cease with the personal attacks and debate with logic rather than emotions.

frickin stupid. Guess what if your kid kills someone after playing a game, they have far more problems than playing games.

studies have shown that violent games increase aggression in young children (up to about 12) so banning a game for minors fine. But overall, kind of stupid. It won't affect developed brains. And when it does effect developed brains there is usually a more important joint cause.

Looks like I'll be able to look forward to it being banned here too.

This is the story where the anti-game fanatics, thompson et al. leaped on the connection of the game to the murder, and then it was revealed later that it was the victim that owned the game, not the killer, isn't it?

That's right... his parents are still in denial..I couldn't believe it when I read it.

Looks like I'll be able to look forward to it being banned here too.



That's right... his parents are still in denial..I couldn't believe it when I read it.

they did to the frist one here so they will do it to the second one too

they did to the frist one here so they will do it to the second one too

They went to all the trouble of synching up the movie, tv, game etc ratings systems... but we still don't have an R for games!! Why?

They went to all the trouble of synching up the movie, tv, game etc ratings systems... but we still don't have an R for games!! Why?

as they'er dumb in not thinking of it

Fuck censorship.

frickin stupid. Guess what if your kid kills someone after playing a game, they have far more problems than playing games.

Thread won.

Yeh heard this today on the radio and it's pretty poor IMO.

If the game has an 18 certificate then that should be enough, denying UK gamers for fear of poor parenting is a bad show on the part of the BBFC.

I would imagine some of thier decision was weighed down by the murder of a young boy by his friend who had been playing the original Manhunt alot and used (IIRC) a hammer in the killing which is a weapon in the game.

The BBFC will pass films that are equally, if not more, violent than Manhunt 2 this year, of that I have no doubt.

England Prevails.....

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/Cookavich/180px-Warrior19.jpg

Which system is the game coming out on? :p

Really though, that kind of censorship seems overkill.

I wish I had my friendship ointment
I feel like I've been stung by fifty bees
But if I had my ointment
I wouldn't know where to rub it
'Cause I've got a hole in my heart the shape of Manhunt 2 :(

His parents believe the killer, Warren LeBlanc, 17, was inspired by the game.

Stefan's mother, Giselle Pakeerah, had condemned the sequel, branding the gaming industry "morally irresponsible".

"We have been campaigning against these games for a long time and the BBFC made the right decision," she said.

And yet their son (who was only 14) was the one who owned the game and not the killer. These people are a perfect example of why this sort of censorship is so stupid.

Funny. I thought the Brits truly respected freedom of speech.

Funny. I thought the Brits truly respected freedom of speech.

I'm sure that's true in most cases.

I'm sure that's true in most cases.

Probably. But you know, without a written constitution, shit like this can happen. In fact, the way the law is written (or lack thereof), Parliament has supreme authority, and can, if it so desired, steal the rights and liberties of every Briton. It's not going to happen, but I find the possibility frightening, even if it only exists in theory.

Probably. But you know, without a written constitution, shit like this can happen. In fact, the way the law is written (or lack thereof), Parliament has supreme authority, and can, if it so desired, steal the rights and liberties of every Briton. It's not going to happen, but I find the possibility frightening, even if it only exists in theory.

Censorship still occurs in countries with constitutions. ;) Even in this country, cases crop up where the FCC goes too far in censoring t.v. content, for example - sure, you can air almost anything on pay-t.v. But we still enforce standards of decency that sometimes go too far. We don't usually have severe problems, but it's not something the constitution always protects us from, either.

Censorship still occurs in countries with constitutions. ;) Even in this country, cases crop up where the FCC goes too far in censoring t.v. content, for example - sure, you can air almost anything on pay-t.v. But we still enforce standards of decency that sometimes go too far. We don't usually have severe problems, but it's not something the constitution always protects us from, either.
A more strict reading of the constitution, however, would rule the FCC unconstitutional. In fact, I personally oppose decency standards for their infringements, though I have absolutely no problem with healthy self-censorship. If someone wishes to withhold information, then let them deal with the consequences. I just don't want Big Brother to tell them "no."

A ban on a voluntary transaction between consenting parties? No, I'll have none of that. As for children, they are their parents' responsibility. This leads me to the conclusion that it is the parents and censors who are to blame.

A more strict reading of the constitution, however, would rule the FCC unconstitutional. In fact, I personally oppose decency standards for their infringements, though I have absolutely no problem with healthy self-censorship. If someone wishes to withhold information, then let them deal with the consequences. I just don't want Big Brother to tell them "no."

That's fine, but I wouldn't bet on the FCC going anywhere. ;)

That's fine, but I wouldn't bet on the FCC going anywhere. ;)

Neither do I, really. But at the very least, they need to be carefully watched. Every once in a while, they run out of control.

A ban on a voluntary transaction between consenting parties? No, I'll have none of that. As for children, they are their parents' responsibility. This leads me to the conclusion that it is the parents and censors who are to blame.

QFT.

Note also that TV etc. is not a necessity.

There goes Bernard Cornwell, and that frankly evil J.R.R Tolkein, as well....

Massacring goblins, Balrogs, orcs and the like, whatever next?

Shakespeare, he can be so nasty, and have you read some of the tortures of hell that Dante discribes? Ban them if anything.

That said I blame the parents, the censors and the ones who created the viedo game. All are at fault but just because it's stupid does not mean that it should be banned.

I can't say I'm surprised, considering Britain's track record, but oh well.

Right, when was the last time the BBFC banned a game (Carmageddon doesn't count since the ban was turned over on appeal)?

What track record?


Also, is there any evidence that it was banned because of a few people on the fringe campaining against? Or rather because there really was a "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying" and that "There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game."

I'll go with the later. I don't think the parents had anything to do with the banning.

Also the BBFC was only doing its job. To call them "stupid" really isn't fair. The laws and the remit they have been given maybe though.

Calm down, only "game". No plural.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/6767623.stm



The parents are idiots, so are the censors.

So is Rockstar. Why? Because they didn't make a PC version. Now I'm going to have to actually pay for a game. [/false irritation]

Calm down, only "game". No plural.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/6767623.stm



The parents are idiots, so are the censors.

See, this is how modern democracy descends towars fascism. Slowly, tiny bit by tiny bit, banned book after banned game after banned toy...

See, this is how modern democracy descends towars fascism. Slowly, tiny bit by tiny bit, banned book after banned game after banned toy...

Not really, you are looking at it the wrong way round.

It isn't as if 50 years ago nothing was banned/cut/censored. And we've been gradually piling on the censorship.

50 years ago more things we banned/cut/censored and we are gradually becoming less censorious with less things being banned/cut/censored.

I don't even see this game as being that bad. Yes, it is violent and gory, but so are the Saw movies. It's not as if you're running around in a town slaughtering old ladies on the street. This game is a psychological thriller where you have to take out soldiers that are actually out to brutally kill you.

In any case, bans like these are usually pointless, as the people who really want the game will get it anyway, thanks to the miracle of teh Intarwebz.

Not really, you are looking at it the wrong way round.

It isn't as if 50 years ago nothing was banned/cut/censored. And we've been gradually piling on the censorship.

50 years ago more things we banned/cut/censored and we are gradually becoming less censorious with less things being banned/cut/censored.

I think, rather, that we're now bouncing back to a previous level.

We have cameras watching us in the streets.
We have data retention - you do know that in the EU and US, the government forces internet providers to keep records of all your Internet activity?
We have people banning toys and games.

Yes, political censorship has relaxed, and people censor movies less for sexual content. Now OMG GAME VIOLENCE is the shtick. But we are not freer.

Regarding the original question, stupidity is not a competition. Everybody can win.

I think, rather, that we're now bouncing back to a previous level.

We have cameras watching us in the streets.
We have data retention - you do know that in the EU and US, the government forces internet providers to keep records of all your Internet activity?
We have people banning toys and games.

Not going to argue on that point. I'll even agree that we (the UK anyway) appears to be getting more authoritarian.

Just disagreeing over the impression that we are getting more censorious.

Of course that could just come in time ;)

banning a game cause it's violent is like banning guns cause it could kill.

people kill people not guns.

Games are violent - always have been. from the earlist arcade games where blasting planes was the norm - no one went out and shot down a F-16 did they?
Modern games are no more violent. everyone whine when grand theft auto comes out because its 'distasteful' - yet medal of honour, or call of duty has you diving around slaughtering germans in graphic detail. Yes manhunt has you killing people with plastic bags and hammers which is very violent and rockstar games has a tendancy to try and push barriers too far just to cause controversy (in my opinion) but It is in the person who plays them to choose to take them seriously. If they are impressionable, they shouldn't even play the game in the first place. I played San Andreas the other day for almost an entire day (relatives came round ...snooze) and it didnt make me want to steal cars and kill people for real, aside from a healthy libedo - I didn't want to pick up hookers either.
I think that the finger should be pointed at the parents and guys and gals' that go out and buy the game, weak temperment? DONT BUY THE FU**IN GAME!!!!

am I alone in thinkin that??????


Romulan senate signin off...:headbang:

In my opinion, it is the fault of the parents that believe that video games, and not bad parenting, push violence on our poor, uneducated youth that cannot decide between good and bad and, instead of turning to adults as role models, turn to "teh ebil, vilent meedya." Which is half a crutch for them to rest on, half an example of how they are bad parents.

Videogames have been blamed for Columbine, Virginia Tech, 9/11 (though indirectly... the Microsoft Flight Sim game), and for children randomly taking to the streets (or their own homes) with weapons and killing people.

One example (which is the only I can recall presently) involved a lawsuit against Rockstar. You see, allegedly, two kids that played GTA3apparently had the urge to imitate what they had seen in the game. So, they took 2 rifles that their parents had in their house (I don't remember where), took aim at their nearby freeway, and randomly fired upon passing cars. If I recall correctly, 2 people were injured in the incident. The parents, of course, weren't around... And why would they even want to be? If their children had managed to take their rifles and find a way to load them, there was obviously a problem there.

So, instead of taking the logical direction and punishing both the children and the parents, they blamed GTA3 directly in a lawsuit.

banning a game cause it's violent is like banning guns cause it could kill.

people kill people not guns.

It wasn't banned because it was "violent." It says very clearly in the OP article.

Also the gun allegory won't wash in Britain where guns are heavily restricted.

In my opinion, it is the fault of the parents that believe that video games, and not bad parenting, push violence on our poor, uneducated youth that cannot decide between good and bad and, instead of turning to adults as role models, turn to "teh ebil, vilent meedya." Which is half a crutch for them to rest on, half an example of how they are bad parents.

Videogames have been blamed for Columbine, Virginia Tech, 9/11 (though indirectly... the Microsoft Flight Sim game), and for children randomly taking to the streets (or their own homes) with weapons and killing people.

One example (which is the only I can recall presently) involved a lawsuit against Rockstar. You see, allegedly, two kids that played GTA3apparently had the urge to imitate what they had seen in the game. So, they took 2 rifles that their parents had in their house (I don't remember where), took aim at their nearby freeway, and randomly fired upon passing cars. If I recall correctly, 2 people were injured in the incident. The parents, of course, weren't around... And why would they even want to be? If their children had managed to take their rifles and find a way to load them, there was obviously a problem there.

So, instead of taking the logical direction and punishing both the children and the parents, they blamed GTA3 directly in a lawsuit.

All very interesting.

But shrieking parents with bad parenting skills had nothing to do with Manhunt 2 not getting a rating.

Also the gun allegory won't wash in Britain where guns are heavily restricted.

see britian gonna get there ass kicked on of these days no local milita when they get invaded is bad,and why did they ban the video game if it wasnt violent(i know for a fact it is)?

All very interesting.

But shrieking parents with bad parenting skills had nothing to do with Manhunt 2 not getting a rating.

Aye.

But it is a problem when they form organizations.

see britian gonna get there ass kicked on of these days no local milita when they get invaded is bad,and why did they ban the video game if it wasnt violent(i know for a fact it is)?

It emphazised "hunting and slaughtering" people over all else.

And the first has nary a relation to the second.

Guns don't kill people... But but guns sure help people kill other people

Guns don't kill people... But but guns sure help people kill other people

Yes, let's make this a gun control debate. THis will make it sure that it does not degrade... wait.

Yes, let's make this a gun control debate. THis will make it sure that it does not degrade... wait.

:D

Just responding to comments made earlier...

see britian gonna get there ass kicked on of these days no local milita when they get invaded is bad,

I'm sure we'll repel any would-be invader with our casual elitism and proper grammar, spelling and punctuation. ;)

and why did they ban the video game if it wasnt violent(i know for a fact it is)?

It says quite clearly in the article:

"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."

"[There is an] unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying"

Censorship is not a legitimate power of the government. It is tyrannical. It violates our rights to think, learn and create as we wish and it has no place in a society that dares to call itself a liberal democracy.
banning a game cause it's violent is like banning guns cause it could kill.

people kill people not guns.

QFT