By now you should know that the BBFC has refused to rate Rockstar's Manhunt 2 on Wii and PS2, meaning that it can't be legally supplied anywhere in the UK. The game was due to be released in a few weeks and UK Nintendo mag NGamer has the exclusive Wii review. CVG picks apart its review of the game you'll now never play.
NGamer's review opens with: "We're certainly not of the opinion that Wii is a family-friendly box piping Nintendo goodness directly into the living rooms of grannies and toddlers around the country. Given the number of times we've strangled for pennies in The Godfather and kneecapped for fun in Resi 4, we have bloody and conclusive evidence to the contrary. Nintendo has long since stopped beating third-party developers with its censor-stick.
"But this... we can't help but be slightly taken aback by its appearance on a Nintendo console. Not surprised, and certainly not shocked, but perhaps a little - excited? - to see the bright white Wii menu fade into the darkness of what is indisputably the most gruesome videogame we've ever played on any platform."
The magazine labels Manhunt 2 as "one of the best games on Wii" citing the astonishing level of brutality is an integral part of the experience. And it's the brutality of the game that the BBFC took into account before effectively banning its release. It says the game "would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors."
The Wii version obviously takes the murdering side of things to the extreme with the motion controlled interface, and this element is undoubtedly the main reason most people would have liked to have picked up the Wii version. "...holding the A button starts to wind up an execution," says the mag. "An icon appears in the corner of the screen, showing a simple Nunchuk or remote motion, which you must copy to initiate the killing."
The review then goes on to explain, "Each execution has several stages, activated by a chopping motion, or a prod, or a slam to the floor, or a sawing movement" and "executions are much more physical with the Wii controls, and we found we felt more immersed in the game world in general thanks to them."
NGamer calls it one of the best-looking games on Wii to date before summing up: "A lot of people are going to be offended by it, for its copious violence and occasional sex scene, and somebody, somewhere is going to get a shock when they walk in on a friend laterally bisecting a hunter's head with realistic sawing motions. Manhunt 2 is what Wii's parental controls are for. The sticker on the box says it's for over 18s only and, believe us, it's not wrong.
"We've deliberately avoided talking about the game's more grisly excesses because these things are best discovered for yourself. You'll wince, you'll jump, you may even laugh at times, but we can guarantee you'll never forget it." The magazine gave the Wii version an impressive 92%.
Issue 12 of NGamer, with the world exclusive review of Manhunt 2 on Wii, is on sale now
Oppression at it's very best. Let some old guy at the Government decide what's best for every single individual in the country because they can't possibly be intelligent enough to decide whether Product A is suitable for themselves.
I am utterly disgusted by this decision, and I'm sure the vast majority of gamers will be with me.
I understand the 18 certificate to protect children from violence. I do. I wouldn't want a minor to see someone miming the act of sawing someone's head off.
But what's the point in an 18 certificate if not to tell people that it's an adult product?
It's a bit silly banning the game, I mean, just the fact that it exists causes the damage, banning it only justifies the argument against violent games! And the fact that it's a good game, by all accounts, just p**ses me off more If only this was on PC I could import it!
Oppression at it's very best. Let some old guy at the Government decide what's best for every single individual in the country because they can't possibly be intelligent enough to decide whether Product A is suitable for themselves.
The BBFC has absolutely nothing to do with the government whatsoever. It's an independent organisation run by members of the British film industry.
Anyone seen Hostel, IMO it's one of the sickest, goriest, bloodiest movies I have ever seen, but they effectively ban a video game because of it's violence.
Anyone seen Hostel, IMO it's one of the sickest, goriest, bloodiest movies I have ever seen, but they effectively ban a video game because of it's violence.
One word: HYPOCRITES
You have a point and I'm not dismissing what you say, but the reality is theres a huge difference between watching a film with hardcore content, to actually sawing/ripping/shaking with your own 2 hands in simulation with something that you're playing.
Anyone seen Hostel, IMO it's one of the sickest, goriest, bloodiest movies I have ever seen, but they effectively ban a video game because of it's violence.
One word: HYPOCRITES
You have a point and I'm not dismissing what you say, but the reality is theres a huge difference between watching a film with hardcore content, to actually sawing/ripping/shaking with your own 2 hands in simulation with something that you're playing.
The only difference is the same difference between any television show or movie and a video game. They still don't cause a normal person to become a maniac. Case closed.
what irony. everyone moans that the wii is too family-orientated so nintendo get manhunt and it gets banned.shame really as the wii needs more variety and it was certainly different.it's ok though,rayman raving rabbids 2 has just been announced.mini game collection? now thats hardcore.sign me up.
Bet my left nut most of you wouldn't be old enough to play this game, anyway.
I'd bet the other that when you're fathers you would think twice about your child getting their hands on material like this.
It never occured to any one of you that this might happen? It does and you're surprised?
I actually have faith that there are some people out there that give a toss and take their job seriously enough to think that, in a video game, it is ok to shoot someones head off in a combat game, deal drugs in a sandbox game and chainsaw someone into chum in a horror game.
But think, perhaps, that finding new and more brutal ways to murder someone is a little much.
Considering how responsible parents are at actually parenting, this is a good thing.
I was really lookin forward to this game as well proper gutted but it doesn't mean I'm puddled I'm also lookin forward to Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy etc and Im 21. I'm so p**sed off that this game is being banned what are the chances of them re-thinking this decision?
R* will have to tone down the gory scenes and take out some of the executions to get the game on ssale in the UK, just look at San Andreas they had to re-release it cos of the hot coffee incident.
We will just have a cut down version, which is a dissapointment but i have to agree with boskersrevenge, im 21 and i bet the majority of u guys arnt even 18 yet, so u shouldnt even be playing stuff like this, thus why they decided to ban it, good move IMO.
bosker i'm 31 and a father,i wouldn't buy this for my kids but me? that should be MY choice.speaking of graphic violence,what about that film where monica bellucci (darling) gets raped for what seems like 15 minutes.i honestly felt that I was forced to comply,and it was uncomfortable viewing but that piece was lauded for highlighting the plight of women. !? it looked like a glorified rape scene to me.
I'd bet the other that when you're fathers you would think twice about your child getting their hands on material like this.
It never occured to any one of you that this might happen? It does and you're surprised?
Not at all, the propensity of negligent parents to expose their children to violence and depravity is staggering. But that is their problem and their flaws, as it is the fault of any shop that sells the game to anyone under 18 or who doesn't make the parent aware of the nature of the game when selling it.
Their lack of suitability as a parent should not affect me, as a 25 year old man, in terms of the choices I make when buying a product. It's like telling someone over 18 they can't buy certain types of alcochol because they believe it's too strong for them.
This whole violence in videogames debate always amuses me and has done since the storm over the MegaCD game Night Trap many years ago. Videogames such as Mortal Kombat, Carmageddon, Syndicate Wars, Grand Theft Auto, etc, have all had their fair share of limelight and the controversy about violence in videogames will no doubt go on and on.
This latest news made me chuckle this afternoon from a morale standpoint and the pure hypocrisy at the highest level of the BBFC. I understand from the web that the BBFC refused to rate Rockstar's Manhunt 2 on Wii and PS2, on the grounds that the game astonishing level of brutality is an integral part of the experience.
The BBFC stress the game involves a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors. Ok! This I understand. Rockstar are far from a publisher I respect and I believe that they amongst countless others such as Capcom etc, procuce games whose content is questionable at best. As a long-time gamer who owns every console-games machine from the Odyssey to the PS3/360 and Wii I believe that these games are now stretching the boundaries of what is morally right and wrong and what we want as a form of entertainment in society.
I have two children, aged between three and eleven. My daughter primarily is DS mad. She play’s Pokemon, HamsterZ, Themepark and Mario Kart all night long.
I have brought my children up to enjoy videogames as form of fun to supplement their reading, sport and other activities. I personally have no time for religion (and the SONY/Manchester Cathedral debate is equally as hypocritical but don’t get me there) but my children go to C of E schools, and my wife and I have taught them to tolerate and respect the rights of every individual the faith they follow, the beliefs they hold and cultures they nurture without disrespect, intimidation, ignorance or hatred.
Although not all of us may agree, I believe videogames like TV, films, music and literature can be a positive influence in the same way as religion to impose ideas and moral stability. Videogames like any other form of entertainment can provide the viewer with just a simple form of escapist fun or a deeper more important message that underlines the importance of hope, love, tolerance etc.
This latest controversy comes down to the simplest point that videogames mainly exist as a form of escapist entertainment for children. These games are far more immersive and addictive than a DVD film or Harry Potter novel. Take it from me, trying to get the kids to bed or my wife of Soduko on the DS is not always an easy task.
PC gamers may now jump up and down in arms, however the simple point is that game sales are primarily bought and sold by children/teenagers or their parents (although the DS may be different!) and for that reason should games such as Grand Theft Auto, Condemmed, Manhunter II, Resident Evil etc. Should any videogame that includes sex, brutality, murder etc morally be allowed on a form of entertainment mainly focusing on the children/teenager market. Are these videogames a simple step from fantasy to reality in some peoples' minds?
I believe that the decision to ban the game is correct, and make no qualms about my decision. It worries me wholeheartedly as I am all for freedom of speech and democracy, but I think it is time that videogame developers turned their creative efforts to producing games with such realistic visuals that don’t have excessive blood, guts and gore. As a parent (by the way I am 37) who is on XBOX Live every night, I see a real difference between the shocking reality of Call of Duty II that emphasizes the horror of war to the blatant aggressive, sinister, and more blatant morally wrong realism or GTA or condemmed whose fun glorifies murder, drugs and death by any means.
I won’t for one-minute attempt to condemn all videogames, just that some publishers have begun to push the boundaries further, to invoke publicity and sales. I believe the chainsaw controller for the GC was in terrible taste.
However, I will however not just use videogames as a scapegoat. TV has a far more powerful impact on children and popular soaps and teenage magazines that are often just as morally wrong with their glorification of drugs, sex and crime. All of these should bare a greater responsibility.
Like it or not, console and PC’s are part of our culture like the TV, DVD player and book. Kids play these games incessantly, and whether we all agree with it or not, games are becoming more real. The new generation of consoles, and better graphics cards offer the real possibility that one dysfunctional child or teenager will believe it is real life.
I will leave it for university lecturers and professors to debate whether the rise in knife and gun crime as well as joy-riding we have witnessed over the past years is mainly influenced by videogames alone. But ask me this. Is it right that a form of entertainment mainly enjoyed by children and teenagers in their own bedrooms should include content such as Manhunter II.
The argument it’s only a game can easily be thrown at Mario or Halo 3, two completely separate genre’s that despite being different are based in fantasy and not our reality. Is Manhunter really a game when it is based in reality and tackles events that happen in our society?
My main gripe is that the BBFC is hypocritical. GTA should have been banned years ago…lets hope they get some balls and take a deep long look at the next game and make a proper decision before asking some content to be removed.
I have to say that i agree with the BBFC decision to some extent in that the review says that the new Wii enhanced controls immerse you into the game more which i feel is over the top for a game with the content of Manhunt. However when talking about the PS2 version i feel there is no justification to ban it. Playing such a game with a standard controller would have no more or less immersion than a film or a stage show.
I'd like to address a few points made in this post.
Firstly is a common myth that video game players a kids. They are overwhelmingly not. Most gameplayers are in fact adults. The video game industry makes products for it's market. While there are some very solid franchises aimed at children (Pokemon etc) many are not (GTA etc).
Secondly why should video games suffer censorship when film, tv and video does not. These media products are given age appropriate ratings and released. Video games are also given age appropriate ratings. GTA is for mature audiences, not for children.
Some believe that because a video game is more interactive that it has the potential to cause greater harm for players than traditional passive media. However there is no evidence to support this.
[ .. I will leave it for university lecturers and professors to debate whether the rise in knife and gun crime as well as joy-riding we have witnessed over the past years is mainly influenced by videogames alone. But ask me this. Is it right that a form of entertainment mainly enjoyed by children and teenagers in their own bedrooms should include content such as Manhunter II.
I think you put forward a well reasoned argument to support a notion of censorship, based on a question of what is acceptable - and for that, I agree in principle with the majorit of your points.
However, I don't agree with your point that videogames are just for kids. Many adults play and enjoy videogames across all genres. Manhunt II is an example of a genre that is most definately NOT targetted at kids. Irresponsible adults who buy adult-themed games for their kids are to some degree, probably behind this particular decision.
I am an adult, capable of making my own mind up on the form of entertainment I wish to view or play.
In the same way that film has classifications, so do games. A game with an 18 certificate is quite clearly not aimed at a 7-year old is it. The issue here is that many adult-themed games have ended up with kids playing them - GTA is probably a good example. I wouldn't want my own 7-year old seeing or playing this game - but I would like to reserve my right as a consumer in a free market to buy this if I want to - and that is where this decision sucks - bloody nanny state mentality ..
Bet my left nut most of you wouldn't be old enough to play this game, anyway.
I'd bet the other that when you're fathers you would think twice about your child getting their hands on material like this.
It never occured to any one of you that this might happen? It does and you're surprised?
I actually have faith that there are some people out there that give a toss and take their job seriously enough to think that, in a video game, it is ok to shoot someones head off in a combat game, deal drugs in a sandbox game and chainsaw someone into chum in a horror game.
But think, perhaps, that finding new and more brutal ways to murder someone is a little much.
Considering how responsible parents are at actually parenting, this is a good thing.
Well a child may also find porn... should porn be banned? Or a movie full of gore.... should that no longer be accessible to the public at large? John Rambo looks to be a horribly gorrific movie... an awesome throw back to the Rambo movies that came out in the 80's.... when action movies were rated by body counts. It looks like a good movie, I want to see it. Should I and other adults be denied that because there is a chance that a child may find their way into a theater playing it or may get a hold of a copy once it is available on dvd? Censorship is ridiculous, parents need to keep things they don't want their children to be around away from their children.
Welcome to my world every time a half violent game gets banned here in Germany....
as for it being out elsewhere in Europe, I doubt it. I would have considered the UK to be the most liberally minded of all countries here regarding games. (thats where i got, crackdown, dead rising and gears, but its ok, as im from ireland anyway ) Maybe somewhere like Austria might sell it though.
bosker i'm 31 and a father,i wouldn't buy this for my kids but me? that should be MY choice.speaking of graphic violence,what about that film where monica bellucci (darling) gets raped for what seems like 15 minutes.i honestly felt that I was forced to comply,and it was uncomfortable viewing but that piece was lauded for highlighting the plight of women. !? it looked like a glorified rape scene to me.
Actually there was huge debate among feminist film critics regarding that scene (persumably you are talking about 'The Accused'). Some thought like you, that it completely made such uncomfortable viewing that it opened the debate about violence and sexualisation of women (there was a lot of stories in the press and still is about women who wear short skirts are asking for it etc, and this film took on these issue quite powerfully). Others thought that it was voyeuristic and degrading and that wannabe rapist would get off on it. It's not a problem to have debates such us this, the important thing is context, and for me there was a strong justification for this piece of art to be made.
A clockwork orange was banned in the UK for many years, not because of the violence per se but because of the context in which it was believed to be shown (i.e., sadistic). Similarly they also tried to ban Natural Born Killers for similar reasons despite the film being in my opinion an essentially moralist film which was not a celebration of violence but the portrayal and titalation of violence within the media.
I doubt, to be honest that Manhunt 2 has anything going for it artistically.
I think almost everyone agrees that this is a terrible shame.
I am happy to say that i was greatly anticipating this game on the Wii after having enjoyed the original's thrilling action. Here's hoping for some kind of re-rating (highly unlikely) or it looks like nobody will really be playing this.
"the children, won't somebody PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?"
Yawn, the same theory of banning this because children/young people playing it could apply to everything
Fags should be banned cuz kids could smoke them Cars should be banned cuz kids could joyride in them Squirty cream should be banned cuz kids could get high on the aerosol in them...
etc etc, oh and I should be the one who decides if something is too violent, not someone who doesn't 'get' games.
If the BBFC do not want kids to play this game then give it an 18 cert, not ban it!!!!!
Psychological studies have shown that viewing violence predisposes humans to become more violent. This is only more prevalent in children, but it does exist nontheless in adults as well. The idea that adults cannot be shaped in any degree is a fallacy. People can be desensitized, so even marketing such violence strictly to adults can have its own reprocussions. In some cases, breaking the law won't result in harm to society, making the 'criminal' morally justified in some sense. From his perspective, the state is bearing down on him for no justifiable reason. However, if the rule was not in place we'd all be worse off, so we have to accept these problem cases. It's the same situation with censorship. Products are censored not because it's judged that the individual doesn't have the right to decide for himself, or because he's seen as automatically morally/emotionally/intellectually inferior to some authority, but because giving him the ability to choose carries significant costs of its own; social costs that occur when individuals make the wrong choices.
Such censorship is normally out of the question, because we value individual freedom so much, and because in practice giving government these powers opens up the potential for abuse - the slippery slope. There's also the fact that the costs/benefits of censorship are hard to determine, especially when you consider 'the erosion of belief in civil liberties', i.e the situation where individuals stop questioning the governments' right to control their life. However as mentioned previously in other areas of the CVG forums, in certain cases, as with drugs and pedophillic material, it's judged that 'the slippery slope' isn't a factor and that the social cost of the choices individuals are making is so large, that the government must intervene - at the expense of civil liberty. So this idyllic society where individual freedoms are always respected simply doesn't exist, and nor does taking away some freedoms automatically doom us to languish in some Orwellian dystopia. In reality the issues are far more complex.
When considering the BBFC's decision, we have to recognise that the BBFC has always had the power to ban games! And the last time they banned a title was 10 years ago. Furthermore, they operate according to strict guidelines and must be able to effectively justify their decisions if they're to retain their credibility. So I simply don't buy that their powers represent a 'dangerous precedent', or are open to abuse. The precedent already exists and has existed for some time. The question then becomes 'were the BBFC right?'. Are there large costs to releasing Manhunt? Are these costs worth overriding individual liberty? Well, none of us have even played Manhunt 2, so I don't see how that could be judged. And any decision will based on a subjective assessment of probabilities/moral values. So it's all very unclear. However I hope in this post I've demonstrated that things are nowhere near as black and white as: 'stopping someone from buying a product they want is always an unacceptable violation of their liberties'. In reality, liberties are very fuzzy indeed.
If the BBFC do not want kids to play this game then give it an 18 cert, not ban it!!!!!
Psychological studies have shown that viewing violence predisposes humans to become more violent. This is only more prevalent in children, but it does exist nontheless in adults as well. The idea that adults cannot be shaped in any degree is a fallacy. People can be desensitized, so even marketing such violence strictly to adults can have its own reprocussions. In some cases, breaking the law won't result in harm to society, making the 'criminal' morally justified in some sense. From his perspective, the state is bearing down on him for no justifiable reason. However, if the rule was not in place we'd all be worse off, so we have to accept these problem cases. It's the same situation with censorship. Products are censored not because it's judged that the individual doesn't have the right to decide for himself, or because he's seen as automatically morally/emotionally/intellectually inferior to some authority, but because giving him the ability to choose carries significant costs of its own; social costs that occur when individuals make the wrong choices.
Such censorship is normally out of the question, because we value individual freedom so much, and because in practice giving government these powers opens up the potential for abuse - the slippery slope. There's also the fact that the costs/benefits of censorship are hard to determine, especially when you consider 'the erosion of belief in civil liberties', i.e the situation where individuals stop questioning the governments' right to control their life. However as mentioned previously in other areas of the CVG forums, in certain cases, as with drugs and pedophillic material, it's judged that 'the slippery slope' isn't a factor and that the social cost of the choices individuals are making is so large, that the government must intervene - at the expense of civil liberty. So this idyllic society where individual freedoms are always respected simply doesn't exist, and nor does taking away some freedoms automatically doom us to languish in some Orwellian dystopia. In reality the issues are far more complex.
When considering the BBFC's decision, we have to recognise that the BBFC has always had the power to ban games! And the last time they banned a title was 10 years ago. Furthermore, they operate according to strict guidelines and must be able to effectively justify their decisions if they're to retain their credibility. So I simply don't buy that their powers represent a 'dangerous precedent', or are open to abuse. The precedent already exists and has existed for some time. The question then becomes 'were the BBFC right?'. Are there large costs to releasing Manhunt? Are these costs worth overriding individual liberty? Well, none of us have even played Manhunt 2, so I don't see how that could be judged. And any decision will based on a subjective assessment of probabilities/moral values. So it's all very unclear. However I hope in this post I've demonstrated that things are nowhere near as black and white as: 'stopping someone from buying a product they want is always an unacceptable violation of their liberties'. In reality, liberties are very fuzzy indeed.
Excellent post. Has made me look at things from a different perspective
I feel it "would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors" for a film to be available where one woman is being "violated" by four guys all at the same time, but that has never stopped such film before. Those interested in such movies are lucky producers of DVD players do not contend what is or is not available for view on their systems.
by now im sure you all know that manhunt 2 wont even be available in the U.S and the rest of europe will probably follow.so now rockstar dont really have many options,there aint no point in them appealing coz they cant fight the world.so i rekkon they should just water it down a bit,it would still be very violent and i would rather have that than nothing.dont get me wrong it still p**ses me off that i cant play the version of MH2 i would like to,but its got to be better than rocksar killing what looks like a great game.like most of you the latest issue of Ngamer tortures me whenever i look at the awsome screenshots or read bits of the review,life can be so unf**kingfair sometimes.but my fingers are crossed that rocksar dont just leave it,and hopefully we can all enjoy MH2 sometime soon even if it is toned down.
i don't think nintendo or sony will put their name to any game given an AO rating. so unless rockstar can publish it on a console themselves, we're not ever gonna see this game, as originally intended. we may see an edited version, scrap by with a 18 certificate? but if most of manhunts content is cut, the game's gonna be very short. just get shops to check for age i.d and make this game a 18 certificate.
Whatever happened to the notion of self-censorship, coupled with responsible parenting? I'm a 30 year old man, I was looking forward to this game a lot, and now it's been shelved because of some crass over-generisation that anyone that plays it is gonna go postal and stab/saw/dismember joe public in the street. Has this country gone bloody mad?
I have witness first hand irresponsible parents buying 18 rated games for their kids, if THIS ACTION was stopped, there would be no need to ban these sorts of games.
The arguement that it's 'more immersive' on the Wii due to the controls is total b******s too. Clearly you've been playing a different Wii to myself. Sure, I like the controls a lot, but I've never once felt like I was swinging a sword or tennis racket in real life.
I'm frustrated immensely by this decision. Finally that stupid kiddy misnomer was going to get shrugged off, and perhaps this game would have enticed more 'adult' themed games to this console - this decision will have the COMPLETE OPPOSITE EFFECT. We'll be getting even more bloody mini-games and Rayman rabbit games and wotnot. Sure, they have their place, but I would like to play something different thanks....
I only hope Rockstar dumb down some of the violence in the hope to appease the BBFC. Either that or make a new rating - XXX or 25 or summink. For gods sake, we want to play it!!
That was far too long winded and inaccurate. A higher percentage of PS2 owners are in there mid to late twenty's than any other age group therefor the game should be released and freedom of choice given. If you have kids and you don't want them to play it, then don't let them! Oh, and it's Manhunt 2 not Manhunter 2. Surely you can at least get the the title of the game you're going to debate right?!
This whole violence in videogames debate always amuses me and has done since the storm over the MegaCD game Night Trap many years ago. Videogames such as Mortal Kombat, Carmageddon, Syndicate Wars, Grand Theft Auto, etc, have all had their fair share of limelight and the controversy about violence in videogames will no doubt go on and on.
This latest news made me chuckle this afternoon from a morale standpoint and the pure hypocrisy at the highest level of the BBFC. I understand from the web that the BBFC refused to rate Rockstar's Manhunt 2 on Wii and PS2, on the grounds that the game astonishing level of brutality is an integral part of the experience.
The BBFC stress the game involves a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors. Ok! This I understand. Rockstar are far from a publisher I respect and I believe that they amongst countless others such as Capcom etc, procuce games whose content is questionable at best. As a long-time gamer who owns every console-games machine from the Odyssey to the PS3/360 and Wii I believe that these games are now stretching the boundaries of what is morally right and wrong and what we want as a form of entertainment in society.
I have two children, aged between three and eleven. My daughter primarily is DS mad. She play’s Pokemon, HamsterZ, Themepark and Mario Kart all night long.
I have brought my children up to enjoy videogames as form of fun to supplement their reading, sport and other activities. I personally have no time for religion (and the SONY/Manchester Cathedral debate is equally as hypocritical but don’t get me there) but my children go to C of E schools, and my wife and I have taught them to tolerate and respect the rights of every individual the faith they follow, the beliefs they hold and cultures they nurture without disrespect, intimidation, ignorance or hatred.
Although not all of us may agree, I believe videogames like TV, films, music and literature can be a positive influence in the same way as religion to impose ideas and moral stability. Videogames like any other form of entertainment can provide the viewer with just a simple form of escapist fun or a deeper more important message that underlines the importance of hope, love, tolerance etc.
This latest controversy comes down to the simplest point that videogames mainly exist as a form of escapist entertainment for children. These games are far more immersive and addictive than a DVD film or Harry Potter novel. Take it from me, trying to get the kids to bed or my wife of Soduko on the DS is not always an easy task.
PC gamers may now jump up and down in arms, however the simple point is that game sales are primarily bought and sold by children/teenagers or their parents (although the DS may be different!) and for that reason should games such as Grand Theft Auto, Condemmed, Manhunter II, Resident Evil etc. Should any videogame that includes sex, brutality, murder etc morally be allowed on a form of entertainment mainly focusing on the children/teenager market. Are these videogames a simple step from fantasy to reality in some peoples' minds?
I believe that the decision to ban the game is correct, and make no qualms about my decision. It worries me wholeheartedly as I am all for freedom of speech and democracy, but I think it is time that videogame developers turned their creative efforts to producing games with such realistic visuals that don’t have excessive blood, guts and gore. As a parent (by the way I am 37) who is on XBOX Live every night, I see a real difference between the shocking reality of Call of Duty II that emphasizes the horror of war to the blatant aggressive, sinister, and more blatant morally wrong realism or GTA or condemmed whose fun glorifies murder, drugs and death by any means.
I won’t for one-minute attempt to condemn all videogames, just that some publishers have begun to push the boundaries further, to invoke publicity and sales. I believe the chainsaw controller for the GC was in terrible taste.
However, I will however not just use videogames as a scapegoat. TV has a far more powerful impact on children and popular soaps and teenage magazines that are often just as morally wrong with their glorification of drugs, sex and crime. All of these should bare a greater responsibility.
Like it or not, console and PC’s are part of our culture like the TV, DVD player and book. Kids play these games incessantly, and whether we all agree with it or not, games are becoming more real. The new generation of consoles, and better graphics cards offer the real possibility that one dysfunctional child or teenager will believe it is real life.
I will leave it for university lecturers and professors to debate whether the rise in knife and gun crime as well as joy-riding we have witnessed over the past years is mainly influenced by videogames alone. But ask me this. Is it right that a form of entertainment mainly enjoyed by children and teenagers in their own bedrooms should include content such as Manhunter II.
The argument it’s only a game can easily be thrown at Mario or Halo 3, two completely separate genre’s that despite being different are based in fantasy and not our reality. Is Manhunter really a game when it is based in reality and tackles events that happen in our society?
My main gripe is that the BBFC is hypocritical. GTA should have been banned years ago…lets hope they get some balls and take a deep long look at the next game and make a proper decision before asking some content to be removed.
i think the problem lies with the fact that parents are buying these games for their children. I saw a child trading in Grand Theft Auto the other Day. He didnt look much over 12. How did he get his hands on that? Adults should be allowed to buy violent games because they are mature enough (well most of em) to distance themselves from the violent content of the game, children however are more vulnerable. The problem lies within the fact that 18 rated games get into the wrong hands.
Products are censored not because it's judged that the individual doesn't have the right to decide for himself, or because he's seen as automatically morally/emotionally/intellectually inferior to some authority, but because giving him the ability to choose carries significant costs of its own; social costs that occur when individuals make the wrong choices.
The latter part of this argument is the same as the first. Concluding that an idividual's choice may or may not be wrong still implies a moral/emotional/intellectual superiority over that individual, and the right to decide is still denied.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
It's a bit silly banning the game, I mean, just the fact that it exists causes the damage, banning it only justifies the argument against violent games!
