A month ago, GamesIndustry.biz ran an article on Manhunt 2 and the game's banning at the hands of the BBFC. While the article, written by contributor Rob Fahey, began by initially expressing distaste at the fact that such an action could occur, it continued on to be very critical of Rockstar, stating that in making Manhunt 2 the company has 'crossed the line - and crossed it at a full tilt run'.
Later on Fahey says that Manhunt 2 'may, in fact, be the game which lives up to the shrill claims of the conservative wing that games are "murder simulators"', and said of its creator, 'In making such a game Rockstar has been juvenile, shameful and irresponsible. The right of creators to push the boundaries of media and society must be balanced out against a simple sense of social responsibility - something with Rockstar seems to entirely lack'.
Rockstar was quiet on the issue for a while, but after publisher Take-Two finally stepped out of its corner with a grunt and a spit last Tuesday, the developer has now hit out hard against the accusations with a letter to Mr. Fahey, which GI.biz has printed in its entirety. I could ramble on about what Rockstar says in the letter, and how the points it makes about gaming, censorship, and free speech are important and far-reaching, but to be honest, anything I could say would be superfluous to what Rockstar says itself. Instead of reading a load of unneccessary embellishment from me, hit the jump and read the letter. It's a good one.
Dear Mr. Fahey,
We are responding to the article Sick Filth?, in which you expressed support for the ban of Manhunt 2.
Although censorship makes you "deeply uncomfortable" and you found the ban’s rationale "a less comfortable topic", you agreed with the judgment of the British Board of Film Classification that no one - regardless of age or personal opinion - should be allowed to consider playing Manhunt 2.
We are still exploring our options for Manhunt 2, but how does banning our game support the industry or further the development of the medium? Unlike a heavy-handed editor or a critical review of a game, a ban is punishment for deviating from tradition.
A ban denies everyone the chance to consider, experience, or discuss the actual game. The only obvious victor is the status quo.
You seem to view banning Manhunt 2 as a way to protect the industry from scrutiny and unfair attacks. In fact, a ban is a triumph for the industry’s harshest critics, not an act of diplomacy.
A ban is only likely to encourage those who believe video games, already the most regulated medium in entertainment history, should be further restricted.
What about games make them deserve special treatment from the authorities? According to industry groups, the average games player is in his or her 30s, yet you support the widely held view that games are somehow a less sophisticated medium than cinema, only suitable for immature audiences.
In other words, although gamers can negotiate the boundaries between reality and fiction in other media, you believe we are incapable of navigating the same boundaries in videogames.
Yes, we have responsibilities as an industry, but as a creative industry, not as a pharmaceutical or weapons industry. Creative industries have always faced harsh political and legal criticism, and we know some of the movie industry’s more reactionary responses to scrutiny actually backfired.
We believe in a well-run ratings system. With the best rating system in history and the future of the industry and medium at stake, we don’t understand why it is necessary to effectively ban all games intended for players 18 and older.
Sincerely,
Rockstar Games
Contest:
9:09 PM on 07.21.2007
| 
Here here, Rockstar. Here here.
They make good points. Specially that a ban is like a punishment.
I won't get Manhunt 2, but I wouldn't support it getting banned.
Before too long, you'll need a permit if you want to sleep in late on the weekend.
I can't wait to buy this game. Go Rockstar!!!
Also what's going on with Gamers for Gaming?
Show me action. Start suing motherfuckers. Then I'll care.
Manhunt 2 is the ONLY reason right now i'm even considering getting the Wii "casual entertainment system" - i know it's coming out on the PS2 but come on, i want to act out my pseudo-murders!
Okay, I know all of you are anti-censorship, but I take issue with a few of the things Rockstar has said in this letter.
First, there's the argument that 'censoring this game prevents the video game industry from progressing.' Progressing into what? How realistic we can show someone's brains being blown out (from multiple camera angles!)? So here's the golden question: Is there artistic merit in life-like violence? And I don't mean about people being killed, because obviously realistic violence appears in other forms of media (especially television) but where do you end?
"If the player pushes X here, he'll ejaculate into the hookers mouth. Then hold R2 and press circle to stick your other gun in her mouth and splatter her insides against the wall in floor in all the realism the Playstation 7 can muster. Look! The chunks of brain have independant physics, and will leave realistic blood stains that dry over time!"
I mean, at some point or another, we're going to be able to kill in a virtual world. A very realistic virtual world. It has to come sometime: Controls that respond to our brain patterns, with graphics indistinguishable from real life, interacting with AI so good it passes the Turing Test AND our own personal 'brain' test. In effect, we have a virtual world that plays out in front of our eyes that is indistinguishable from real life. Are we still okay with killing models that are indistinguishable from real life?
"But Manhunt 2 isn't realistic." No, but look, you can't let a media as young as video games spiral wildly out of control without being responsible, and frankly, developers AREN'T being responsible. I think they're opening 'Pandora's Box' not because they should, but because they can.
Rockstar says in their letter that "although gamers can negotiate the boundaries between reality and fiction in other media, you believe we are incapable of navigating the same boundaries in videogames." I think this is true. Video games aren't an art form that requires the reader/viewer to sit back and watch what happens. They require participation. They require the player to push a button to kill, making each splat of red pixels the direct responsibility of the person in control. "But there's no link between aggression/violence and video games." No, of course not, because the violence we find in video games isn't realistic. The brain can still tell the difference between the imaginary and the real, and I think that's what's stopping the brain from making the connection. But you strip away the imaginary by making the graphics and controls more and more realistic, and eventually I don't think it's a strain to eventually see a time when shooting those virtual people in the world isn't much different that shooting a cavader.
All I'm saying is that if virtual reality is the target that video games eventually seeks to obtain, then setting regulations about what you can and cannot do in a game isn't a bad thing. We've already got them in real life, they're called 'laws.' No one is up in arms that it's illegal to kill a real-life person, but again I ask, what if that virtual person is so realistic it might as well be life-like? I for one am not against setting some ground rules now for a situation that could happen in 40-50 years.
Okay, uh, point 2:
"A ban is only likely to encourage those who believe video games, already the most regulated medium in entertainment history, should be further restricted."
I love the slippery slope arguments. "Once you ban Manhunt 2, watch out! Pretty soon we'll see all violence in video games restricted!" Sorry Rockstar, I'm not buying it. Banning this one game simple sets a precedence: 'if your game is as violent as this one, then it will be banned.' I don't think that's a bad marker to have. ESPECIALLY if we're to have a ratings system, we need to know the boundaries so that we
can enforce it.
I will say again that I would prefer that instead of countries banning the game, they simply went the road of 'selling it behind the counter.' The reason being is that I don't think that Man Hunt 2 is the game that will make killing indistinguishable. However, if the game is as great as it can be, then Rockstar can sell it from the dark counters across the world. There's no real reason it needs to be placed with all the other video games.
- Eddie
Problem solved.
Issue: Should a game ever be banned?
Rule: The ESRB was created to provide a way for people to easily identify the content in games to help in their purchasing decisions. Ratings were created to keep more mature games out of the hands of minors and people looking to avoid exposure to that content.
Application: Rockstar created a game with a specific audience in mind. They created the content in line with the ESRB, knowing that there is an audience out there who wants this type of game and as long as the consumers follow the rules set forth by the industry, the game should never get into the hands of minors and people looking to avoid exposure to that content. After creating the game, people who don't even play video games determined that this game would do harm to the human race with no logical reason. Now, Manhunt 2 must be "dumbed down" in order for it to ever get into the hands of consumers, including the target audience it was originally intended for. Meanwhile, these same consumers are watching the unedited ultra-violent version of Hostel while eating popcorn.
Conclusion: The ESRB is completely pointless if outside groups are going to step in and limit what mature adults are allowed to play and decide. These outside groups should be enforcing the ESRB, not countering it. If the ESRB is effectively countered then games are going to get banned.
Look, if you think the game is so bad it belongs behind the counter, or with a black plastic bad around it, or in specialty shops then that's fine. But to support a ban in any way, shape or form is telling our entire society that censorship in video games is OK while other forms of entertainment are allowed to exist under the restrictions of their rating systems.
Normally, I like to debate but am willing to accept the opinions of others. In this particular case, you are just flat out wrong.
Games, the most regulated medium in entertainment history? Ha! I'm sure that, at the moment, the FCC doesn't impose fines over inappropriate video games.
From the FCC website: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
Last I checked, video games were communicated by radio, television, wire, satellite or cable. FYI, the FCC doesn't regulate the internet, either.
For the record, I don't think my argument that 'games will eventually become more realistic' is some sort of slippery slope. It's what the industry is striving to be SOMETIME in the far future, right?
Unless you were agreeing with me that slippery slope arguements are dumb...
- Eddie
In my perfect world (emphasis on "MY"), people wouldn't be making games like Manhunt, but the world doesn't work that way. Duh. So, yeah. For me, agreeing with this is a necessary evil.
In another generation the mass public will finally start to accept that video games aren't just for kids, and there's a place for titles with adult content. But if we let censorship issues like this go ignored (and yes, it is censorship despite what some people choose to believe) and allow lawmakers to run rampant over creative expression under the guise of "protecting the children", we may never get to see that day.
Gaming is getting weird as it creeps into the mainstream.
Manhunt is a little over the top though.
That being said, Rockstar would have had a logical checkmate on the ESRB or the British or European equivalent. As it stands, it was a beautiful piece that was an expression that any rational adult would stand for. I would have loved to see that final bit, but I must say it was an extremely satisfying letter.
Bravo Rockstar!
Also, I played the original Manhunt at a buddies house while drinking.. it was fun, but too tense for my liking. I probably wouldn't be interested in playing the sequel.
There is no doubt they crossed the line and now they're going to have to pull back. There is no point whining about free speech (a concept which defined differently in different countries anyway) since it would get them nowhere. The BBFC and other censors have strict guidelines and you either meet the rules or you do not. The same goes for each console platform - you either meet the system requirements for certification or you do not.
If Rockstar think they're somehow exempt or that anything goes, they could find themselves becoming pariahs. After all, if they think their game should be permitted, then why not a game based on gassing Jews for points, or raping and torturing children?
The reality is that censors do exist, and console certification is tied to it. That's too bad for Rockstar. They should fix or ditch the game already and get off their high horses. If they absolutely must make a point, port MH2 to the PC and release it for free or something.
With gaming, there are only the platforms that some companies developed and more or less have total control over. Once a developer creates content that falls outside the spectrum of what those platforms support, it is effectively banned. But I feel that banning with Manhunt 2 is being compared too much in a 1-on-1 way to the movie industry.
Yes, console makers should acknowledge the maturity of their audience and allow adult games imho. But that is their call to make. There is still a platform for anything that doesn't fall within the accepted 'lines', it's called the PC + internet. I also feel that if Manhunt 2 was made by another company than Rockstar in say, 2000, some people would've said: "oh that sucks, I wanted to see what that was like" and then stopped caring about it.
The whole gaming industry is being politicized by terribly bad research on videogame violence (which is then used in Congress as fact) and by media outlets sensationalizing things. Which leads to people like Jack Thompson and certain boards to feel they need to take a stand set in concrete. Instead of trying to work things out together and come up with the best possible solution for all sides.
Finally though, I think that Manhunt 2 could get an M rating easily if they cut out the torture stuff and overly gratuitous violence. It doesn't really add anything to the gameplay (they were cutscenes?) and people probably would forget them 5 seconds after they saw it. Aren't we tired of these Hostel's and Saw's anyway??
You'd better chickity check your self before you wreck yourself foo.
PS: don't do drugs
Seriously would you still buy and play this game without sensational gory premise?
You tell me?
P.S this is going to sound cliche, but I just had a kid and I don't this game setting a precedent for other studios or one trick ponies to keep pumping out like games. I mean how the hell did we go from freak-in pac-man to manhunt in 25 years??
I can understand why you'd think I'm predicting the apocalypse here; it does seem shallow to say "but think of games 50 years from now!"
But look at how games have been developing. Where once we crushed goombas in the Mushroom Kingdom, now we have environments like Vice City. And yes, Vice City is still nowhere near the complexity of the real world, but damnit, the developers are trying. Hear about that Assassin's Creed game?
But the question is of course, 'where does it end?' Well, then you tell me! Is Manhunt 2 (or Assassin's Creed) REALLY as far as we can go for realism in video games?
What I'm describing isn't a slippery slope, because realism is EXACTLY what games are striving to become. And when we reach that point, when we're past the Uncanny Valley and shooting a virtual person looks almost exactly like shooting a real one, then what?
All I'm saying is that discussing what is, and what is not, appropriate for someone to act out in a video game now, even if our games aren't near realism, wouldn't be a bad thing. It's coming, and you're joking me if you say that within 40-50 years games aren't twice (if not three or fours times more) as realistic than they are now.
I think it'd be better to set the boundaries of what constitutes a video game 'no one should play' now instead of later, when we've got some weird precedence of allowing players to indiscriminately torture and kill virtual people, "because it's just a game."
- Eddie
I don't mean to be a stickler but this is the definition of slippery slope. Yes games will continue to look better but you're saying that will lead to a bad outcome. If we don't do (action A) now then later (result B) will happen. That is textbook slippery slope-ing my friend.
It's ok to have said opinion and I respect it, but lets call a spade a spade shall we.
"And when we reach that point, when we're past the Uncanny Valley and shooting a virtual person looks almost exactly like shooting a real one, then what?"
Don't you understand The implacations of your argument. I'm glad you are of the minority in the video gaming world. Don't you realize the benefits of realistic computer gaming, or are you simply closed minded. Also, do you not realize that many 1st person shooters today are very realistic already? Maybe we should ban all these to avert the impending disaster of realism, at least according to your slimy logic. That my friend is a slippery slope indeed.
Maybe Manhunt is a little excessive in its adult rated entertainment- but ask yourself; does realistic gaming have any positive effect on society. Maybe you should ask our military about the best training program in the world. A program involving realistic shooting games which arguablly have saved countless American lives. If we as Americans do not progrees than we are simply taking a step backward; and banning any form of media is a step in the wrong direction. How far will this go? It is a falacy to argue slippery slope with another slippery slope; amd that is excactly what you have done. You are unequivocably wrong and misinformed.
It is my opinion that the fault of this ban lies within the gaming companies. They are the ones not allowing the game to be released. I do however understand why Nintendo would ban the game as they market to small children. I forsee more and more "adult" ratings in the future. Be careful shooter fans, and fans of almost every other genre. You may not be able to buy some of your favorite games, as some of us just were.
That my friends is not freedom, that is censorship. Does anyone disagree other then Ashdope, or is he the only idiot out there. Common I know there's more of you.