Heald
22nd June 2007, 01:29 PM
Vital Links:
Game Politics (http://www.gamepolitics.com/)
-- The front page is full of news concerning this. If you are viewing this topic after, say, 25th June 2007, you might have to scroll back a page or two to find the relevant news
BBC News Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6767623.stm)
Well, banned in the UK at first at least. But the US branded it AO, Australia banned it and now most European governments are petitioning it to be banned.
So, why has it been banned everywhere?
(First, I should iterate that I do not believe any form of media should be banned, or giving a rating that effectively bans it, be it music, film, books or video games. Yes, give it a rating that will keep it out of the hands of children. Yes, enforce a system that ensures retailers don't sell adult-material to minors. But not if that system gets in the way of adult consumers buying a game or if it causes lower revenue of sales of said material to the developer due to the material being so harshly regulated regular consumers cannot buy it easily)
UK - basically, a few years ago, the original Manhunt was found at a crime scene in the city of Leicester where a 17 year old boy stabbed a 14 year old boy to death. The parents of the victim said the murderer had been inspired by the game to kill their son and blamed it as the only cause of their son's death.
The police later noted that the video game was in fact found in the victim's bedroom and there was no evidence that the murderer had even heard of the game, much less played it. They confirmed that robbery was the motive.
Nonetheless, the unrelenting blubbering arsehole that is Keith Vaz MP, Member of Parliament for Leicester, campaigned to have Manhunt (and later Bully, or Canis Canem Edit as it is known in the European market) banned. Despite the fact that Manhunt had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder, Currys, a major electronics retailer in the UK, and related stores removed the game from their shelves (although they continued to stock GTA and Leisure Suit Larry) to avoid being labelled 'child murder pedallers' or something to that effect.
This is not akin to a place like Wal-Mart refusing to stock a game, as no one buys games from places like Currys as they charge a king's ransom for video games.
Anyway, Manhunt 2 was obviously banned by the BBFC (the independent regulatory body for movies and video games) to avoid the wrath of Keith Vaz and all the other 'holier than thou' pious idiots who still think games are only for children.
What really burns me up is that the BBC filed the above news-story in the Leicestershire section of the website, despite the fact we have already established that Manhunt and subsequently Manhunt 2 had nothing whatsoever to doing with the murder in Leicester whatsoever.
US - Awarded an AO rating for violence only, meaning most retailers won't stock it and Nintendo and Sony refuse to licence it. Funnily enough, when questioned about the development of games such as Manhunt 2 for the Wii a few months back, the Nintendo press office said they would love more developers to produce adult games for their consoles so they could lose their 'kids-only' image perpetuated throughout their history of consoles. Now, I'm not really an expert in managing big video game companies, but banning one of the only adult games to be developed for your console seems to be counter-productive to disassociating yourself with their label 'kids-only', but that's just me.
Anyway, the ESRB has been receiving a lot of flak (undeservedly) in the last few years from politicians and pressure groups alike, usually stemming from things such as Hot Coffee, the Oblivion 'nude textures' scandal, the Bully 'Columbine simulator' label given to it by Jack Thompson and the Sims 2 being labelled a 'pedophile simulator', to name but a few cases of mindless bullshit that people who know absolutely nothing about video games keep coming up with to ban one of the greatest mediums of entertainment on this planet.
So, the ESRB wants to show it's doing a good job. It needs a high-profile, violent game at the top of the anti-video-game shitlist. Along comes Manhunt 2, with thousands of (adult) gamers salivating at the prospect of acting out the murder with the Wiimote. The ESRB is in place to distinguish which games are suitable for particular age-groups, not to pander to whiney parents and politicians. It knows that giving Manhunt 2 an AO-rating, usually reserved for pornographic games, is effectively giving it the proverbial black spot of gaming, meaning no retailers will stock it and no console will license it. An M rating would suffice because most 17 year olds can distinguish between fake violence and real violence and are rational enough to realise that performing acts they simulated in a video game in the real world will have ramifications, so they will refrain from murdering someone like they did in a video game because it is a bad thing to do.
Nonetheless, instead of putting a sensible label on Manhunt, they give it AO, an essential death sentence for any video game and the only reason they do this is to pander to the politicians and parents.
Unfortunately, with anti-video gaming fervour at an all-time high in the US, with both the Republicans and Democrats anti-video gaming at the moment (one of the only issues, if the only issue, both parties agree on), it seems the situation is unlikely to change from the outside.
Just as a note, I have not played Manhunt 2 and thus I seemingly have no grounds to criticise the ESRB's or BBFC's decisions in rating this game, as they have played it, and I haven't. Perhaps the game is vile, disgusting and grotesque. But that is a decision I, as an adult, should make for myself. Most adults are responsible enough to buy a game of any rating and decide whether or not to let their children play. The BBFC and the ESRB are a guide to both retailers and parents. However, to ban a game, or effectively ban a game, from adults is nothing less than a nanny-state move and treating the only sector of your customers that has any real disposable income whatsoever like children is a foolish move. The game could warrant an AO rating, that is, be suitable only for those over 18, but the ESRB know that giving it an AO rating is effectively banning it and so should have acted accordingly.
It is reported that Rockstar and T2 are most likely going to revise the game's content in order to pass it at lower ratings, which it shouldn't have to do in the first place.
Game Politics (http://www.gamepolitics.com/)
-- The front page is full of news concerning this. If you are viewing this topic after, say, 25th June 2007, you might have to scroll back a page or two to find the relevant news
BBC News Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6767623.stm)
Well, banned in the UK at first at least. But the US branded it AO, Australia banned it and now most European governments are petitioning it to be banned.
So, why has it been banned everywhere?
(First, I should iterate that I do not believe any form of media should be banned, or giving a rating that effectively bans it, be it music, film, books or video games. Yes, give it a rating that will keep it out of the hands of children. Yes, enforce a system that ensures retailers don't sell adult-material to minors. But not if that system gets in the way of adult consumers buying a game or if it causes lower revenue of sales of said material to the developer due to the material being so harshly regulated regular consumers cannot buy it easily)
UK - basically, a few years ago, the original Manhunt was found at a crime scene in the city of Leicester where a 17 year old boy stabbed a 14 year old boy to death. The parents of the victim said the murderer had been inspired by the game to kill their son and blamed it as the only cause of their son's death.
The police later noted that the video game was in fact found in the victim's bedroom and there was no evidence that the murderer had even heard of the game, much less played it. They confirmed that robbery was the motive.
Nonetheless, the unrelenting blubbering arsehole that is Keith Vaz MP, Member of Parliament for Leicester, campaigned to have Manhunt (and later Bully, or Canis Canem Edit as it is known in the European market) banned. Despite the fact that Manhunt had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder, Currys, a major electronics retailer in the UK, and related stores removed the game from their shelves (although they continued to stock GTA and Leisure Suit Larry) to avoid being labelled 'child murder pedallers' or something to that effect.
This is not akin to a place like Wal-Mart refusing to stock a game, as no one buys games from places like Currys as they charge a king's ransom for video games.
Anyway, Manhunt 2 was obviously banned by the BBFC (the independent regulatory body for movies and video games) to avoid the wrath of Keith Vaz and all the other 'holier than thou' pious idiots who still think games are only for children.
What really burns me up is that the BBC filed the above news-story in the Leicestershire section of the website, despite the fact we have already established that Manhunt and subsequently Manhunt 2 had nothing whatsoever to doing with the murder in Leicester whatsoever.
US - Awarded an AO rating for violence only, meaning most retailers won't stock it and Nintendo and Sony refuse to licence it. Funnily enough, when questioned about the development of games such as Manhunt 2 for the Wii a few months back, the Nintendo press office said they would love more developers to produce adult games for their consoles so they could lose their 'kids-only' image perpetuated throughout their history of consoles. Now, I'm not really an expert in managing big video game companies, but banning one of the only adult games to be developed for your console seems to be counter-productive to disassociating yourself with their label 'kids-only', but that's just me.
Anyway, the ESRB has been receiving a lot of flak (undeservedly) in the last few years from politicians and pressure groups alike, usually stemming from things such as Hot Coffee, the Oblivion 'nude textures' scandal, the Bully 'Columbine simulator' label given to it by Jack Thompson and the Sims 2 being labelled a 'pedophile simulator', to name but a few cases of mindless bullshit that people who know absolutely nothing about video games keep coming up with to ban one of the greatest mediums of entertainment on this planet.
So, the ESRB wants to show it's doing a good job. It needs a high-profile, violent game at the top of the anti-video-game shitlist. Along comes Manhunt 2, with thousands of (adult) gamers salivating at the prospect of acting out the murder with the Wiimote. The ESRB is in place to distinguish which games are suitable for particular age-groups, not to pander to whiney parents and politicians. It knows that giving Manhunt 2 an AO-rating, usually reserved for pornographic games, is effectively giving it the proverbial black spot of gaming, meaning no retailers will stock it and no console will license it. An M rating would suffice because most 17 year olds can distinguish between fake violence and real violence and are rational enough to realise that performing acts they simulated in a video game in the real world will have ramifications, so they will refrain from murdering someone like they did in a video game because it is a bad thing to do.
Nonetheless, instead of putting a sensible label on Manhunt, they give it AO, an essential death sentence for any video game and the only reason they do this is to pander to the politicians and parents.
Unfortunately, with anti-video gaming fervour at an all-time high in the US, with both the Republicans and Democrats anti-video gaming at the moment (one of the only issues, if the only issue, both parties agree on), it seems the situation is unlikely to change from the outside.
Just as a note, I have not played Manhunt 2 and thus I seemingly have no grounds to criticise the ESRB's or BBFC's decisions in rating this game, as they have played it, and I haven't. Perhaps the game is vile, disgusting and grotesque. But that is a decision I, as an adult, should make for myself. Most adults are responsible enough to buy a game of any rating and decide whether or not to let their children play. The BBFC and the ESRB are a guide to both retailers and parents. However, to ban a game, or effectively ban a game, from adults is nothing less than a nanny-state move and treating the only sector of your customers that has any real disposable income whatsoever like children is a foolish move. The game could warrant an AO rating, that is, be suitable only for those over 18, but the ESRB know that giving it an AO rating is effectively banning it and so should have acted accordingly.
It is reported that Rockstar and T2 are most likely going to revise the game's content in order to pass it at lower ratings, which it shouldn't have to do in the first place.