News Contact Forums Affiliates
Manhunt Franchise Manhunt Manhunt 2 Manhunt 3 Downloads Gallery
Archived News & Updates
|
Posted on: Jan 01 01:00 am 1970 by:


Manhunt 2 News | Unauthorised Manhunt 2 Footage Attempt
<p> <a href="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=30994" target="_blank">GamesIndustry.biz</a>
is reporting that Future Publishing has submitted two magazine cover disks to
the BBFC that contain footage of the North America retail version of Manhunt
2. The magazines in question are PSM3 issue 96 and PlayStation World issue 103.
The issue being that the BBFC refused Manhunt 2 classification, which would
thus imply that the content from the cover disks would also be refused clearance.
Further complicating things GI.biz says that Rockstar has not cleared the footage
for inclusion, I can't imagine why they wouldn't though, unless Future has modified
the game to remove the filters or it isn't from the retail version at all.</p>
<p align="right"><strong><a href="http://www.projectmanhunt.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=250387#250387">Add
Comment</a></strong></p>
Posted on: Nov 28 05:04 am 2007 by: pogo


Manhunt 2 News | BBFC Present Manhunt 2 Response to the VAC
<p> <a href="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=30970" target="_blank">GamesIndustry.biz</a>
has now posted the BBFCs defence to the VAC. Representing the BBFC was Andrew
Caldecott. Mr. Caldecott agrees with Rockstar in that there is no proven link
between violent videogames and antisocial behaviour but says that he believes
more research is required before any final word can be issued on the subject.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The board's position is that there is insufficient evidence to prove, as
a fact, there is a causal connection between violent games and behavioural
harm&#8230; It's a perfectly fair point, and one which we accept, but it's
not by any means a complete answer to the question the
has to decide.</p>

<p>The research certainly achieves the objective of establishing that research
does not demonstrate that there is a causal link. But what it certainly does
not establish is that there isn't.</p>
<p>For a young person, this is a disturbing game, it is a shocking game, and
there issues about innocence and matters of that sort in relation to young
people.</p>
<p>In a Utopian society, you would have effective measures where the over-18s
could play what was suitable for them without being cluttered by the fact
minors will see them. But you can't make classification decisions without
regard to the social prevalence .</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In response to how videogames are rated differently to movies Caldecott said
the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Film is a different medium; it is simply is a different experience. There
are ways in which it is perhaps more involving, because you are dealing with
absolute reality, with real people, in film.</p>
<p>On the other hand, many people watch horror films to some extent from the
point of view of the victim, or the point of view of what's going to happen
- not with this very distinctive point of view of being the person who's wielding
the weapon, and is rewarded for killing in the bloodiest way possible.</p>

</blockquote>
<p>Caldecott uses gaming technology as another reason for (attempting) to disassociate
the rating of a movie and videogames.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Games and technology develop incrementally&#8230; If you take the comparable
argument to its extreme, you get a gradual creeping towards ever more graphic
violence, but you never draw a line at any particular point.</p>
<p>If you're not careful you get into a peculiar game of Grandmother's Footsteps,
where everybody's shuffling forward but Grandma's never allowed to turn round
and say, 'Stop'&#8230; Is there never a point at which you can say, 'This
is unacceptable'?</p>
<p>If there is a point, the question then becomes much more difficult: where
do you draw it?</p>

</blockquote>
<p>He then suggests that violent videogames are more likely to be viewed by children
than horror films:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A videogame is inherently less likely to be strictly supervised, and that
is supported by research. You don't come home from work, have your tea and
watch Saw 3. Games are played at all times of the day when children are about
in the house.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>His attention then turned to the nature of the violence in Manhunt 2:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In this particular game, the victims are people. They are not aliens or griffins
or Daleks&#8230; You see lots of human beings quite mercilessly kicking and
punching other human beings as you move through the game.</p>
<p>It's a frequent theme of level one, which is the only one I've actually played
right through. Even when you're not killing someone yourself, you're passing
someone who's getting a good beating or having an unpleasant time.</p>

</blockquote>
<p>&#8230;and the killing materials used in the game:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>They're not magic wands or Excalibur; many of them are everyday objects.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mr. Caldecott then offered the appeals panel a walkthrough of the game so that
they could better assess the game to which the chairman of the panel declined.
Responding with:</p>
<p> quite content we really have got a grip on what this is all about.</p>
<p>We have taken on-board the point that playing and watching a videogame are
two different things. This is a very important case and there is an awful lot
we must consider. We will work hard at it and get you a decision as soon as
possible.</p>
<p>Apparently the Video Appeals Committee has yet to set a date for the results
of the hearing. Hopefully it will be soon.</p>
<p>What does everyone think of the response then? It seems pretty weak to me and
inconsistent with that the BBFC have said in the past. </p>

<p>Let&#8217;s look at the points made in the defence of the BBFC and what they
mean. From what I can make out there defence breaks down to three key points
and they are:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>- Insufficient evidence to eliminate the threat of violent games
causing anti-social behaviour.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sounds like checkmate to me then, no one is willing to budge and according
to Mr. Caldecott there is no evidence to say that there is such an effect from
playing violent games. It is a what-if situation, this being the case then it
would mean it is neither a null nor valid point on by both sides of the argument
and should be disregarded for the time being.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>- Games are rated differently than movies due to their nature and
accessibility.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This severely clashes with what the BBFC have been preaching for the past several
months. They say that they do not regard the rating of games and movies as being
two separate classes. I hope that members of the appeals panel looks at what
the BBFC have been saying in their responses to the criticism they have received.
If they do then they will see a huge gaping hole in the consistency and misleading
comments on behalf of the BBFC to both the public and Rockstar.</p>

<p>Also, wouldn&#8217;t the chances of you sticking a DVD on be more likely than
playing a game if you had children around? Being that it requires less attention
and we are assuming, it being through the day and all that you are either looking
after the kid(s) and or doing something else that may distract you.</p>
<p>To say that someone is more likely to play a violent game through the day than
watch a horror movie is absolutely ridiculous. I remember being a child and
my dad having to record movies at night since he worked early in the morning,
by the time I got home from school he would be watching said movie.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>- You kill humans and use everyday items as weapons.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think this could have been a valid point for the BBFC, had it only been worded
correctly. I am not saying I agree with them, but I see it as the only point
they could have had in their favour going into the appeal. The points that Mr.
Caldecott brings up in relation to what and how you do it are absolutely correct,
but this is also true of many other games, thousands even and even more commonly
used in the film medium. I think the existence of even the original Manhunt
puts this argument down, the original game had more &#8216;everyday use&#8217;
items and I believe it was more severe in tone than Manhunt 2.</p>
<p>I think that games like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare are far more serious
in their effect over the viewer/player. In particular in scenes where night
vision is used, the reality of such scenes touches home in a very serious and
eerie way and that game carries a 16 certificate in the UK and its predecessor
carries a 15, the same rating the BBFC hit Canis Canem Edit (Bully) with due
to outside pressure. </p>

<p>If we are talking about body count then the number of people you kill in Modern
Warfare also dwarves Manhunt 2, most people are probably going to finish Call
of Duty 4 in barely 5 or 6 hours, Manhunt 2 is easily twice as long with a far
lower body count. Therefore would that not mean the relentlessness of Modern
Warfare is more severe than Manhunt 2?</p>
<p>On a point-per-point basis I would say Rockstar have this won hands down. But
then again if the comments and events of recent months is anything to go by
then common sense isn&#8217;t necessarily something that everyone has.</p>
<p align="right"><strong><a href="http://www.projectmanhunt.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=249996#249996">Add
Comment</a></strong></p>
Posted on: Nov 27 06:17 am 2007 by: pogo


|
Posted on: Jan 01 01:00 am 1970 by:


|
Posted on: Jan 01 01:00 am 1970 by:


|
Posted on: Jan 01 01:00 am 1970 by:


|
Posted on: Jan 01 01:00 am 1970 by:


|
Posted on: Jan 01 01:00 am 1970 by:


< Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >

Powered by CuteNews
Menu
- Submit News
- Current News
- Subscribe (RSS Feed)
Content and Design © 2005-2008 Project Manhunt | Site Map