Open Letter to the IFCO

ScrollingLegend

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to you with the intention of expressing my sincere disturbance with, and strongest disagreement toward, the IFCO's decision to ban Rockstar Games as yet unreleased title, 'Manhunter 2'. This decision has sent a shockwave of disbelief through the thousands of adult Irish players who, like me, have serious reservations with a ruling which many deem tantamount to draconian over-censorship.

According to the IFCO’s own mandate “adults (i.e. persons over 18) should be free, within the law, to choose what they wish to view”. Seemingly however, the mature consumers of this country cannot so expect that they would be free to make a similar decision with regard to interactive entertainment. Surely the two artistic forms deserve clear and separate legal definitions and concurrently, clear and separate rating systems?

Furthermore, the IFCO mandate also states that: “We strongly encourage and promote the exercise of parental responsibility”. If the IFCO does in fact encourage the exercise of parental responsibility, as it rightly should, then why does it insist on taking this particular responsibility from Irish parent’s hands?

If the IFCO is concerned that taking the most rational course of action, branding the game with the appropriate 18 rating, is insufficient to protect minors from graphic content then surely it is the IFCO, the government of the land and An Garda Síochána that are failing in their responsibilities to the Irish public and not Rockstar Games.

If however the body is satisfied with their own rating system and believes said system will properly safeguard young gamers from unsuitable content, then logically it has taken this extreme action in the belief that the average Irish adult is unable to differentiate between on screen fantasy and real life and moreover is not capable of making responsible choices in the supply of interactive entertainment to their children. If this is the reason, then the logic of the IFCO is even more warped then previously thought.

It is unfortunate that effectively antiquated legislation confers responsibility for the rating of interactive software at the feet of an entity which is primarily concerned with the rating of film and ultimately, this decision is only likely to draw further attention to ‘Manhunt 2’ from the very age group which the IFCO purports to be protecting.

The mature gaming population of this country has the right to choose to play whatever it wants. This vulgar suppression of freedom of choice is typical of a body whose involvement in the persistently developing world of interactive entertainment is becoming increasingly irrelevant and ill-advised.

Until such time as unbiased and precise legislation is drawn up which protects this country’s mature gamers right to choice and also sufficiently protects minors from inappropriate material, the gaming population of this island can expect further ham-fisted and spineless rulings from a body which seems unwilling or unable to allow Irish gamers to make up their own minds.

Nehpets

It was all good until ham-fisted. Now I'm hungry....

Where did I leave that body..

o1s1n

Nicely put. Would be a great moment in videogame history if both classification boards actually decided to go back on their decision due to a public outcry. (A public outcry in favour of games, of course )

Somehow I can't see this happening though.

kyp_durron

tl;dr

But yeah censorship sucks, fight teh poweh!

johnny_ultimate

Manhunter 2

zAbbo

I want my Maneater II

ScrollingLegend

That single gramatical error nullifies the whole letter because it apparently illustrates the same thoughtless ignorance of the censors.

In other words...


bugger

Jip

ScrollingLegend wrote:

This decision has sent a shockwave of disbelief through the thousands of adult Irish players .....

It has ???
I'm not in anyway shocked or disbelieving and I'm many others are in the same boat.

SeantheMan

Excellet letter mate

Very well put, exactly what i was thinking, unfortunately i don't posess the literary skills which you do to convey my argument in such a way as to refrain from saying "f*ck" etc

It has ???
I'm not in anyway shocked or disbelieving and I'm many others are in the same boat

Well your obviously not one of the thousands then, whereas i and may others here are.
I believe that we are more in disbelief..not at the fact that "Manhunt2" was banned, but that something was completely banned in general, which is taking away our right to view whatever we should so please.
Big Brother shows himself, whats next ?? what games you cant play, what films you cant watch, what you cant listen to, what you cant read, what you cant eat, what you cant say, what you cant do.
Game over !!

Ye gotta stand up before it gets worse

kyp_durron

Although IFCO wants nothing less than to compose paeans to elitism, I want this letter to speak a language of reconciliation, not retaliation. Let's start with my claim that its older insults were uppity enough. Its latest ones are certainly beyond the pale. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, really find IFCO's demeanor and pomposity downright apalling. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time IFCO tried to wage a clandestine guerilla war against many basic human rights. I assume that IFCO is unaware of its obligation not to glorify the things that everyone else execrates, as this unawareness would be consistent with its prior displays of ignorance. I stand by what I've written before, that if we are powerless to empower the oppressed to control their own lives, it is because we have allowed IFCO to offer hatred with an intellectual gloss. While I can't speak for anyone else, I, not being one of the many foolish present-day robber barons of this world, maintain that IFCO evinces a bulldog-like instinct for going after the jugular of its intended victims. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. Will someone please explain to me what it is in our lives that can possibly make someone waste natural resources? Because I certainly have no idea.

But it gets much worse than that. The main dissensus between me and IFCO is that I claim that every one of IFCO's promises to us was broken before the words were fully out of its mouth. It, on the other hand, contends that two wrongs make a right. In IFCO's op-ed pieces, oligarchism is witting and unremitting, cocky and asinine. It revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to rule with an iron fist.

I may be opening a Pandora's box by writing this, but if we are to put an end to IFCO's evildoing, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the dissolute and bad-tempered ideologies that IFCO promotes. Mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for IFCO. If we feel helpless, IFCO is energized and ramps up its efforts to engage in the trafficking of human beings. IFCO has vowed that sooner or later it'll commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. This is hardly news; IFCO has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that it is reluctant to resolve problems. It always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that I cannot compromise with it; it is without principles. I cannot reason with it; it is without reason. But I can warn it, and with a warning it must definitely take to heart: Its list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that IFCO says that its outbursts are our final line of defense against tyrrany. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely vainglorious and insecure lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by IFCO's spin doctors. Parasitism is one of the legs upon which IFCO's bruta fulmina stand. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why IFCO never stops boasting about its generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, its claimed magnanimousness is utterly chimerical and, furthermore, IFCO wants to use paid informants and provocateurs to redefine humanity as alienated machines/beasts and then convince everyone that they were never human to begin with. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is IFCO's gossamer grasp of reality. In summary, it is my prayer that people everywhere will join me in my quest to help people break free of IFCO's cycle of oppression.

tman

Jip wrote:

It has ???
I'm not in anyway shocked or disbelieving and I'm many others are in the same boat.

Aye... I'm sat in the "meh, it was going to be crap anyway" boat eating a cheese sandwich.

o1s1n

tman wrote:

Aye... I'm sat in the "meh, it was going to be crap anyway" boat eating a cheese sandwich.

Haven't *SLAP* played *SLAP* it *SLAP* yet *SLAP*

hullaballoo

Well-written, well thought-out letter.

If you can kill off the broad and unfounded statements as to how many people are outraged by the ban - and delete "draconian" from para. 1, "antiquated" from para. 6 and "This vulgar suppression of freedom of choice is typical of a body whose involvement in the persistently developing world of interactive entertainment is becoming increasingly irrelevant and ill-advised" from penultimate and "ham-fisted and spineless" from the last paragraph, then they *might* actually take you seriously.

They won't take you seriously if they regard you as irrational and illogical, and if you cannot back up the claims that you make with any solid proof.

Also, IFCO don't control the legislation that allows them to do this - so bringing it up with them is a little bit like giving out to a shop assistant about the price of something: inappropriate.

Dont be at yourself

IFCO are generally liberal and on the button when it comes to these things. If they banned Manhunt 2, you can presume there was sufficient reasons for doing so, based on past actions.

Are the people complaining and writing letters just completely set against the notion of videogame censorship in general?

o1s1n

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Are the people complaining and writing letters just completely set against the notion of videogame censorship in general?

Yes. Probably censorship in general.

ScrollingLegend

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Well-written, well thought-out letter.

If you can kill off the broad and unfounded statements as to how many people are outraged by the ban - and delete "draconian" from para. 1, "antiquated" from para. 6 and "This vulgar suppression of freedom of choice is typical of a body whose involvement in the persistently developing world of interactive entertainment is becoming increasingly irrelevant and ill-advised" from penultimate and "ham-fisted and spineless" from the last paragraph, then they *might* actually take you seriously.

They won't take you seriously if they regard you as irrational and illogical, and if you cannot back up the claims that you make with any solid proof.

Also, IFCO don't control the legislation that allows them to do this - so bringing it up with them is a little bit like giving out to a shop assistant about the price of something: inappropriate.

Thanks for that critique. I also mislabelled the game at one point as johnny_ultimate pointed out.

Yes, my language was somewhat “irrational” and well, clumsy but I can assure you of one thing: I meant it with all sincerity when I said that this decision disturbed me. Surely anyone on this island who is passionate about video games and the freedom to choose what we want to play is equally troubled?

We know that this game has not been designed to offend any religion, sex, ethnicity or nationality. We know that there are movies freely available in this country which all contain an “unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying” such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Saw II, Hostel and Wolf Creek amongst a great many others.

The IFCO believe that “strong, graphic violence” is acceptable in the “overall context” of a body of work. So a context wherein a group of individuals are systematically slaughtered to satisfy a psychopath’s bloodlust is deemed worthy of a rating? On the evidence, this title seems to have a similar premise so why has it been singled out?

We have all played Rockstar games. Yes the original ‘Manhunt’ was shocking and something of a violent sensory assault but did it or did it not have a context? What about 'Canis Canem Edit'? We were told it advocated bullying. What about 'Grand Theft Auto III'? Apparently, playing it makes you kill. Gamers around the world have good reason to be jaded with the establishment pandering to conservative interests and the denial of rating status for this game is exactly that.

I am passionate about video games. I strongly believe that anyone who is similarly impassioned will play a game and thrill to the atmosphere of the piece or experience the delight that is unique to a new gaming experience. I feel it is entirely plausible that ‘Manhunt 2’ has been targeted for the simple reason that it is a video game and moreover that it may be perceived, debatably, as an embodiment of the political hot potato that is video game inspired violence.

Whether or not video games do inspire violence is going to be a hotly debated issue for a long time to come and while evidence increasingly suggests that a violent video game can no more inspire an unbalanced mind to commit murder then a rap track or slasher flick are able to, the IFCO are clearly unwilling to take a stand on this issue.

What do you all think? Is this an overreaction on my part? Does this game deserve to be shelved because it contains what basically amounts to a high level of violence?

I am convinced that this is a politically motivated impingement on the freedom of choice enjoyed by the game playing public.

I have no doubt the IFCO will ignore me, but not because I apparently used “broad and unfounded statements”. The candour of my words spoke for itself.

They’ll ignore me because I’m a gamer.

johnny_ultimate

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

IFCO are generally liberal and on the button when it comes to these things. If they banned Manhunt 2, you can presume there was sufficient reasons for doing so, based on past actions.

Are the people complaining and writing letters just completely set against the notion of videogame censorship in general?

It is indeed the whole concept of censorship people are getting worked up about.
By the way, I would like to go on record as saying that in the past I have been quite impressed at the liberal nature of IFCO, especially since the recent reform and joining of John Kelleher. We are much better off than the Americans, with their absurd MPAA. The more I think about it, the more I have to say that maybe there is a reasoning behind. But the whole free speech thing I think is more important - if people want to play, they can.

By the way, hope your letter has some success, scrollinglegend.

aphex™

Guys, Rockstar are clearly taking the piss with this game. It's not like it just happened. The whole thing was formulated to be sick at meetings within the company on a weekly basis. It therefore should not be published in its current form. Fair play to IFCO for telling Rockstar where to shove it.

Everybody here knows some fat housewife will buy it for her kid just to shut him up if it goes on sale. Every shop assistant on here has tales of pointing out the '18' rating on GTA, only to be laughed at by a parent.

Frankly, I know some 18 year olds who really shouldn't be put anywhere near Manhunt let alone GTA.

If you want to cut off peoples balls or bits of their spine in a video game, there is something wrong with you. You will only be desensitized in the long term and people will become more prone to extreme violence.

Zeouterlimits

Aphex,
I can see your point, it is somewhat valid. But it's a video game, nothing more. The sane and everyday citizen knows this, through and through. Giving one un-stable person a video game will not change them, they were already un-stable.

I've made a petition against the IFCO decision if anyone would like to sign it?

http://www.gopetition.com/online/12885.html

jonny72

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Guys, Rockstar are clearly taking the piss with this game. It's not like it just happened. The whole thing was formulated to be sick at meetings within the company on a weekly basis. It therefore should not be published in its current form. Fair play to IFCO for telling Rockstar where to shove it.

Everybody here knows some fat housewife will buy it for her kid just to shut him up if it goes on sale. Every shop assistant on here has tales of pointing out the '18' rating on GTA, only to be laughed at by a parent.

Frankly, I know some 18 year olds who really shouldn't be put anywhere near Manhunt let alone GTA.

If you want to cut off peoples balls or bits of their spine in a video game, there is something wrong with you. You will only be desensitized in the long term and people will become more prone to extreme violence.

People over the age of 18 yrs old will become more prone to extreme violence because of this computer game? Then you must be against Doom, because there is extreme violence in that, or is killing someone with a chainsaw not extreme violence? You are so very wrong.

Dont be at yourself

Yes. Probably censorship in general.

It is indeed the whole concept of censorship people are getting worked up about.

Well that's a whole different kettle of fish. The IFCO are mandated by the government to classify, and if necessary censor, films and sometimes videogames. You're barking up the wrong tree organising a letter writing campaign asking them not to do their job. Write to your local TD instead. Better yet, ring Joe Duffy.

I can understand why people object to censorship in general, but I disagree. It a nice thought that parents will step up and govern what their children consumes, but in practice, this simply doesn't happen. I used to work in GameStop, and I have first hand experience of ignorant, maleducated parents buying wholly unsuitable games for small children. Until they can show they're able to be responsible, violent movies and videogames will need to be classified and censored accordingly.

Dont be at yourself

People over the age of 18 yrs old will become more prone to extreme violence because of this computer game? Then you must be against Doom, because there is extreme violence in that, or is killing someone with a chainsaw not extreme violence? You are so very wrong.

In Doom, you battle space-demons in a fantasy setting that are so badly rendered you can barely discern what they're supposed to be.

Manhunt 2 is a game of graphic violence, where the player performs brutal, gore killings on human beings in a realistic setting, in a realistic manner. It is a game that only exists because of the media coverage of the first game, and revels in pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable. Its unique selling point was graphic violence. The world is better off without it.

aphex™

Journal article by Mary E. Ballard, Robert Lineberger wrote:

Our results, both in this study and elsewhere (Ballard & Weist, 1996), provide evidence that video game violence and level of video game violence affect aggressive behavior, reward behavior, feelings of hostility, and cardiovascular reactivity.

Journal article by Rebecca M. Chory-Assad, Vincent Cicchirillo wrote: »

playing the violent video game was expected to prime mental nodes associated with aggressive cognition, which would then spread to activate mental nodes related to aggressive behavioral tendencies.

People need to not get desensitized to cutting other people up. I would think that was fairly obvious, tbh.

And Rockstar are just taking the piss with this game, so **** them.

Like NekkidBibleMan said, Martians in Doom- thats another matter.

MOH

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

I used to work in GameStop, and I have first hand experience of ignorant, maleducated parents buying wholly unsuitable games for small children. Until they can show they're able to be responsible, violent movies and videogames will need to be classified and censored accordingly.

I keep seeing this argument, and I don't buy it (no pun intended).
If a parent knowingly buys their kid a game that someone has gone to the trouble of rating as unsuitable for kids, then the parent alone is failing in their responsibility to said child. No one else is responsible.
It's like saying ban alcohol because some parents let their kids drink.

[facetious arguments]
In fact, charge them with mental cruelty to their child by deliberately submitting it to inappropriate adult content , and take the kid into care. That might just educate the morons that the rating system is there for a reason.

Or why not insist that every parent who buy an 18s game to shut their kid up must first allow the kid to watch porn for 10 minutes in a special booth provided in store. See if they get the message then.
[/facetious argument]

Ciaran500

http://www.videogamevoters.org/gamesnotviolence/

They found that there was no effect on levels of aggressiveness or in belief and behaviors of the gamers.

"There's no indication that violence rose in lockstep with the spread of violent games."

"after controlling for psychosocial factors, association between aggression and playing video games was not statistically significant." This review was based on available objective research and was conducted by the State of Washington at the request of the state legislature.

"...the studies that purport to show [a connection from violent games to violent behavior] have been exposed to serious and continuing criticism.

It all depends on what you read.

EDIT:

aphex&#8482 wrote:

People need to not get desensitized to cutting other people up. I would think that was fairly obvious, tbh.

People don't get desensitized playing a game. I've played games where I've run people down, driven through crowded streets at high speed pummelled people into the ground with my bare hands yet when I see joyriders/crashes/fights in real life it just as shocking and unnerving as it is to anyone else. People completely differentiate between games and real life and if anything I would say movies come closer to making it feel real than a game does.

Kiith

The whole 'Video games made me murder my friend' argument is complete bull****. Why is Manhunt banned, yet there are more and more films in which people are brutally murdered, tortured etc... being allowed. Granted, your controlling the character instead of just watching it, but still. I've seen far more scenes of realistic violence in films (Hostel, Saw etc...) then i have in games.

Repeatedly clicking the 'X' button to make someone chop off someones legs. Ohhh, i feel more violent by the minute. :rolleyes:

Saying that, i think Manhunt is a peice of crap, like most 'Horror' movies no-adays. Its violence for the sake of violence. Instead of trying to actually be scary in films, or creative in games, they just throw violence at you.

aphex™

Kiith wrote:

Why is Manhunt banned, yet there are more and more films in which people are brutally murdered, tortured etc... being allowed.

Because there is no context to it? Like the censor said? It's literally mindless violence.

If there was real story (context) to the game, fair enough. There is not though, so I can't see why an adult would want to play it anyway.

Dont be at yourself

keep seeing this argument, and I don't buy it (no pun intended).
If a parent knowingly buys their kid a game that someone has gone to the trouble of rating as unsuitable for kids, then the parent alone is failing in their responsibility to said child. No one else is responsible.
It's like saying ban alcohol because some parents let their kids drink.

That's all well and good in theory, but in practice that school of thought leads to small children playing graphically violent, unsuitable videogames. I wish that parents would educate themselves about videogames and monitor what their child plays - but by in large, this does not happen, and until it does, the IFCO will have to try to limit access to these violent games. Manhunt 2 was deemed unsuitable for adults, so do you really want 6 year olds playing it?

People don't get desensitized playing a game. I've played games where I've run people down, driven through crowded streets at high speed pummelled people into the ground with my bare hands yet when I see joyriders/crashes/fights in real life it just as shocking and unnerving as it is to anyone else. People completely differentiate between games and real life and if anything I would say movies come closer to making it feel real than a game does.

That's debatable, and I disagree. Obviously, in the majority of cases, exposure to violent videogames alone is not enough to override one's own moral fiber and turn the player into a thug. That said, they must have some impact on the psyche of the player - especially younger players, who form their opinions and attitudes from the stimuli they're exposed to. Sit them in front of WWE all day, and they'll be practicing wrestling moves in school. Sit them in front of Rambo, and they'll want to be a soldier. So why should violent videogames, where it is the player themselves that perform these acts, not have a similar influence on kids?

Then on the other hand, you constantly hear calls from the industry that videogames are an artform, capable of provoking wide-ranging emotions. You hear Tony Hawk players who catch themselves spotting sweet gaps and awesome grinds when they're walking to the shop. So really, they can't have it both ways. Either videogames leave no impression and provoke no response from the player (in which case, why bother playing them?), or they can indeed influence the player, for better and for worse.

And just by saying that you weren't influenced by them isn't an argument. You'll need a slightly bigger sample group!

On another note: do we need Manhunt 2? For me, it is everything that is wrong with the industry. The original Manhunt was a commercial disaster, and it was only after the spike in sales when the Daily Mail attacked it that a sequel was considered. It is a game that seeks to cash in on the hysteria surrounding violent videogames, that seeks to glorify graphic violence and killing in order to achieve maximum publicity.

It is a horrible indication of the mental age of the industry. If through its banning, publishers and developers can shake their hard-on for violence and produce more creatively worthwhile videogames, I will fondly remember the day Manhunt 2 was banned.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I hate the whole parents complaining about violent games crap. Take a released game like Condemned on the 360 which I have.

It's an 18 rating game, graphic and scary. It's an ADULTS game. No child should ever be allowed play it, hence the 18's cert. If I had kids the games would be put beyond their reach and I would not play it in their prescence.

Now if a parent walks into a shop, picks up a box (DVD, game) and give the disc to a child to watch/play then the parent is wrong, not the disc creators.

If a shop sells an 18's game or film to a minor they should be reported to the Gardaí as they are breaking the law.

Censorship does not replace good parenting.

Ciaran500

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

That's all well and good in theory, but in practice that school of thought leads to small children playing graphically violent, unsuitable videogames. I wish that parents would educate themselves about videogames and monitor what their child plays - but by in large, this does not happen, and until it does, the IFCO will have to try to limit access to these violent games. Manhunt 2 was deemed unsuitable for adults, so do you really want 6 year olds playing it?

They're not (rightly so) banning this to protect the children and haven't done in the past with other violent games and movies.

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

That's debatable, and I disagree. Obviously, in the majority of cases, exposure to violent videogames alone is not enough to override one's own moral fiber and turn the player into a thug. That said, they must have some impact on the psyche of the player - especially younger players, who form their opinions and attitudes from the stimuli they're exposed to. Sit them in front of WWE all day, and they'll be practicing wrestling moves in school. Sit them in front of Rambo, and they'll want to be a soldier. So why should violent videogames, where it is the player themselves that perform these acts, not have a similar influence on kids?

We're not talking about children who shouldn't be playing this either way.

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Then on the other hand, you constantly hear calls from the industry that videogames are an artform, capable of provoking wide-ranging emotions. You hear Tony Hawk players who catch themselves spotting sweet gaps and awesome grinds when they're walking to the shop. So really, they can't have it both ways. Either videogames leave no impression and provoke no response from the player (in which case, why bother playing them?), or they can indeed influence the player, for better and for worse.

Lets say this is true for a normal person, what makes it worth worrying about? Every normal well rounded person has the ability to think logically and morally. If we didn't everything we see could influence to carry out a certain action. If this happened surely every fight/car chase/shoot out would cause a reaction if it was violent or just on some kids show.

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

And just by saying that you weren't influenced by them isn't an argument. You'll need a slightly bigger sample group!

This comes from talking with friends and similar opinions on here.

Kiith

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Because there is no context to it? Like the censor said? It's literally mindless violence.

If there was real story (context) to the game, fair enough. There is not though, so I can't see why an adult would want to play it anyway.

Theres a story in Hostel?

Blowfish

Ciaran500 wrote:

People don't get desensitized playing a game.

The US army disagrees.

As do Iowa researchers.

As do Toledo researchers.

As do New Scientist.

I could go on as there is plenty of research into it, but i'm far too lazy

MOH

Blowfish wrote:

The US army disagrees.

As do Iowa researchers.

As do Toledo researchers.

As do New Scientist.

I could go on as there is plenty of research into it, but i'm far too lazy

The problem is that for every study someone cites proving their view, there's one proving the opposite.

But if the US Army says it's true, that convinces me it's not.

Blowfish

MOH wrote:

But if the US Army says it's true, that convinces me it's not.

So why is the US Army using video games for their troops then?

Mitch Connor

Blowfish wrote:

So why is the US Army using video games for their troops then?

to teach squad tactics.

Dont be at yourself

We're not talking about children who shouldn't be playing this either way.

Yeah, there's two arguments here, but they're interlinked. The first is whether or not children should be able to play violent games, and the second is whether the IFCO should censor what adults may consume themselves. With parents buying 18+ games for kids, that has to be a consideration of the IFCO when choosing to ban games like Manhunt 2.

But should the IFCO ban the game entirely, stopping mature, sensible adults from playing it? Debatable. I do know that the IFCO has been one of the most progressive censorship boards in the world, and have never banned a videogame before - stuff like Carmaggedon, Manhunt 1, GTA, Soldier of Fortune and other violent games were deemed fit for consumption. The IFCO is also generally very consistent in their classifications, so if Manhunt 2 was banned, we can assume that it is more violent than the aforementioned.

As I've said before, the game is a cynical cash-in whose very existence was brought about to exploit the furore surrounding violence in videogames. From what I can tell, there is real reason or motivation for the graphic violence in the videogame, there is no message, there is no justification for it. It's the epitome of low-brow, immature, artistically bankrupt videogames. I never intended to buy the game, so the IFCO ban will not affect me. I appreciate that there are well-balanced people out there who do want to play it, but playing such a game can't be healthy.

MOH

Blowfish wrote:

So why is the US Army using video games for their troops then?

Well I'd hardly call America's Army a gorefest. It is more aimed, as Tauren said, at encourage people to act as part of a unit.

There was actually a letter in PC Gamer a few months ago from some guy claiming he'd be much better in a battle since he was so 1337 playing online games. He got fairly ridiculed, it being pointed out to him by some guy (allegedly) in Iraq that there's quite a difference between clicking around on a screen and having your mates blown to pieces around you while you shoot complete strangers.

The whole 'desensitise to violence' argument has been done to death on videos. I haven't seen Manhunt2 (has anyone seen any confirmed footage?) but surely watching a raft of gory, realistic horror films is going to desensitize you to violence far more than console graphics.

And as for the interactivity: there's been arcade games going back 15 years that allowed you to point a light gun and shoot at enemies. No-one's blaming those for Columbine.

Dunno if we're straying off the point a bit here - we're talking Manhunt in particular, not games in general. Or are we?

@NekkibBibleMan:

With parents buying 18+ games for kids, that has to be a consideration of the IFCO when choosing to ban games like Manhunt 2.

That's the problem, it should in no way be a consideration. The IFCO should consider an 18+ game in terms of it's impact on adults. They don't ban videos on the basis they might be seen by minors (do they?), and games should be treated the same way.

It's the whole 'games are for kids' mentality of parents who can't be bothered educating themselves (God knows what their kids are watching online).

There should be separate legislation with penalties for people buying these games for kids. Prosecute a few parents under this, there'd be a huge media storm, and they might think twice in future.

steviec

Of course parents should be better educated not to buy their kids 18+ games, however that doesn't preclude using censorship as a further tool to keep these games out of kids hands.

In an ideal world nobody would break the speed limit, but does that mean we shouldn't put up crash barriers, since it's drivers' own fault when they crash anyway? Lets leave the roads dangerous and educate people better.

Thats a more extreme example but its basically the same idea.

The fact is nobody here has played the game, various different censorship bodies all have and they've all come to the same conclusion, a conclusion that in the case of IFCO has never been reached about any other computer game they've ever tested. Does this not tell us that maybe the game really does go beyond acceptable limits? Especially considering its a well known fact that the game purely exists to be sickening and controversial, it's never been about the gameplay or any kind of redeeming features and all of the marketing and previews up to now showed that. It's about killing people in gruesome ways, nothing else.

And there's no point comparing it to films that weren't banned because how do we know it isn't worse than them? Films have been banned in the past too, it's not like it's the exclusive preserve of games, and plenty of games like Manhunt 1 for a start weren't banned so I don't think it's an obvious case of double standards (again, I haven't played the game, but given what I've read and the consistency of rulings in different countries I think it's likely that the game's deserved what it's got)

Personally I had no interest in the game and I hate what it represents and the image it gives the industry, and for this reason more than any other I'm glad it's been banned. Rockstar don't deserve to make money from such a cynical cash in on hysteria, and the industry as a whole doesn't deserve all the news headlines and bad publicity the game would doubtlessly get upon release, so we're better off without it in my opinion.

a5y

Its a good letter. I'd be surprised if they actually responded however; they seem far more comfortable telling you what not to do than providing rational reasons why.

I'm all for gratuitous violence in entertainment and worry that there will one day be a catch-all ruling that will remove violence from entertainment. If that happens I'll never get the chance to learn how to play chess. :rolleyes:

jonny72

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Until they can show they're able to be responsible, violent movies and videogames will need to be classified and censored accordingly.

How can the people show they're able to be responsible if violent movies and videogames are classified and censored accordingly??

Try to imagine tomorrow, that almost every video game and violent film in Ireland looses its classification, it can be seen by anyone..

Also try to imagine that there is hardcore pornography on a third of the channels from 11pm onwards at night..

Then take a trip to Spain to see how this affects society..

Ciaran500

jonny72 wrote:

Then take a trip to Spain to see how this affects society..

Since I don't think anyone is going to go to Spain to look into your claims why not just tell us :rolleyes:

jonny72

Ciaran500 wrote:

Since I don't think anyone is going to go to Spain to look into your claims why not just tell us :rolleyes:

These aren't claims, these are facts. There is hardcore porn on TV from 11pm onwards. I've seen entires families walking down to discos and clubs with their kids at 4am in the morning. I've seen kids dancing inside the clubs and discos at 5am. Children can go to the local video store and rent whatever film they want. At certain times of the year there are bulls running around the towns, and yes these bulls will gore/kill you if you don't get out of the way. They light giant bonfires in the streets. They use the fire hoses to spray the people. They throw fireworks at each other. There is little or no compensation culture. You can buy alcohol at almost any age. You can drink till 10 in the morning.

Now take a look at the Spanish students that come over to Ireland every summer.. are they unhinged violent binge-drinking types?

For your information manhunt2 isn't banned in Spain.

However I have a theory on how to get it banned over there. Firstly, start of by making alot of laws, restricting the sale of alcohol, stricter age limits, age regulations on violent films, age restrictions on entry to pubs, clubs, more laws, more restrictions, laws, restrictions... then bingo!, there you have it, a society like ours, a nanny-state where you HAVE TO ban violent games because the people are "too irresponsible".

Hugh Hefner

I've read all but a few posts in this thread aswell as the other threads on this subject. Add to that the "torture porn" thread in the Films forum. At this point I've just gotten tired. I'm really tired. I'm tired when I see that issues like an adult's right to choose and an artist's right to expression are being overlooked for arguments that haven't be proven (i.e. video games' detremental affect on people), misunderstanding of a medium (i.e. an office that is primarily for film classification censoring a game) et cetera, ad nauseum.

And you can't say that Manhunt 2 is devoid of art. It's just not logical. For one, who's to decide what isn't artistic. For another, it's fair to say that any creation where presentation, tone, effective control scheme, etc. have been contemplated is artful. I don't know what something devoid of art would be but it's not this game. Hell, even the game's textures are a form of art!