Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What Would Make Manhunt 2 Acceptable To BBFC?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the probably-less-with-the-plastic-bags dept.

Games 74

MTV's Multiplayer Blog wonders aloud what would make Manhunt 2 acceptable to the BBFC. The BBFC rejected the game for a second time a few days ago, and now MCV is reporting that the version they rejected was identical to the US version approved for an 'M' rating by the ESRB. From the BBFC's response: "Unfortunately I cannot list the changes we suggested as this is a matter between us and the distributor and if they are not happy to give you chapter and verse I'm afraid I can't either. I can say, however, that the changes were to the level of visual detail in the kills and to some of the dialogue. As our news release said, 'The impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the gameplay, is clearly insufficient. There has been a reduction in the visual detail in some of the 'execution kills', but in others they retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature.'"

cancel ×

74 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Title Change (3, Funny)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955121)

I think if they just changed the name to "OMG Ponies" the BBFC might change their mind.

Re:Title Change (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955221)

And add cute invincible bunnies ^^

Re:Title Change (1)

WhyDoYouWantToKnow (1039964) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956829)

Cute invincible bunnies that rip your throat out and can only be killed with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?

Re:Title Change (1)

Rub1cnt (1159069) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955233)

Hmm...canceling it all together comes to mind...the first manhunt wasn't that good anyway. It's amazing...we have all these unrated DVDs of major horror flicks here in the states and our closest ally...can't stomach the violence of a simple, allbeit bloody video game? I'm all for full disclosure on what they took out to pass the ratings boards here and in the EU... *shrug*

Re:Title Change (1)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956337)

It depends upon what you value.

Here in the US we value the ability to kill someone. We still have that "Wild West" attitude. Two days ago, a child shot four people and committed suicide. Yesterday another child was arrested for allegedly planning a "Columbine" style rampage. We don't care about weapons, just don't show any titties and you'll do just fine.

In England the emphasis is different. Titties are quite nice. :) Violence is not!

I have a DVD of "Goldfinger". In the director commentary a story is told of trying to satisfy the censors in England and the US simultaneously. It's a really funny story. The English censors wanted to tone down the violence and didn't care about naked flesh being displayed. The US censors objected to naked flesh and were unfazed about the violence. The poor director and editor had to accomodate both contradictory requirements before they could distribute their movie.

Re:Title Change (2, Insightful)

ozbon (99708) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956487)

Whereas by comparison, the UK has plenty of open-ness with nudity, semi-nudity etc., but in the US the sight of one breast at the Superbowl leads to a whole new age of broadcast puritanism...

Personally, I'd far rather that a game (or film) with a (and I'm quoting) "visceral and casually sadistic nature" was censored or limited than something containing semi-nudity. I'm not even referring to porn per se, but just nudity and profanity in a TV programme. Much as it's utter shite, the current "Secrets of a Call Girl", based on that blog by Belle du Jour, is fairly open about the entire sexuality thing.

I figure I'd rather be in a nation that's desensitised to the appearance of a normal human body sans clothing than to one that's desensitised to guns and violence. But that's just my own personal viewpoint.

Re:Title Change (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 6 years ago | (#20961057)

Well, from what I've read about the US release, all of the content in the AO rated version is the same as the M version, they just pasted effects on top of certain scenes to make everything harder to see. It's sort of like how Martin Scorsese reduced the vividness of the blood in the ultraviolent ending of Taxi Driver to please the censors. It's a little bizarre that both ratings boards were more concerned about the imagery than the content.

Simple (3, Funny)

T0wner (552792) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955371)

sed 's/FF0000/00FF00/' manhunt2/src/*

Re:Simple (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955641)

For those that missed this wonderful joke, that changes all the Red to Green... As in, the blood.

It was an old tactic to get by the censors because green blood means it's not human and is therefore okay to kill, somehow.

Re:Simple (1)

Nuskrad (740518) | more than 6 years ago | (#20971865)

Not funny if you have to describe it. Anyone who doesn't get it shouldn't be on slashdot anyway

Re:Simple (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20957111)

Why not sed 's/FF0000/FF66CC/' manhunt2/src/* to make it go with the OMG Ponies theme?

It's just a guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20956099)

But maybe if the game wasn't about making gruesome snuff films and sadistically murdering people, they might find it a bit more acceptable.

The only reason they got a response like that is because the Brits hate violence more than sexuality (imagine that!) and there are few, if any *redeeming* points to the game. In other words, one might be able to list the few (if any) acceptable points of the game, but the unacceptable parts are simply too numerous to list.

Re:It's just a guess... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981275)

But maybe if the game wasn't about making gruesome snuff films and sadistically murdering people, they might find it a bit more acceptable.

The only reason they got a response like that is because the Brits hate violence more than sexuality (imagine that!) and there are few, if any *redeeming* points to the game. In other words, one might be able to list the few (if any) acceptable points of the game, but the unacceptable parts are simply too numerous to list.


We may hate actual violence, but that doesn't mean we like a bunch of adults telling other adults what they're allowed to see, just because some find it "unacceptable". If you don't like it, don't play it.

Snuff films are a myth, btw.

Re:Title Change (1)

monkeySauce (562927) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957139)

Or how about "Where's Man 2"? Your target is wearing red and white stripes...

OMG! PONIES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20955223)

Imagine how they'd react to PonyHunt! I bet it'd be real easy to kill the pink ones.

Re:OMG! PONIES! (2, Funny)

Rub1cnt (1159069) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955461)

Nah...let's change it from ponyhunt to RIAA lawyer hunt....I doubt any standards body would reject that for ruthless violence...especially if they own music.

Re:OMG! PONIES! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957583)

No chance. Cruelty against animals is worse than against humans.

No ninjitsu (1)

MagusZeal (1156955) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955243)

Perhaps if they removed all those ninja and samurai along with those ninja moves like sneaking or stealth killing they'd be a bit more lenient.

Media blitz for a non-issue = sales... (2, Funny)

bitRAKE (739786) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955263)

BBFC's response has almost sold me on the game. Great work guys!

Re:Media blitz for a non-issue = sales... (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957133)

BBFC's response has almost sold me on the game. Great work guys!
Yes; the BBFC's de facto ban on sales will sell the game to lots of people. Oh, hang on.... :)

Re:Media blitz for a non-issue = sales... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957527)

Well, maybe not in the UK, but that publicity is really gold.

What? (3, Insightful)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955341)

The idea that a regulatory or inspectory agency should be unable to cite reasons for its decision is essentially the exposition that it has no rules. I'm an American video game developer, and whereas I write kids' games and have dodged this bullet, I can say for certain that the ESRB is full of crap and has no idea what it's doing. It sounds, however, like Europe is winning the war in arbitrary judgements based on personal beliefs and associations with retailers.

This is absurd, and the BBFC should be replaced with an agency willing to set their rules out in black and white.

Re:What? (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955769)

Their decision basically boils down to "we don't like it, so it's banned."

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955879)

Their decision basically boils down to "we don't like it, so it's banned."

In fairness to the BBFC, this is the second game they've ever banned. The only other case was Carmageddon.

Remember how America had such a fuss over San Andreas? Because with only the violence it was rated for 17+, while with the sex scene it had to be rated 18+, and this was a major issue? Well, here it was rated 18 with the violence (the next rating down is 15) and with the sex it was, er... 18. No problems at all.

Re:What? (2, Informative)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957499)

Because with only the violence it was rated for 17+, while with the sex scene it had to be rated 18+, and this was a major issue?
The major issue wasn't the year's difference in rating, it was that the developer lied to the ratings board. It didn't help that games with sexual content weren't announcing the sexual content - our rating system is more than just an age number, and requires expository labelling - but the real problem was that the developer lied to the ratings board.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20956243)

Wrong, it is not banned, they simply refuse to give it a rating. It's the manufacturers that have banned unrated games from appearing on their consoles, and the resellers that refuse to stock unrated titles. This game can be sold right now, the publishers are holding it back and milking as much press as they can get. The game must be really shit if they won't let it go as-is and sell direct to the public.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20956603)

Wrong, it is banned.

Whereas American ratings mean nothing in law, and they are treated as guidance, the BBFC's refusal to rate it means that it legally cannot be sold in the UK.

So it is banned.

Re:What? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957191)

Whereas American ratings mean nothing in law, and they are treated as guidance, the BBFC's refusal to rate it means that it legally cannot be sold in the UK.
If the same applies here as it does to films, then in theory city and district councils can ignore the BBFC's rating and allow the game to be sold (or the film shown) anyway. It just happens that in the overwhelming majority of cases that's the guide they use.

Re: What? (1)

azuredrake (1069906) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955853)

I don't know how the BBFC works, but the ESRB pulls in volunteers who are parents of school-age kids to watch 30 minutes of footage from any given game and has them conference to determine the game's rating. The footage is required to show anything which may tip the rating - they publish a list of "potentially pertinent" factors and send them to every developer so the devs know what to make sure they get in.

It's silly nonetheless, though, because you've got parents who don't necessarily know the first thing about games rating things based on a total lack of context and usually not even a tenth of the game on screen. A packet is also submitted with the game footage which contains a list of all ratings-pertinent content, but generally that pretty matches the video.

If the BBFC works the same way, they wouldn't even be able to give a list of "what to change" to the developer - they'd have pulled an entirely different committee of people who might object to totally different aspects of things.

Re:What? (1)

jareth-0205 (525594) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955987)

I'm not necessarily agreeing with the decision, but clearly they can't just go telling everyone the exact reasons for their decision otherwise they will run afoul of the copyright of the developer. Their decision is going to be based on plot and events from the game, which obviously the developer probably doesn't want everyone to know. It would surely spoil the game if you get to know what's going to happen? Course, at the moment you definitely won't know but there's no saying that in the future the game might not be changed and then cleared for release.

They do say that the developer knows the reasons and would be able to share them if they wanted to. Clearly there are reasons, but not public ones.

Re:What? (1)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957387)

I'm not necessarily agreeing with the decision, but clearly they can't just go telling everyone the exact reasons for their decision otherwise they will run afoul of the copyright of the developer.
They could tell the developer, though.

Their decision is going to be based on plot and events from the game
I don't see any reason to believe this. The ESRB's isn't.

They do say that the developer knows the reasons
RTFA. The problem is that they won't tell the developer.

Re:What? (1)

rrdm2k (932657) | more than 6 years ago | (#20982335)

A quote from Sue Clark from the BBFC in TFA: "Stephen, unfortunately I cannot list the changes we suggested as this is a matter between us and the distributor and if they are not happy to give you chapter and verse I'm afraid I can't either."

Sounds as if they have told the developer since Take two interactive owns Rockstar and distributes/publishes all their products. The only reason the BBFC can't tell anyone else is because Rockstar/Take two don't want them to.

Don't tell someone to RTFA unless you've read it yourself, you muppet!

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955997)

Uh, the BBFC cited the reasons for the decision. They do it with every decision they make, in fact, and just because the reasons haven't been clearly outlined in news stories on Gamespot and Slashdot that doesn't mean that they weren't clearly outlined to Rockstar.

Have a look at what's on the BBFC's website and you'll see that they don't operate in secrecy, so your reaction seems a little harsh to me.

Re:What? (1)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957445)

Uh, the BBFC cited the reasons for the decision.
That's funny. The developer can't even get the BBFC to give them the reason the game was rejected, and yet you think the reasoning is public. If you search for manhunt, you get a bunch of films, you get the first game, but you don't get the second game. Perhaps you could find this explanation for me? I can't find it, the developer can't find it, and frankly I don't really believe it exists.

When you assume, you don't actually make an ass out of me.

Re:What? (1)

BandoMcHando (85123) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957675)

The developer can't even get the BBFC to give them the reason the game was rejected, and yet you think the reasoning is public.
RTFA...

From the article, quoted from the Rockstar statement: (Rockstar are the developers of Manhunt).

The changes necessary in order to publish the game in Britain are unacceptable to us and represent a setback for video games.
For the developer to be aware of the changes necessary for the BBFC to give Manhunt 2 a rating implies that the BBFC informed them of exactly what they considered unacceptable. They just don't want to do it.

And, as someone else has noted, the BBFC has only ever denied a rating to one other game (Carmageddon), although that decision was overturned on appeal. And if I remember correctly from the original decision (forgive me for being too busy to google for references, need to catch a train shortly), the BBFC said something about the game having nothing else to it apart form mindless sadistic violence, I think the phrase used was 'no redeemable qualities'.

I'm happy about one thing though, at least the BBFC seems to have based it's decision on a fairly solid foundation, as a fairly quick search on their website reveals the material that htey based their decision on (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/5F0B91FB15D5B748802572FF003BE984?OpenDocument) i.e. a complete playthrough.

Re:What? (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957771)

Read the reply above mine.

I'll forgive you for implying that I'm an ass if you'll forgive me for pointing out that you've made an ass of yourself.

Re:What? (1)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 6 years ago | (#20960161)

The only reason that the BBFC can't publicly come out with the suggested changes is that Rockstar themselves have chosen not to give them out.

The important quote: "if they are not happy to give you chapter and verse Im afraid I cant either"

I don't care... (4, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955373)

... I'm going to order it from Holland.

It's 2007. International borders mean little, information is weightless. Organisations like the BBFC are only going to become less and less relevant as time goes by.

Re:I don't care... (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957223)

No, they will be replaced by international NGOs who are accountable to nobody and have reach in far more places. After all, as trade in information is internationalized and nation controls become less effective, it seems only natural that that power vacuum will be filled by an agency of equivalent scope.

Not that I like that idea one bit.

Re:I don't care... (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957273)

I'm going to order it from Holland.
Customs get a DVD-shaped package from the Netherlands, first thing they're going to do is check to see if it's hardcore pornography. :) It might not be, but they're aware of what you've got now anyway...

It wouldn't take much...geesh (2, Funny)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955783)

Just take the prison setting move it to a field of flowers with a bright yellow sun, blue sky and white fluffy clouds. Remove the bad guys and put in ponies. Remove weapons and replace them with water cans, so you can water the flowers. If you don't water them the plants get sad (they won't die...that's bad). Your guy should be changed into a happy princess who wants to bring the world a smile. And her weapon of choice is to shoot rainbows from her finger tips that make everyone happy and safe.

See piece of cake

Re:It wouldn't take much...geesh (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 6 years ago | (#20958567)

Your guy should be changed into a happy princess who wants to bring the world a smile.
As long as there's advanced breast physics involved I'll buy!

Re:It wouldn't take much...geesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20961297)

I heard they'll be using inverse nipplematics!

why not just censor the entire game... (1)

Erpo (237853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955823)

...and then release a patch on the Internet that restores everything. "Game experience may change with online play," right?

Re:why not just censor the entire game... (1)

adona1 (1078711) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956335)

The version of Duke Nukem 3D released in Australia had something like that...censored content to begin with, but the full game [wikipedia.org] able to be restored with a single DOS command (the Wikipedia article is a bit off - there was actually a text file on the disc explaining how to unlock it, hardly a mix-up).

It's a good idea...especially if the game company made you verify your age to download the patch. Everyone is happy then - the company can release its game without (fundamental) editing, the parents can be happy because little Johnny is protected from vile evil sex/violence, and little Johnny is happy because the patch will be on TPB within 2 minutes.

Re:why not just censor the entire game... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981341)

It's a good idea...especially if the game company made you verify your age to download the patch. Everyone is happy then - the company can release its game without (fundamental) editing, the parents can be happy because little Johnny is protected from vile evil sex/violence, and little Johnny is happy because the patch will be on TPB within 2 minutes.

Note that the BBFC's ruling is about even adults not being allowed to see it.

Re:why not just censor the entire game... (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 6 years ago | (#20959105)

Yeah, we saw how well unlocking features with patches worked out for San Andreas.

Re:why not just censor the entire game... (1)

Erpo (237853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20959611)

Everyone knows that it's much more acceptable to show graphic, detailed video of torture and murder than it is to show video of two people going through the motions of making love without taking off their underwear.

STEAM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20955891)

as much as i dislike some of steams characteristics, this is a perfect example of the good ones. Just release the game trough steam and give that ratings board the finger.

Just wait... (1)

Ren.Tamek (898017) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956215)

Face it, this decision is based on general public opinion on video games as well as political climate and other social factors. It's 100% arbitrary. If Rockstar wasn't the developer, they could avoid the controversy Bully and GTA created and actually rate the game on it's own merits. As it is, the decision smacks of teaching Rockstar a lesson, especially considering some of the films they've let through in recent months. So, if they don't want to change the content they could just wait 6 months, by which time the daily mail will have a new story about princess Diana, or immigrants, or some other piece of shit about todays fads killing our kids (my next prediction is Anime), and it will slip through without incident.

Easy (1)

matt me (850665) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956311)

There are two paths to making the game more acceptable in society, that is, to the media, which define it. BBFC won't approve something if they expect letters written to The Sun and the Daily Mail.

1. Change the title from Manhunt to something less headline catchy, and change the first level so that reporters won't see anything but bunnies and flowers.
2. Alter the gameplay so that the player is murdering paedophiles.

Fixed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20956331)

Unfortunately I cannot list the changes we demanded as this is a matter between us and the distributor and if they are not happy to give you chapter and verse, great, because that way you won't see our demands are completely arbitrary.

Re:Fixed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20956639)

Well, yeah, except kinda totally no actually.

See, if the requirements were that arbitrary, then the distributor would have publicised them in an attempt to win public backing and force the BBFC to change their minds. Since the distributor has not publicised the reasons given by the BBFC, clearly they weren't at all outrageous.

bewbiez! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20957151)

Bewbiez!!!!!!

Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957381)

As usual, you people are missing the forest for the trees. If you play their game, you have already lost:

> what would make Manhunt 2 acceptable to the BBFC?

How about electing different politicians?

'adult'? nope. (1, Troll)

Peganthyrus (713645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957461)

From everything I've heard about Manhunt 2 it's not an adult game. The focus on GORE! and NASTY KILLING! is very adolescent. It sounds like something designed by an angsty, hate-filled teenage boy who's going to have a teacher see his notebook and be afraid he's going to be another Columbine killer any day now.

All this gory, blood-soaked shit gets called "adult" but it's not. It's adolescents wallowing in mindless excess.

Re:'adult'? nope. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20960259)

All this gory, blood-soaked shit gets called "adult" but it's not. It's adolescents wallowing in mindless excess.

Tale Two has a hit in Bioshock. Intense, challenging, visually splendid. Why is it sacrificing so much hard won good will on a project that can best be described as torture porn?

Re:'adult'? nope. (1)

Peganthyrus (713645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20961071)

Honestly, I watched my boyfriend playing the Bioshock demo and found that to be blood porn, too. I was almost physically sick as he bludgeoned his way through the first few rooms with a wrench.

Why are all the "AAA" titles all about lovingly-rendered ways to kill? I used to like video games but they're really just falling down a hole of being by and for the self-hating, world-hating teenage boy.

Re:'adult'? nope. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20963347)

I watched my boyfriend playing the Bioshock demo and found that to be blood porn, too. I was almost physically sick as he bludgeoned his way through the first few rooms with a wrench. Why are all the "AAA" titles all about lovingly-rendered ways to kill?

It is a fair question to ask.

In this season of the year I tend to return to games like Grim Fandango.

In which you begin your journey through the Land of the Dead embittered and self-pitying.

You advance in the game through decisions in which your character betrays a growing self-confidence, generosity and grace.

There are moments in the game - bits of poetry and play - which do nothing to advance the story, but are there simply to be savored and recalled with pleasure.

So violence is good, but sex is bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20960999)

Let me get this straight, you're upset that it's called "adult" because that might mean that there was a little sex mixed into a game where you graphically murder people to make snuff films?

The horrors!

Re:So violence is good, but sex is bad? (1)

Peganthyrus (713645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20961455)

What on earth makes you think that's why I'm squicked by Manhunt 2?

Man, I'm all for more sex in games. I'd love to see sex in all popular entertainment be shown as explicitly as violence are. You can fling innards around like doubloons at Mardi Gras and get an R/MA, but show one naked cunt or cock and have people fuck and it's X/AO. And it gets ghettoized into this incredibly stupid, impersonal sex.

"Wow! Look at this cool way I can kill someone!" is an incredibly adolescent urge, no matter how many man-hours went into getting the shaders tweaked so the blood soaks into the walls juuuuust right.

Umm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20961859)

> You can fling innards around like doubloons at Mardi Gras and get an R/MA, but show one naked cunt or cock and have people fuck and it's X/AO. And it gets ghettoized into this incredibly stupid, impersonal sex.

I could be wrong here, but isn't the BBFC in Britain? You know, that country that speaks English, doesn't care so much about sex, but really doesn't like violence all that much? (They don't use G/PG/PG13/R/X ratings.)

Mind you, I think they overdid it when the Brits changed the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (apparently, merely owning nunchucks is illegal), but the Manhunt series isn't exactly tame as far as violence goes, so if you're going to ban something, I really don't have as much of a problem banning this.

Re:Umm... (1)

Peganthyrus (713645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20962119)

I got no problem banning it either. I'd really like to see less of this kind of adolescent wallowing in ultraviolence made in the first place. I'd prefer that it be through developers saying 'hey, this is too far' and axing stuff like this before it gets to the point where 50-100 people have worked on it for 18 months, and the financial fate of the studio rides on it being released, and it does seem that this is becoming the case.

When I call it 'violence porn' I don't mean that it's got OMG SEX! in it; I mean that it's pornography of violence: lingering on it, encouraging it, made for no other reason than to glorify this taboo act, and usually to do so in the most tawdry way possible.

Quite simple (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957625)

Judging from "adjustments" to be "suitable" for the German market:

1. Claim every person is a robot.
2. Throw all speech into some program that removes all bass to make it sound all robot'y.
3. Cripple all "flesh" textures into some shades of grey and apply some bolts to the "skin".
4. Make all blood green or blue, and say it's "coolant fluid".
5. Apply the same for guts and say it's "pipes".
6. And of course, put it all into a parallel universe far, far away.

Should work out.

Re:Quite simple (2, Interesting)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20960621)

You mean:

1. Behaupten, jeder ist Robot.
2. Alle reden veraendern, damit alle tiefe Stimmen robotisch sind.
3. usw.

God my German sucks.

4 would be tolerable, as long as there's a special mode for people with colorblindness so that the player can have red coolant.

Re:Quite simple (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20964567)

Ok, ok, if you insist...

1. Behaupten, jeder ist ein Roboter.
2. Die Sprachsamples in ein Programm werfen, das jeden Bass rausfiltert und roboterhaft wirken läßt.
3. Alle "Haut"-Texturen ummodeln und grau hinterlegen, dazu Nieten auf die Haut pinseln.
4. Alles Blut grün oder blau umfärben, und es als "Kühlflüssigkeit" bezeichnen.
5. Dasselbe für Gedärme machen und es als "Schläuche" bezeichnen.
6. Und natürlich spielt alles in einem weit, weit entfernten Paralleluniversum.

(translated for the convenience of the BPjM, the German counterpart of the BBFC).

What exactly do you guys want? (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 6 years ago | (#20958481)

Whenever a school shooting or other media event gets blamed on kids having access to violent video games, Slashdotters are quick to point out that the parents weren't paying attention to the ratings. But the reaction to this story seems to imply that a lot of people would like those ratings to be basically toothless - like there's no level of horrific violence that should EVER qualify a game for the equivalent of an X-rating.

Do we apply this standard to movies? Of course not. Everyone more or less accepts that movies have to censor themselves down to make an "R" rating rather than "X" (OK, "NC-17"). While there are plenty of people who oppose the specifics of movie ratings, I don't think I've heard many people espouse indiscriminately giving porn an "R" rating.

Anyway, good play by Rockstar. Their crappy game managed to get more media coverage than Halo 3 by playing the controversy card.

Re:What exactly do you guys want? (1)

MechaBlue (1068636) | more than 6 years ago | (#20959983)

The BBFC is body that is legally empowered by the government to censor materials without justifying their decisions to the public.

- If a movie is rated NC-17 by the MPAA, retailers may decline to carry it but it will play on all DVD players. You can order it online or find another less "moral" source. This is weak corporate censorship.
- If a game is rated AO by the ESRB, it won't play on consoles (due to the decisions of Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony). It may still be bought and played on the PC. This is stronger corporate censorship.
- If the BBFC rejects the game, you may not buy it and play it on any platform (without resorting to extra-national suppliers). This is government backed, total censorship.

Comments about the bleak and callous tone and casual sadism are particularly worrisome. These traits could easily be part of other controversial works with a strong social value. Would they censor media that tries to give the "player" a first person view of what it was like to be in Auschwitz? Would they censor media about the use of extreme rendition and torture techniques used in current conflicts? Would they censor media that portrayed the IRA in a sympathetic light?

In light of the statements around Manhunt 2, I can not take it for granted that the BBFC will defend artistic expression when confronted with controversial media.

Re:What exactly do you guys want? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981379)

Um, the problem is that the game is banned, even for adults. I don't see anyone having a problem with enforced age restrictions to prevent children from seeing.

power trip (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20958685)

I personally read the BBFC's comments as

'They didn't take our suggestions and tell us how wonderful and insightful we are so we are going to throw a tantrum and now allow their game'

Their amazing B.S. comments about how they don't have a double standard for games vs movies is just icing on the cake...

Why not 2 versions? (1)

sudnshok (136477) | more than 6 years ago | (#20959837)

According to articles on the US changes, they blurred out the real graphic scenes (which really disappoints me as an adult who should be able to see them). Why can't they release an M version with lots of blurring called "Manhunt 2: The Jack Thompson Pussy Version, Still Not For Kids" and an uncut, unblurred AO version called "Manhunt 2: For Real"?

Re:Why not 2 versions? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20965915)

Why can't they release an AO version called "Manhunt 2: For Real"?

It's because no one in the gaming industry wants to be associated with a title whose only retail outlet is the adult bookstore. That includes established online distributors like Valve and Steam and Amazon.com.

Changes (1)

partowel (469956) | more than 6 years ago | (#20962751)

1. Add some new enemies : People who pirate music. People who copy their cd/dvd for backup. People who talk at the
movie theatre.

2. Make the weapons sound like "RIAA","MPAA","Copyright bullet","Making Avaialbe Flak Vest".

3. Make the Hero worship whoever is in charge of Britain atm.

4. ALL the monsters in the game pay for every song and movie they watch. So they are the good, law abiding citizens.

5. ALL the monsters in the game have awesome jobs and a moral ethic better than any human.

6. ALL the monsters get paid very well for being....monsters.

7. The biggest offender of copyright *cough* china *cough* gets nuked in the end. Or any other "big" offender.

8. Like the other posts said "cute mammal/fish/bacteria" on the outside, blah blah blah.

9. MUST be very cute.

10. Send them a nice "incentive" *cough* bribe *cough*.

11. IF all else fails, put it on the net by "accident", and let all hell break loose.

12. Open the source code to the public by accident. Oops....did it get out with "F*** you BBFC"? I didn't know. *snicker*

Change of vision (1)

Taulin (569009) | more than 6 years ago | (#20991215)

Since they are now in a sense changing their vision of the original game, shouldn't they just make it Manhunt SP, or something like that, then release the full Pro version for the PC? They could even make a 'lite' version by cutting to a scene of flowers right before knife enters someone's heart.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>