Manhunt2 - BBFC banned it becuase it was humans, not "grif..

sleepy, you 40 year old virgin types might approve of censorship,but
some of us more rational people know that if one makes the case that
you can censor games because of graphic content, then pretty soon,
movies by people like stephen king and spielberg would also fall
victim to you lilly white socially awkward loner types who would
censor everything.

besides, we all have TV's and see and read the news and are pretty hip
to the fact by now, the most holier than thou people who call for
censorship are usually the most deparaved people in their own personal
lives.

"Sleepy" <nospam DeleteThis @herethanks.com> wrote in message
news:EZ47l.142543$XB5.75959@newsfe29.ams2...
>
>
> "Schrodinger" <no DeleteThis @way.com> wrote in message
> news:7737l.101701$cx7.68133@newsfe21.ams2...
>> This epitomised the view of the mainstream media to games. It seems
>> perfectly acceptable for some out of date idiots at the BBFC to censor
>> games when they have clearly not ever played any.
>>
>> A quote:
>>
>> "specifically, Caldecott commented that "in this particular game, the
>> victims are people. They are not aliens or griffins or Daleks. You see
>> lots of human beings quite mercilessly kicking and punching other human
>> beings as you move through the game." More than that, referring to the
>> weapons scattered throughout the game's dark setting, the BBFC's
>> representative added: "They're not magic wands or Excalibur; many of them
>> are everyday objects." "
>>
>> Imagine the outcry if they had somebody censor films that hadn't ever
>> watched a film, or owned a television?
>>
>> I know it happened a bit back, but I saw it mentioned in this article:
>>
>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-BBFC-Themselves-See-no-Direct-Link-...ween-Ma
>
> whats so good about Manhunt 2 that you want to see the ban lifted?
> does it have a gripping story or exceptionally high production values or
> is just that you find it entertaining to bludgeon someone to death with a
> lead pipe?
>

It was lifted; Rockstar succesfully challenged the ban as the BBFC were
talking bollocks. They haven't released it into the UK though.

The point here is that these people are censoring games (at least any with
FMV content) and they don't know what they are doing. They are undertaking
this censorship on behalf of myself and all other UK residents. I find this
worrying.

> why is someone "out of date" just because they don't agree with your
> principles (or lack of) ?

They are "out of date" because they thought computer games might involve one
shooting griffins with Excalibur. Or something.

"Sleepy" <nospam.TakeThisOut@herethanks.com> wrote in
news:EZ47l.142543$XB5.75959@newsfe29.ams2:

> why is someone "out of date" just because they don't agree with your
> principles (or lack of) ?

Some people refuse to believe that games have grown-up with their players -
they think that the only games we (should) still play are Pac-Man and
Donkey Kong. Give them a job as 'media censor' and you've got a *serious*
problem. ~~}:^(

Times change and so do attitudes (television moved away from 'black-and-
white' a *long* time ago) so why shouldn't rules/ratings systems?

Or do we need another (Se)X-Box fiasco to get the message across?
(Observeth yon powerful Amazon warriors)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0kdm7fg804

http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Perfection-Making-Peace-
Overachiever/dp/1599211793/

It's called 'common sense', people. It isn't a hard thing (for certain
individuals) to use. }X^Þ

Signed,
Warewolf
who has quite a bit to say about modern television, as well.

<tie702003 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e6a685c9-5d06-4a0b-ba6b-00f88e8d93c7@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> sleepy, you 40 year old virgin types might approve of censorship,but
> some of us more rational people know that if one makes the case that
> you can censor games because of graphic content, then pretty soon,
> movies by people like stephen king and spielberg would also fall
> victim to you lilly white socially awkward loner types who would
> censor everything.
>
> besides, we all have TV's and see and read the news and are pretty hip
> to the fact by now, the most holier than thou people who call for
> censorship are usually the most deparaved people in their own personal
> lives.
>

the same authority you revile for censorship is the one that provides
ratings for games that
most of the time, most people would see as useful and necessary. how many
games have been banned?
precious few and I think we're a long way from slipping into some kind of
'big brother' society.
one game has been banned - so what? and what's so great about this game that
you all want to play it?

I simply accept the same authority that classifies some games as 12 or 15 or
18 (which I accept as fine)
has refused *one* game a classification - I see nothing worrying about it -
I've got plenty of games to play.

On Jan 1, 8:12�pm, "Sleepy" <nos....RemoveThis@herethanks.com> wrote:
> <tie702....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e6a685c9-5d06-4a0b-ba6b-00f88e8d93c7@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > sleepy, you 40 year old virgin types might approve of censorship,but
> > some of us more rational people know that if one makes the case that
> > you can censor games because of graphic content, then pretty soon,
> > movies by people like stephen king and spielberg would also fall
> > victim to you lilly white socially awkward loner types who would
> > censor everything.
>
> > besides, we all have TV's and see and read the news and are pretty hip
> > to the fact by now, the most holier than thou people who call for
> > censorship are usually the most deparaved people in their own personal
> > lives.
>
> the same authority you revile for censorship is the one that provides
> ratings for games that
> most of the time, most people would see as useful and necessary. how many
> games have been banned?
> precious few and I think we're a long way from slipping into some kind of
> 'big brother' society.
> one game has been banned - so what? and what's so great about this game that
> you all want to play it?
>
> I simply accept the same authority that classifies some games as 12 or 15 or
> 18 (which I accept as fine)
> has refused *one* game a classification - I see nothing worrying about it -
> I've got plenty of games to play.

sorry about that I was really cranky that day

"Sleepy" <nospam.RemoveThis@herethanks.com> wrote in message
news:bSd7l.104684$AL7.82506@newsfe14.ams2...
>
>
> <tie702003.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e6a685c9-5d06-4a0b-ba6b-00f88e8d93c7@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> sleepy, you 40 year old virgin types might approve of censorship,but
>> some of us more rational people know that if one makes the case that
>> you can censor games because of graphic content, then pretty soon,
>> movies by people like stephen king and spielberg would also fall
>> victim to you lilly white socially awkward loner types who would
>> censor everything.
>>
>> besides, we all have TV's and see and read the news and are pretty hip
>> to the fact by now, the most holier than thou people who call for
>> censorship are usually the most deparaved people in their own personal
>> lives.
>>
>
> the same authority you revile for censorship is the one that provides
> ratings for games that
> most of the time, most people would see as useful and necessary. how many
> games have been banned?
> precious few and I think we're a long way from slipping into some kind of
> 'big brother' society.
> one game has been banned - so what? and what's so great about this game
> that you all want to play it?
>
> I simply accept the same authority that classifies some games as 12 or 15
> or 18 (which I accept as fine)
> has refused *one* game a classification - I see nothing worrying about
> it - I've got plenty of games to play.
>
>

You have entirely missed my point, but thanks for your input. It was
valuable. Really.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:06:12 -0000, "Sleepy" <nospam.DeleteThis@herethanks.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Schrodinger" <no.DeleteThis@way.com> wrote in message
>news:7737l.101701$cx7.68133@newsfe21.ams2...
>> This epitomised the view of the mainstream media to games. It seems
>> perfectly acceptable for some out of date idiots at the BBFC to censor
>> games when they have clearly not ever played any.
>>
>> A quote:
>>
>> "specifically, Caldecott commented that "in this particular game, the
>> victims are people. They are not aliens or griffins or Daleks. You see
>> lots of human beings quite mercilessly kicking and punching other human
>> beings as you move through the game." More than that, referring to the
>> weapons scattered throughout the game's dark setting, the BBFC's
>> representative added: "They're not magic wands or Excalibur; many of them
>> are everyday objects." "
>>
>> Imagine the outcry if they had somebody censor films that hadn't ever
>> watched a film, or owned a television?
>>
>> I know it happened a bit back, but I saw it mentioned in this article:
>>
>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-BBFC-Themselves-See-no-Direct-Link-...ween-Ma
>
>whats so good about Manhunt 2 that you want to see the ban lifted?
>does it have a gripping story or exceptionally high production values or
>is just that you find it entertaining to bludgeon someone to death with a
>lead pipe?
>
>why is someone "out of date" just because they don't agree with your
>principles (or lack of) ?

If I want to play this game it should be my right and no one else should tell
me that I can't. I can fire up Rambo 4 if I want which has a sickening amount
of violence in it, that is far more lifelike and is even advertised on the
telly. I wonder what the BBFC said about that one?!

> whats so good about Manhunt 2 that you want to see the ban lifted?
> does it have a gripping story or exceptionally high production values or
> is just that you find it entertaining to bludgeon someone to death with a
> lead pipe?
>
> why is someone "out of date" just because they don't agree with your
> principles (or lack of) ?

It was not my understanding that it was banned because it was a bad game...

On Jan 1, 5:12 pm, "Sleepy" <nos... RemoveThis @herethanks.com> wrote:
> the same authority you revile for censorship is the one that provides
> ratings for games that
> most of the time, most people would see as useful and necessary.

Source?

> how many
> games have been banned?

However many is too many. We are all capable of making a decision for
ourselves (or for our children) whether we want to see something.
Anyone making that decision for us is overstepping their authority.
The government is not mother or father. If I want to see a ninja rip
the spine out of some guy, that's my choice.

> precious few and I think we're a long way from slipping into some kind of
> 'big brother' society.

That's funny, because the rest of the world looks at the UK's street
camera system and pretty much assumes you already have a big brother
society.

> one game has been banned - so what? and what's so great about this game that
> you all want to play it?

How would you expect anyone to be able to say what's good about it
when they are not able to play it and judge its qualities? And that's
precisely the problem with censorship.

What's so great about politicians that you want to go out and vote for
them? Perhaps the important thing is not that you want to, but that
you are able to. How about that.

> I simply accept the same authority that classifies some games as 12 or 15 or
> 18 (which I accept as fine)
> has refused *one* game a classification - I see nothing worrying about it -
> I've got plenty of games to play.

Refusing classification is the modern equivalent of book-burning.

It's great for you that you have enough censored material to keep you
busy that you won't become curious about the parts that were left out.
Of course it's no secret that ignorance is bliss.