News broke yesterday morning about the banning of Manhunt 2, one of the Wii's most eagerly-anticipated titles. As you're no doubt aware, the British Board of Film Classifications took grave exception to the level of graphic violence and sexual themes contained within the game and saw fit to impose a blanket ban on the game. The Irish equivalent, IFCO, followed suit with a similar ban. The N-Europe staff and forum members have been digesting the news all day, and here's what they have to say about it.

Has the nanny state crossed the line? Or is banning Manhunt 2 an appropriate decision?

Nathan:

Manhunt 2: The beginning of what was hoped to be a beautiful friendship between Nintendo and Rockstar, notorious for their extremely violent games which make Jack Thompson drool like Gary Glitter in a nursery school. Development has been pretty much wrapped up, all that's left is to release the ga- OH DEAR GOD!

I wasn't particularly looking forward to Manhunt 2, but I know a lot of people who were, and not only is it extremely disappointing for them, but also for Nintendo. Manhunt 2 was set to shake Nintendo's kiddy image, along with Scarface and The Godfather. Whilst it's still apparently being released in America and other countries, there will be a major knock-on effect with the UK and Ireland now out of the picture. Rockstar's promise that other mature games would follow after Manhunt 2 if it sold may well have been put into jeapordy by this decision. It's really unfortunate, as the different methods of murderising people seemed to be pretty intuitive. At least you can always import from other European countries, assuming that there's the option to play the game in English.

Whilst the decision to ban the game is not really welcomed by Rockstar and Nintendo fans alike who were expecting a new and powerful alliance, we must remember that it's the second game to receive a complete ban by the BBFC, which means there must be some godawful stuff in there for it to be rejected altogether. And the publicity can't really be hurting Rockstar...although the removal of UK and Irish sales just might.

Hellfire:

I was never one to buy a game solely because it's violent, but Manhunt 2 seems like a very well put together and entertaining game, so it got to my wish list. Now this. It probably won't affect me directly, because I live in Portugal, but it just makes me more baffled as how some people's minds work.

Sure, you simulate murders, but hey, you know what? It's a videogame! You're not suddenly gonna turn psychopath and incredibly skilled at the "art" of killing just because you played Manhunt 2, unless you already had serious problems before. When I play Tennis, I'm also simulating a gesture that could be used to hit someone in the head with a sword, does that mean Tennis makes me a good swordsman?

Videogames influence people just like any other form of fiction or entertainment (or real life now that we're at it) that can influence the weak minded, but that doesn't stop horror books from being published, violent movies from premiering or news about war and murders to go under the radar. Also, with an ever growing amount of people that are able to import games, this will only turn this game into the forbidden fruit and make it sell more. And like they say, no publicity is bad publicity.

Cube:

Censorship seems biased. A few years ago, there were many complaints at Spider-Man getting a 12 rating, meaning disappointment for many kids. Because it's just a film, they came up with "12A". Meaning kids under 12 could see the film with a parent. Film ratings are rather lax these days - 300 contains massive amounts of violence (probably as much as Manhunt 2, or more), as well as nudity. It got a measly 15 rating.

Games are rather odd - the BBFC don't mind at all if you are shooting zombies. Or even possessed humans. The rather gory, violent and bloody Resident Evil 4 escaped the BBFC with a 15 because the humans in the game are possessed, where the game was censored in both Germany and Japan.

So, on to Manhunt 2. First of all, the name of the game - Manhunt - refers to the fact that the main character is the hunted, not the hunter as press would lead you to believe. Your character isn't evil - he was subjected to horrible experiments, it's up to you to find out what they did to you and to let the world know what these people are doing. A side-effect of the experiments is what causes you character to kill in gruesome ways. So, in spite of what the BBFC say, the gameplay of Manhunt 2 is explained by the plot- you aren't killing for no reason.

It seems that the BBFC are admitting that they can't properly control their own ratings system. They need to raise awareness of ratings on computer games and ensure better enforcement, not rushing to ban them.

Ashley:

Once again the BBFC have decided that games and films are not on the same level and unfairly banned this game.

While I do not claim to know all the details of what you do in Manhunt 2 I cannot believe it can be worse than the films which are banned by the BBFC. The BBFC have previously banned but since released uncut several films which personally I would say are worse than this. It is acceptable for people to watch films such as 'SS Experiment Camp' which is essentially a softcore porn snuff film set in a prisoner of war camp but not play Manhunt 2. Is it really that bad?

I agree sometimes things need to be censored, especially when it is something "immoral" (to use a buzzword for why thinks are often censored or banned) amongst otherwise acceptable things. But this is Manhunt 2. It contains warnings about what the game entails, its descriptions provide details on what you will be doing and if nothing else its infamy will make sure everyone knows about it. This isn't Mario with a random graphic violent murder in it. This is the 'Hostel', or other similar gorey films, of the video game world.

I am not familiar with the 'Saw' series but does that not focus upon someone, or at least the effects of someone, who stalks and brutally slays several victims and nothing else. And yet these are the exact grounds on which Manhunt 2 has been banned?

Fierce_Link:

First of all, it was shock to see Manhunt even coming to the Wii, in the first place. It was a good move for both RockStar and Nintendo, and was helping to shake some of that damned kiddy image from the home console maker.

To be honest, I'm a little bit confused at what the BBFC deems unsuitable. There have been countless movies which feature either the same level or more gore than Manhunt, but will remain untouched. To me, it seems that videogames are being singled out once again as seperate media to that of movies, music, etc.

I just don't see who this is helping. The game was clearly marketed at adults, and surely an 18 certificate or M for Mature rating would be all that is necessary? It is clearly an adult orientated game aimed at a specific audience. It is aimed at those who like violence, who like gore, the Silence of the Lambs fans among us. All the ban is doing is giving the public the idea that all videogames have to be violent-less, and that there surely is no place in the industry for adult content. If this is true, then the industry is in very big trouble.

Mark:

Setting aside all the philosophical arguments of the nanny state, which include a number of valid objections against the very existence of the BBFC's power to ban or censor games and films, I have another point to make. I would love to have known if the BBFC and IFCO would've banned the game if it were a PS3 or Xbox 360 title. I can't help but wonder if the fact that this game was on the Wii may have led the decision-makers at the BBFC to think about the Wii's stereotypical demographic audience- kids- and decided that this was unsuited to the console. A game should be judged on its merits, and not by any other yardstick. If the BBFC were influenced by the fact that this is a Wii game then they should hang their heads in shame. It remains to be seen if this was a factor in their decision. Regardless, the ramifications of this move will surely be felt for some time.

Adam:

The BBFC's job is to classify the games, not to reject them for classification. Leave it to the government, parents and retailers to make sure this sort of game does not reach the hands of minors. At the end of the day Rockstar are just catering for the adult gamers they do not hold a social responsibility much like films don't, they are here to make money and to do this it is necessary for any industry to cater for all interests and genres. A total ban achieves nothing apart from making all those people that want it go out of their way to find it.

Franklin:

Once again the BBFC have decided that games and films are not on the same level and unfairly banned this game.

I was shocked when I saw the news on the UK ban, so much so that even though I never planned to buy the game I went to my local game store on my lunch break to see if they thought the UK ban might effect the release of the game in Ireland. The staff knew nothing about the UK ban but seemed confident it would not affect the release of the game in Ireland.

I get home and see an update that the Irish version of the BBFC (IFCO) have also gone and banned Manhunt 2. I bet the staff at that store are little perplexed themselves. To me this situation just shows the lack of confidence both the BBFC and IFCO have in he effectiveness of their rating systems. It's like they are saying "Yeah we could give it an 18 rating, but we know parents don't pay attention to ratings on video games and will still buy it for their kids."

The solution should not be to ban the game but to come up with a campaign to help educate parents that age ratings on games are just as valid as those on movies.

To ban Manhunt 2 seems ridiculous when you consider the level of gore and violence depicted in recent horror/thriller films on cinema screens and DVD. Films like the Saw series being a great example where the killer not only comes up with sick ways to kill his victims but in most cases, comes up with sick ways to force his victims to kill themsleves or others.

I also just like to toss in the movie Hostel in here as I've just seen a trailer on TV for the cinema release of Hostel 2 while typing, just felt it was slightly ironic, and from the trailer it looks like there's a scene where someone gets killed by a hand held buzzsaw.

Under 18's have access to DVD players also, which are meant to be enjoyed by all the family, just like games consoles, in particular the Wii. So why do they create this double standard when it comes to a violent video game, which is aimed at an adult audience. If they are this worried that an under 18 might play this game then there are numerous films which they should consider recalling and banning because most kids know how to operate the family DVD player better than the parents do.

Furthermore the Wii boasts a parental control system which allows parents to set an age limit on the console so if someone puts in a game rated over that limit the console requires a pin code. Now maybe I just don't have a fancy DVD player but I am not aware of DVD players having such a feature, which should in fact make the Wii a safer form of entertainment to prevent children from playing games rated above their age level.

And the most ironic thing about this whole thing, is more copies of the game will now find their way into the consoles of British and Irish Wii owners through importing, than if they just gave it an 18 rating and not create this big fuss about the game. And then let those of us who are 18 and over make up our own minds about if we want to buy the game.

Banning this game will only serve to increase hype and curiosity about the game and you'll likely find that people who weren't that interested in it before and now becoming very interested and considering importing a copy. Myself included.

Sam:

Those who don't play games can't ever hope to truly understand, they just make blind, one sided accusations based on limited numbers of isolated incidents and selectively quoting to suit their unjustified personal vendetta towards the gaming industry.

These people make me sick and epically fail in my opinion due to their complete and utter ignorance and lack of respect for games by always focusing on the "negative" and never on the plethora of positive ways in which gaming has helped the world which easily outweighs anything remotely "bad" and yet they choose to ignore it completely?

They are nothing more than a new breed of fascists who will never be satisfied until all forms of entertainment are banned and everyone starts killing people out of terminal boredom as a result. Oh, the irony.

Ultimately you either play games or get played by them and for the latter category these people could do with adding a new word to their vocabulary...

"Understanding".

Tom:

Although Manhunt 2 wasn't on my list of games to buy, its certainly sprung to my attention due to the day's events. The BBFC banning a game is a massive event for the industry. The news article speaks for itself - the only other game banned - ever - was Carmageddon, and even that was eventually allowed to release after the ban was repealed.

To be honest, I can see why the BBFC have done it. From everything I've read about the title, Manhunt 2 is not a game where you pick roses. There's no denying it - this would have been an incredibly violent and bloody title, with the main attraction of the the game being how much pain and carnage you could inflict on other characters.

In a world where video-games are blamed for school shootings, and titles like as GTA have campaigns waged against them by angry mothers, adamant that such games are causing damage to our society, the pressure has been building on ratings companies to respond. And with Manhunt 2, Rockstar it seems has pushed them too far.

By banning the title, the BBFC has obviously snapped under the pressure and decided now is the time to make a stand. With the advent of near-photo realism in games and the current surge in popularity of motion sensitive controls, the BBFC are obviously worried that the simulated murder in this game is more real than ever. And to be honest, as graphical and control technology gets better and better, this is true. Maybe in ten or twenty years, video games will be fully immersive and indistinguishable looks-wise from real life. Will wanton sadistic murders in games be so easily allowed then?

By not just slapping an "18" on the cover, the BBFC is showing that in its opinion, a game which encourages you to kill people in the most sadistic ways possible purely for your own amusement just isn't what it thinks is appropriate for people in Britain to be playing. And maybe they're right. Is this one title really going to make that much difference to people if its not released? Maybe it is for the best. The decision and the BBFC's statement explaining it shows developers that there is nothing wrong with a bit of violence, but that they need to remember not to go too far. Better a system that's cautionary than no system at all.

And of course, for those who desperately want it, there's always importing.

We've had our say- and we're clearly irked by the decision to ban the game. But amateur hacks like us aren't the only ones with opinions- so do all of you people! And by golly you're not short of an opinion on Manhunt 2's banning. Here's just a sample of what you had to say. The rest can be viewed here.

Conzer16 chimed in early with a measured reaction to the news: "I'm still undecided. The IFCO and the BBFC are both well within their remits to enforce such an order but is it in the public interest to censor the game or is it just that the two bodies disliked/were shocked by the extreme content of the game..."

The fish believes that the BBFC must have had very strong reasons to ban the game, and that in this case the game might've genuinely contributed to violent crime. "They [the BBFC] ban very, very few games, so there is going to be something very, very bad about this particular one to warrant the ban. I highly doubt it was anything to do with the murder that the victims parents tried to blame on the game, mainly because the police believe the motive was robbery, and that it was the victim who owned Manhunt, but not the murderer.

In my own opinion, the recent rise in violent crime Manchester, Luton, and especially London, as well as other places, is not going to be helped by this game, if it is released. I know the media always over-react when it comes to real-world violence and violence in games, but in the case of Manhunt 2, I think it could actually have a (negative) effect."

Jamba sees the ban as an "unacceptable intervention" on the part of the BBFC. He goes on to say that "The root of the issue to me is responsibility. The concern about the effect of having potentially harmful material in the public consumer-space means that somebody must be accountable for its effect. The BBFC seems to be trying to take away this issue by banning it outright but I think this draconian approach fails to deal with the issue in the long term. At the end of the day people should be responsible for their own actions. Individuals should be aware that when they buy any kind of media this may effect them and if they have children it should be their responsibility to censor it from them."

Owen gives kudos for the BBFC for showing that they've teeth, but still criticises what he sees as inconsistency in how games and films are treated. "It's good that the BBFC are on the ball, but it is just a game. I believe more films should be banned as they use real-people in sometimes even more horrific situations, take Texas Chain-Saw Massacre, Saw, Hostel. All disgusting. These to the viewer are much more realistic as well."

kav82 sees fit to point out the fundamental difference between games and films, suggesting that "The problem with comparing this to films is that we take on the role and initiate the killings ourselves in games! Whereas in film, we watch the role of the killer... a game is worse than a film!"

The Pig Marcher condemns the BBFC for being "behind the times" and speaks for a large proportion of the board when he says that "This game presents no danger to the well-adjusted adult that the game is marketed at."

Gaggle 64 remarks on the fact that it's not a media witch-hunt or a one-man operation � la Jack Thompson that has resulted in the ban, but the work of a legitimate organisation like the BBFC. "Now, if it had been Jack Thompson or some half witted US Senator in an election year banning Manhunt, there may be some grounds for a degree of outrage. This however, is a very professional rejection by the BBFC, a body that even suggested recently that many game ratings may be too high. Rockstar have always prided themselves on pushing the envelope, a noble aspiration, but the line does have to be drawn somewhere and I don't think anyone is more qualified to call where then the BBFC. Obviously I haven't played the game myself so I can't comment on it's content myself, but I do trust the BBFC. No doubt Rockstar will appeal against the decision, I trust the BBFC will treat them fairly and consider their position, and I look forward to the public debate that will no doubt ensue."

Aimless adds a contribution that's anything but, emphasising the fact that the BBFC have extensively played the game, and the rest of us haven't. "The fact of the matter is that the BBFC have seen the game and all the people rebuking the ban have not. The games industry is the contemporary whipping boy for society's wrongs � much as film, music, and comics before it � and these constant attacks have made those that enjoy the medium very defensive of their hobby. Perhaps blindly so.

The BBFC website states the following: "Under the Video Recordings Act, most video games are exempt from BBFC classification. However, they may lose this exemption � and therefore require a formal BBFC classification � if they depict, to any significant extent, gross violence against humans or animals, human sexual activity, human urinary or excretory functions or genital organs, or techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences."

We know from previews that Manhunt 2 features all of the above, so it is little wonder that the BBFC saw it as a cause for concern. In that sense I would say that, based on what we know of the game, the BBFC are wholly justified in their decision to ban the game."

Cookyman takes the BBFC to task on the language used in their statement. "Manhunt has been an unfortunate victim of bad timing in my opinion. With the debacle of the Resistance Fall of Man game using Manchester cathederal hitting the news and Panormama's investigation into "is tv bad for your kids?" it really didn't stand a chance. What really annoys me though is their reason for actually banning the game itself. The video game Manhunt 2 was rejected for its "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying", the British Board of Film Classification said. Now doesn't Sam Fisher from splinter Cell do the same thing - ok maybe not as uber-violent as Manhunt but he does stalk and kill enemies. Another reason for it being banned is that "Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness" (BBFC) I take it the BBFC haven't heard about creating an atmosphere! Whats wrong with a game being bleak?"

LazyBoy is outraged that what he sees as his liberties are being infringed on. "The fact that someone is telling me what I can and cannot play, someone who has no accountability to me, is not only absurd, but I consider it a threat to my freedom and everyone else's."

Ramar feels that the correct solution isn't to blithely impose a ban, but to improve information to consumers. "What I think needs to be done is improvement in our sales departments. I know from working in retail that things like Challenge 21 are implemented. But I feel it needs to go further than that. Possibly when a game like this is 18+ the game is wrapped in a plastic seal with bold markings. This then doesn't ruin the art cover and gives the sales assistant clear view of the rating. Customers should then be informed of the levels of violence involved, parents purchasing the game should be asked whether it is for them or a child. If the say the child they should then be stopped from buying it, instead of being told not to give the child the game until out the door. Adults who have children but claim it's for themselves should then be told politely about what scenarios take place in the game. What I think needs to be done is improvement in our sales departments. I know working in retail that things like Challenge 21 are implemented. But I feel it needs to go further than that. Possibly when a game like this is 18+ the game is wrapped in a plastic seal with bold markings. This then doesn't ruin the art cover and gives the sales assistant clear view of the rating. Customers should then be informed of the levels of violence involved, parents purchasing the game should be asked whether it is for them or a child. If the say the child they should then be stopped from buying it, instead of being told not to give the child the game until out the door. Adults who have children but claim its for themselves should then be told politely about what scenarios take place in the game."

I think more needs to be done to inform consumers, not punish them by censoring.

Mark Cullinane
[email protected]