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