With the appeal against the BBFC's banning of Manhunt 2 on-going, Rockstar has spoken out about the situation again, but this time it's the UK's Rockstar Leeds doing the talking via company founder Gordon Hall.
Hall has just done an interview with Develop Magazine in which he covers the history of the studio, from its early beginnings as a small team making handheld games through to its eventual joining with the Rockstar family by way of the Gameboy Advance conversion of Max Payne. Towards the end of the interview though, the inevitable issue of the ban comes up, and Hall responds with a few points which might well ring a few bells to those of you who've been reading a certain couple of mouthy Englishmen's tirades about the matter on this site...
Well, on that point, I’ve got to say I really feel for the London team – they’ve done a cracking job and made a great game. I like the game for what it is – and I was a big fan of Manhunt before we joined Rockstar, and I was actually a bigger fan of it more than I was of GTA – I like where it placed you in the world and the questions it asked of the world. Manhunt 2 is no different to the first in terms of content, it’s just that times seem to have changed and they’ve changed against this type of game. But if you look at a film like Man Bites Dog, it makes Manhunt look tame in comparison, but that film can be bought by anyone aged 18.
I don’t think Rockstar specifically has been picked on, but I do think that the wider issue attacks our entire industry. We need to teach people that games are an art form – they are more artistic than film.
I think the games industry should rally behind us, because there will come a time when we’ll all have an idea that’s a little edgy, and we need to have the freedoms to express it. We are an adult entertainment industry – we may have started out with child-like technology making games solely for a younger audience, but it’s just not like that anymore. It might take legislature a little while to catch up, but if the industry sticks together hopefully we can change people’s attitudes quicker.
Sound familiar? While it's too early to tell whether Hall's cry will be heeded by other names in the industry, no-one would be happier than myself if a wave of insurrection and solidarity were to come soon. The climate's right, people are beginning to get serious about supporting games, and the anti-games brigade are making themselves look sillier and more over the top all the time. Regardless of how well Rockstar's appeal goes, something needs to happen. For the games industry to not stand up against this given its modern status would be like John McClane throwing a fight against Van Damme.
Contest:
9:07 PM on 08.15.2007
| 
Don't ban what everybody wants and everybody mutually benefits from.
It's not about one game. It's about games being accepted as just another media outlet, and not Satan's employee tutorial.
- Eddie
I hope that makes sense, because I'm half cut just now.
@People thinking that a "movie-like" status would benefit videogames: movies are *not* immune from censorship! The movie industry simply reached the point where you apply self-censorship according to the rating you aspire to. An ideal objective? I really don't think so. The later censorship happens, the better: in movies, it usually happens in the brains of writers and directors.
No matter what is said or done, this is the stumbling block for the games industry, people dont understand what "interactive entertainment" actually is and how it works on an emotional, psychological level. The games industry should commission it's own research and investigation into "human interface technology" and then present the case, because time and time again the whole "but it's interactive and therefore more dangerous" lame duck theory will crop up.
Human interface and interactive art is my thing, and I can tell you now, the ritual of playing a videogame is actually closer to making a cup of tea than watching a film so it makes no sense that the BBFC is using film certification as a starting point, film has the potential to be far more disturbing than games. I'm not joking about the cup of tea either - the process of making a cup of tea, the intuitive simple interface, and overall enjoyed repeated ritual which is stored in the cerebellum is exactly the same dialogue the brain has with videogames or any human interface design.
Gordon Hall is right, the industry should rally behind Rockstar, but as an industry they need to define what a game is first.
I will simply comment that I do agree that someone needs to step in and simply overturn the decision, it's against the 1st amendment, and completely illogical.
With the amount of money and power the majority of gaming companies have, there is no reason that they couldn't or shouldn't step in and support Rockstar. Regardless of their jealousy and regardless of the company, this effects everyone, and though it may not seem like a big issue now, it definitely will impact the future of not only gaming but every art-form.
Rockstar stepped over the line with Manhunt 2. This has nothing to do with artistic expression or free speech. Consoles have rules over what they publish. Stores have rules about what they stock. Countries have rules about their ratings. That's the reality, and in choosing to produce an unpublishable title they've fallen foul of those rules. It should have been obvious a mile off to Rockstar. This is a mess of their making and I don't think they deserve the support of any studios.
shame on nintendo, the esrb, and the bbc. ass the tourette's guy would say "last time i gave s%$@, I got f$@%@$" so ended my affair with the wii.
Something else that bothers me is the fact that people are asking why they should support a game as "bad" as Manhunt 2. Aside from the "It's not the game, it's the principle" argument which I've gone through a million times already, the fact is, people are already assuming that Manhunt 2 is a disgustingly OTT piece of gratuitous filth which pushes things far too far to be acceptable.
Erm, why? Have you played it? Have any of us? All we've got at the moment is the BBFC's word for that, and it worries the hell out of me that that's already being accepted as truth by some people. If I get to play it before you guys do, I'll tell you honestly how far it goes and if I find it too much, but right now, no-one can be assuming how excessive or playable it is.
i do disagree with one thing he said. I don't think rockstar is being abused. it's just there isn't any other company pushing the limits that rockstar is pushing. i'm glad to see them pushing, but other companies would rally behind them if they had a similar {financial} interest. sadly, if it doesn't get taken care of now, by the time they make a game that falls near these same levels, it will be shot down without any sort of appeal. by that time the controlling powers will have shut down the public's channel to be democratic.
i know people laugh at this kind of stuff and don't see how this sort of game debate would really impact them, but seriously, even those that are blind to the controlling powers now will eventually be stripped of enough of their freedoms that even they feel like they are being screwed.
all i'm saying is i'm against it becoming too late to do something. so i stand for what they are talking about.
He liked Manhunt? More than GTA? What, running down the street with a chainsaw dismembering prostitutes in GTA: Vice City wasn't enough for him. But it's this comment that really makes my eyes roll:
But if you look at a film like Man Bites Dog, it makes Manhunt look tame in comparison, but that film can be bought by anyone aged 18.
Dude, Man Bites Dog was a deeply disturbing film about a psychopathic killer. You watched it for 90 min, felt a little fucked up about it and then tried to get over the imagery it left in your mind. It wasn't a interactive game where for 9 hours or so you get to be this "oh so cool" murderer disemboweling your victums for kicks.
Oh and let me translate what he said here:
I think the games industry should rally behind us, because there will come a time when we’ll all have an idea that’s a little edgy, and we need to have the freedoms to express it
Translation:
Look, we know a lot of gamers are desensitized to violence to such an extent that we can put out any morally degrading crap we want and make a small fortune doing it. We have the right to tap into humankind's most primitive blood thirsty nature and make money off it. So golly gee wont all you shut-ins please fight for your right to senseless video game violence?
I'm not against video game violence per se, other than the fact that the gaming industry floods the market with such games ad nauseum, but you know we shouldn't forget that murder/violence, generally speaking, is not really that cool. Ask some WWII vet how cool it was to be in the trenches. Ask the families of the victims of Paul Bernardo how cool murder is. Gordon Hall wants support, tell him to go see a shrink first.
second, those that think manhunt was only provided with violence and gore as a selling point are allowed to have their opinion, but i'm also allowed to have mine. I liked manhunt one because it was the only game since theif that really gave me an immersive stealth action game. there was a lot of skill and patience involved in completing that game. especially if you want to get all 5 star ratings. [something i've never actually been able to do, but i've never had the time to sit down with it for that long.] the actual killing actions in the game make up only about 20% of actual game play time. if that. learning to use the shadows, make strategic decisions about movement and noise are a much bigger part of the game than anyone seems to remember.
i've never quite been able to wrap my mind around that last part. is the violence stand out so much so that it is all anyone ever remembers? [yet mainstream media has desensitized us to real death] is it just the strongest point to use insupoort for their personal dislike of the game?
No, no, no, nonononono NO! NO! NO!
No wishing Bishock was banned!
On the banning: I think that slapping an AO rating on it and consoles refusing to license it is one thing. That's a ratings system and console manufacturers problem, and while it still needs work, this is not really a cause for immediate panic. Having your government tell you what games you can and can't play, on the other hand, is pretty fucked up. Whether or not you like Manhunt, Rockstar, violent games etc... that's not what this is about.
However, he is making the point that video games are being treated differently than film, and that is the reason that the industry should rally behind Rockstar on this issue. Now, there have been comments to this article in which people express the opinion that it is, in fact, different from a movie, and that Manhunt 2 is so reprehensible that no one should follow Rockstar. On the first charge, I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion, and no amount of arguing is going to change that. I do not believe that an adult playing a video game is any more likely to confuse it with reality or try to imitate it than an adult watching a movie. In fact, neither does the BBFC (more details below). On the second charge, I'm not a fan of Manhunt 2 either. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go about and legislate my morality on others. Hell, I disapprove of alcohol consumption, an opinion which I don't think is very popular around Destructoid, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ban James Bond from having a vodka martini in his next movie, or the video game based on that movie.
The point is that it's a slippery slope. What you might find worthy of banishment does not necessarily offend the sensibilities of others. Everybody should be able to make their own choices about what is appropriate for them. Down the line, you may be denied the chance to play a game you were looking forward to, because it contains content that you don't find objectionable.
It is not a matter of the first amendment, as the BBFC banishment occurred in Britain, not the United States. (I will get to the US later.) I have come to understand, through my limited comprehension of the British legal system, that the country has no guarantee similar to the first amendment, which is why the BBFC, a government agency, has the power to ban media outright.
Now, you can choose your argument against the BBFC. I would personally argue that the government should not have the ability to completely ban something. This ruling doesn't just restrict the sale to those who can prove that they are of a certain age, nor does it mean the console manufacturers won't license it. What it means is that it is completely illegal to distribute or consume throughout the entire United Kingdom. What it means is that the government does not think that even adults should be given the choice of whether or not they want to play it.
History is replete with examples of this kind of censorship, and in every single case, it has been shown to be the wrong thing to do. It wasn't too long ago that book burnings were common all across the Western world. People have always been all to ready to suppress ideas that they don't like. But whereas today books are sold freely without ratings, and book burnings are looked down upon as an act of ignorance and closed-mindedness, and the idea of banning a book from a public library is met with harsh criticism, it is culturally acceptable for a government agency to completely ban a video game.
This stems, I believe, from a lack of understanding of video games. The type of people who like to classify, rate, and ban things (i.e. the people working for agencies such as the BBFC) tend to fear that which they do not understand, and do not make an effort to understand new things. Unfortunately, I see the very same thing in my parents, who continually referred to my Nintendo systems as "No-Friend-o," despite the fact that I had plenty of friends at the time, but who, as young people themselves, fought against the governmental pressure to censor rock n' roll music.
And this, I believe, leads to the more common argument against the BBFC in this case. Despite the fact that the BBFC had just recently come up with a report claiming that there is no difference between the effect that movies and the effect that video games have on an individual, they decided to treat Manhunt 2 differently from the movie, specifically stating that it was because the violence was interactive, it's more dangerous than a movie. Again, this is in direct conflict to their own report. They've tried to justify this by claiming that the Wiimote changes everything, but they have no proof of this, and they still banned the Playstation version. This is a knee-jerk, emotional reaction. It's not based on logic, not is it based on an understanding of video games.
Perhaps it is the American in me, or perhaps I'm taking an analogy too far, but there was a famous Supreme Court case (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka) in which it was stated that "Separate but equal is inherently unequal." I believe that there is much wisdom in this statement, and I have tried to incorporate it into my outlook on life. I think it applies nicely here. Although equal to film in the fact that it's a widely-consumed medium, and can be considered a work of art, it is given a much different place in society. People don't take the time to learn about games, and what they are, or to experience them. I think the Wii, and to a lesser extent, the DS, are changing that a bit, but all in all, people do not recognize games as a legitimate medium.
But it's one thing when a closed-minded individual writes of video games for himself: it's entirely another when a government agency does it for a whole population of people, many of whom actually want to play the game. If you care about the future of video games, then you should see the need to eliminate this inequality between film and video games. And that's exactly what Rockstar is trying to do, and why we should all rally behind them.
I don't generally believe that a governing body should choose what the masses should be able to watch or play as a videogame. Unfortunately you rarely ever hear gamers say "OK that game is fucked up and to hell with you [enter game developer/publisher here] for making such degrading crap". If anything you hear gamers throw a fit if anything stands in the way of them and their ability to get maximum bloodlust in a videogame. Why? Because corporations know a lot of money can be made by widening the gap between what is acceptable and unacceptable in people's minds and then filling in that new vacant space. They create a demand for excessive violence and profit off that demand. If at any point someone says "OK but now that seems like a bit too much" the corporation turns around and says "Oh don't worry your little head about that, it's only a game." Better yet "But it's art".
I really do not look forward to the day when some game developer goes so far as to make The Rapist video game and people on forums defend it to hell and back cause it's "just a game" or "we have the right to choose to play this game or not", or that it's "artistic expression".
Again I don't mean to say there shouldn't be violence in videogames at all, but goddamn why all the emphasis? When was the last time you went to a multiplex theater and all they had to show was torture porn, war movies, hyper violent action movies, and the like.
The classic problem comes from how you define what is unacceptable. Traditionally, the US Supreme Court has decided that the government should define obscenity according to community standards. However, as the nation has inevitably become smaller, thanks in some part to the Internet, the community has, for all practical purposes, come to include the entire country, and such a diverse community does not always agree on what is acceptable. I assume that you have a great bearing on what is acceptable for yourself, but I'm sure that many of the games you enjoy would be viewed as completely disgusting to certain groups of people in this country, such as many fundamentalist religious groups.
Would you want to live in a world in which games may not be offensive to religions? Where there is no intellectual challenge to faith? What if the country was primarily Amish, and they decided to not allow video games at all?
You argued that you don't see gamers standing up against developers when they step over the line. I see this happen all the time. You can even take a look at the various articles about Manhunt 2 posted here at Destructoid in which commentators expressed their displeasure with the game, specifically that they thought that Rockstar was pushing the envelope just for the sake of pushing the envelope, and it disgusted them. The first Manhunt did not sell very well, and neither, I suspect, will this one.
But we need people to push the envelope. As long as we live in a society which defines what is and is not acceptable, we're never going to strike a balance that works for everyone. As much as you and I may find Manhunt 2 distasteful, I respect Rockstar for challenging the notion that there is such a thing as unacceptable. We need people to push the envelope. The world is not static, and one way or another, what is acceptable is going to change. We've recently seen a man sent to jail for protesting the Iraq war. It's a slippery slope either way, and I'd rather the envelope be pushed until it rips in half, than sealed completely.
I am in no way part of a large corporation. In fact, one of the things I love about my job is that I don't have to handle any money at all (except for my paycheck). I will agree with you that many media companies have created a need for mindlessness. But it's not something you can simply legislate away. Temptation is, and has always proven to be, more powerful than government attempts to remove it from the general public. And it's not healthy to do so either. A society naturally grows and evolves over time. You can't just force it to leap ahead, as tempting as that is.
I'd also like to point out that there are games out there in which you engage in rape. They're mostly made in Japan, and all for erotic purposes. And while I won't argue against the contention that, based on the recent Kokoro Scan trailer, Japan is a culture in crisis. But you know, rape is a very emotional and traumatic experience. It's been used to great emotional effect in movies. It can be used to explore the societal impact of rape. It can be used for a lot more than fapping material. But if we ban it outright because it's unsettling, it can never be used effectively.
Finally, I'd like to address your argument about the cinema. It's true that there are a variety of movies available in theaters, but it's also true that there are a lot of different kinds of games coming out every year. Rockstar doesn't make every game. There's Guitar Hero, Katamari Damacy, Nintendo games, etc.
Video games are not more dangerous than any other form of media. The BBFC itself admits this. They really are "just games."