Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Manhunt 2 to Remain Banned in UK

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

October 8, 2007, 4:09 PM

Even though Take-Two attempted to tone down the violence in its Manhunt 2 video game, the revised version is still too much for British eyes.

The British Board of Film Classification said Monday that the changes made were not enough for it to lift the ban of the game within the UK. The US, which also banned the original version, has allowed the revised one to ship within the US.

Manhunt allows the player to become a mentally ill escapee from an institution, who kills his enemies in search of answers regarding what happened to his family. Many have taken issue with the killing scenes in the game, saying they are unnecessarily violent.

"The impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the game play, is clearly insufficient," BBFC director David Cooke said in a statement. Rockstar vowed to appeal the decision.

In a response to the BBFC, Rockstar said the agency's decision was a "setback for video games," adding that video game players should have the opportunity to decide whether the game is too violent.

It was not immediately clear what content in the revised version remained too violent for the BBFC to reverse its decision.

Add a Comment (39 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By johnny5

edited Mar 24, 2008 - 2:56 PM

So great, it's socially acceptable for everyone, including kids to watch over gratuitous scenes of graphic violence and sex, multiple times a day on TV, but heck, no not in a video game that's rated M for Mature Ages 17+ and can only be purchased by an adults. Why oh why?

Score: 0

By Registered

edited Oct 9, 2007 - 4:51 PM

many parents in UK are getting tired of Rockstar,

they insist on creating questionable games that are for adults only,

yet they know children are going to find a way to play them, at the end of the day, the more they play them the more money they make, so there intentions so to speak is quite obvious,

UK is a reserved country, after all this time, and with all there history they have had they still don't have guns on the streets, and there policeman are not armed, also parents don't like the latest research showing that kids playing violent game are at more risk of actually going out into the real world and doing what they have copied from the game,

i feel UK is right to listen to there people, if UK is getting millions of complaints from parents, then not much more needs to be said, our children is the future, and the children in UK are doing very well compared say US for example,

there are probably more GSW's in 1 state in America then there is in the whole of UK throughout a year, that to me says UK must be doing something right.

US is a young country still with very very little history, US has a lot to learn still, and i;m sure one day US will quite down a little, and will reach a point like UK and many other where weapons will not be needed most of the time,

(there was a time in UK where everybody would carry a sword) but UK moved on.

this company should pout some king of mathmatic test on startup, a calculation should be given, and the answer can found out easily by a calculator,

i.e

22/3.3*12-45.2+52.2*a-b
A=3.5
B=954

just the above calculation for many 12 year olds or lower would not even understand the question, net alone what to do with it,

Rockstar could put something on there games on startup just to verify the person who's playing the game has enough savvy to know how to copy the above calculation into a calculator,

hell the calculator could even be in the game itself,

(but I'm sure someone with Action replay or something would find a way to bypass this, so perhaps a manual way would be preferred)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 4:58 PM

The proper response of any government to parental complaints such as this would be as simple as this:

While we thank you for contacting us regarding this, the government cannot act as a parental substitute. Please contact the publisher or developer of the game in question, your local retailers, or look into the possibility of a local parental support group that shares your views to help educate and inform those whom you feel may be adversely affected by the title in question.

I am sure you understand the slippery road enacting such legislation would lead us on with regard to the limitations of one person's or group's rights to appease the sensibilities of another.

I understand that sensibilities in the UK may be such that this will go over without so much as a peep. That in no way implies that one should be willing to simply let them give up their rights merely because they do not understand the consequences of such actions.

The majority opinion should never affect the rights of the few. Even if the few keep their mouths shut during the process.

Score: 0

By Alexxz

edited Oct 9, 2007 - 5:35 AM

What does mean "banned"? For children or for everybody? In what way game could be banned for adult people in free country?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 10:50 AM

Welcome to the Nanny State of politics. We'll ban anything that conflicts with *our* values and morality.

The right of retailers to sell products that are not harmful and do not limit *your* rights mean nothing.

The rights of citizens to make their own choices regarding their values and morality mean nothing.

We control all you see, hear, and feel.

Welcome to 1984.

/Dramatic, I know, but this is *exactly* what they are doing.

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 12:12 PM

Errr overly dramatic I'd say. And it's no way exactly what they're doing as you quote. Nobody has the right in life to exactly whatever they want and everyone has rules to live within. If you disagree with those rules/laws/forms of censorship then you do something about changing them. But until such time as they are changed, whether you consider them to be right or wrong the rules/laws/forms of censorship are what they are. As you say - deal.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 9, 2007 - 1:08 PM

We don't have the right to make our own choices when those choices affect no-one but ourselves?

huh...

That's interesting.

Here we have a government forbidding a product for no better reason than that they find it offensive. It is not harmful, it does not affect anyone but the people buying it and selling it, and it does not hinder anyone's basic rights.

They forbid it because it goes against their values. What is next? Shall they now ban the color red because it is the color of blood and violence? Perhaps we should force all of our women to cover themselves in voluminous robes and hide their faces so as not to offend anyone's sense of moral purity.

Do you not see the connection here?

This doesn't seem at all alarming to you?

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 3:24 PM

sometimes you "get it" PC_Tool. this is one of those occasions.

I want to decide what is right for me; the government can go f*** themselves. Me playing Manhunt 2 does not hurt anyone; it is a video game for s***s sake.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 7:56 PM

Exactly!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 4:48 PM

Exactly. What harm does the game represent to person or rights?

None.

What interests of social well-being does this game threaten?

None.

Why does the government of the UK think it is necessary to ban this game?

Good question. Either they think the citizens of the UK are unable to make responsible choices on their own, or they are getting a boatload of money from some special interest groups.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 4:13 PM

He definitly got it.

We should be able to decide for ourselves as to whether we want to purchase the game for our own use or not. It should not be decided for the government.

Score: 0

By Avion Airplane

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 10:55 AM

~V~ remember remember the fifth O November.......

Score: 0

By Ramhound

edited Oct 9, 2007 - 9:44 AM

The game was never banned in the United States, this article cannot be trusted because it clearly has incorrect information.

Granted the AO rating that it recieve basicly made it not possible to sell in the states, and wouldn't have been allowed to be on any console, but it was NOT banned from the United States.

I am not aware of any normal movie or video game that has been banned from the United States. I will say that there is content out there that illegal to purchase becuase it involves real humans doing illegal acts. Like I said I am not aware of very any "mainstream" movies that have been banned for their content.

They might not be sold or be shown, because of polcies within the industry but thats for another rant.

Score: 0

By sucrets

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 9:32 AM

Have you ever seen a DVD retailer say to a 12yo, "hey, that R movie contains inappropriate content, i'm afraid i can't sell it to you"? Not likely, the content ratings are largely applied to theatres, not to sales of disks.

Maybe what the government should do is put an "X-Rated" label on it and require it be sold through the same channels that sell OTHER X-rated content.

Along the same lines, maybe the government should start monitoring the sale of age-restricted content to minors and fining those companies not paying attention to them (make some use out of those ratings on games).

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 10:47 AM

Yeah, definately. It should be the governments and retailers job, not the parents.

/sarcasm

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 4:14 PM

Yah, then we'd have 12 year olds in adult stores.

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 5:53 AM

In a response to the BBFC, Rockstar said the agency's decision was a "setback for video games," adding that video game players should have the opportunity to decide whether the game is too violent.

Bollocks. I dislike censorship as much as anyone and perhaps more than some. But anyone who knows anything about the history of cinema will know exactly why there is a form of censorship (and if it comes to that, why society has rules and law). And all your comments below read like they were written by 10 year olds.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 9:17 AM

???

Because we support the ability and right of people to make their own choices and not have some nanny government entity do it for us, we're 10 year olds?

Society has laws to prevent actions and situations that present a danger to others or that interfere with the rights of others. This ban accomplishes *none* of the above. It is simply the government legislating morality.

If that is something you think only a 10 year old would say, look up those goofy kids who wrote the US constitution. AS I recall they were *all* over 10 years old.

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 10:51 AM

Thats why you have idiots with guns running around shooting people in schools.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 8:01 PM

No No No you have it all wrong!

Its KMFDM and Marilyn Manson that we blame for idiots running around in school.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 7:11 PM

Sure, video games are to blame. Ban them. Oh wait, there are still murders, ban movies. Oh wait, there are still murders, ban the news. Oh wait, there are still murders, ban books. Oh wait, there are still murders, ban sports. Oh wait, there are still murders, ban music.

Where does it stop? The only constant there is the person. In today's society it is all about blaming someone or something for problems rather than blaming the person responsible for causing the problem.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 9, 2007 - 9:52 PM

It's the complete and total lack of personal responsibility that's been fostered by Nanny State politics such as the example in this topic.

"Save the Children"

"Save the Artists"

"Save the Poor"

"Save the Immigrants"

Hey, guys, here's a thought:

Save your damned selves and quit begging everyone else to do it for you.

I'm all for charity and responsibility, but it is not, never has been, and, if I have any say in it, never *will* be the governments job to take away our decision as to how we do it by forcing us to do it *their* way.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Oct 10, 2007 - 3:50 PM

"Save The Cheerleader"

/obligatory

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 10:00 AM

roflmao!

Dammit, man! Warn me before you do that!

My keyboard really doesn't need coffee.

Besides, she doesn't need saving, she'll just regenerate.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 1:00 PM

Hey, genius,

Read my post.

Society has laws to prevent actions and situations that present a danger to others or that interfere with the rights of others

Guns are dangerous. Games are not. Bad troll.

Score: 0

By Avion Airplane

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 10:58 AM

cause people cant carry guns around to protect themselvs from the crooks who have illegal guns..........

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 1:17 PM

Working great so for in America. What people need are guns, when everyone has one, they should get bigger one. Basically, everyone should sit inside a tank just in case.

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Oct 9, 2007 - 12:18 PM

Guns guns guns. You have a gun cause you're a bad guy. I have a gun cause I'm a good guy. Therefore it's okay cause my good gun offsets your bad gun. Everyone's happy yes?

Oh sh!t someone got shot. Now one of us is dead. Does it matter who? What price a life?

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Oct 9, 2007 - 9:28 AM

"Anyone seen my puppy? He hasn't crapped all over the place in a bit... Did he get his self banned again?"..... - is an example of something a 10 year old would say and did not advance your arguement.

"Society has laws to prevent actions and situations that present a danger to others or that interfere with the rights of others."..... - quite right.

"This ban accomplishes *none* of the above."..... - I have no idea whether it will or not and neither do you. As a matter of fact anyone could argue that certain laws or aspects of censorship don't function as they should - but we try and do the best we can.

And as long as we're mentioning it,as I recall the US constitution gives you the right to carry a gun which can then be used to kill a human being - but does that mean it's okay because it's in the constitution?

EDIT
____
And anyway we're not talking about the US - we're talking about the UK. We make our own rules - whatever you do is fine for you but we do what we do as we see fit for us. While we're all basically the same, at the same time everyone's different.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 10:46 AM

"This ban accomplishes *none* of the above."..... - I have no idea whether it will or not and neither do you. As a matter of fact anyone could argue that certain laws or aspects of censorship don't function as they should - but we try and do the best we can.

The ban on sales of Manhunt 2 does not protect anyones rights or prevent harm to anyone. Nice of you to remove that context from your cut N' paste. This is nothing more than an attempt to legislate morality. I don't care what country it is occurring in, it *never* works.

And anyway we're not talking about the US - we're talking about the UK. We make our own rules - whatever you do is fine for you but we do what we do as we see fit for us. While we're all basically the same, at the same time everyone's different.

That comment was directed at your "10 year old" remark, and had little to do with the country this topic applies to. Irrelevant.

"Anyone seen my puppy? He hasn't crapped all over the place in a bit... Did he get his self banned again?"..... - is an example of something a 10 year old would say and did not advance your arguement.

Was unrelated to the story and was directed solely at the twit who's been dogging my posts, and was meant to be humorous to anyone who'd witnessed his trolls. Deal.

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Oct 9, 2007 - 12:14 PM

All I can say is 'whatever'. [shrugs]

You obviously think it's right for retailers to sell whatever they want (which in itself is an immature point of view - no offence intended however) so I'll not attempt further to convince you otherwise. But you've still not put up any arguements as to why it should be okay to do so, so you've not convinced me either.

*(My cut & paste missed out "It is simply the government legislating morality." because that's a rant and nothing more).

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 12:59 PM

But you've still not put up any arguements as to why it should be okay to do so, so you've not convinced me either.

So:

The ban does nothing to protect people's rights.

The Ban does nothing to protect people from harm.

The ban, in effect, takes away the rights of retailers to sell non harmful products, as well as the rights of consumers to buy what they want.

These are not arguments?

The ban does nothing but limit the rights of others.

You obviously think it's right for retailers to sell whatever they want

Where did you read that? Did you completely miss the part about the product in question not being dangerous or infringing upon anyone's rights? That's a *far* sight from "whatever they want".

Whatever, indeed. It would appear as though you are unable to accept any viewpoint other than your own as "valid" and have labeled such arguments as nothing more than rants. If this is the case, you are correct, the argument is pointless.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 4:19 PM

Nicely said.

The ban accomplishes nothing.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Oct 9, 2007 - 6:14 AM

I suppose you also think that movies like Hostel should be banned as well. The killing scenes in Manhunt 2 are no worse.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 8, 2007 - 11:52 PM

So, I suppose they should change the name of their European division to Take-Three?

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Oct 8, 2007 - 6:39 PM

What a joke. I thought Europe was smarter than this. I can see the religious wackos in the USA getting a ban, but i thought Europe was beyond those ancient myths.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 8, 2007 - 4:34 PM

Only pirates will play Manhunt 2 in the UK.

Much better headline. :)

Now can tie up the UK legal system with lawsuits, all the while telling 'em,

"Hey, we'll stop the second you remove the ban, guys."

Should be fun.

(anyone seen my puppy? He hasn't crapped all over the place in a bit... Did he get his self banned again?)

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Oct 8, 2007 - 5:20 PM

I believe he's out for a vasectomy.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 8, 2007 - 6:04 PM

What a waste. I'm sure Darwin will take care of him eventually.

Score: 0

Sep 5 - 8:44 PM ET Mozilla's Aza Raskin: The journey back to Ubiquity

Sep 5 - 7:10 PM ET Red Hat buys virtualization specialist Qumranet

Sep 5 - 7:06 PM ET Analysts: Online news viewers rising as newspaper readership falls

Sep 5 - 6:55 PM ET Where does Sarah Palin stand on technology issues?

Sep 5 - 6:51 PM ET Adobe Flash to deliver NFL games in full

Sep 5 - 4:29 PM ET Exclusive beta invitation from GameTap and BetaNews

Sep 5 - 4:09 PM ET Report: OLPC buy one, give one deal returns

Sep 5 - 3:45 PM ET No ruling yet in TiVo vs. EchoStar patent case

Sep 5 - 3:37 PM ET Google Analytics starts tracking Chrome, with intriguing results

Sep 5 - 2:14 PM ET Comcast challenges FCC's authority in sanction appeal