Here\u2019s the premise for the recently banned videogame, Manhunt 2.\n<\/p>\n
\n\u2018An experiment at a secret research facility has gone catastrophically wrong. Daniel is sent to the Dixmor Asylum, where six years later a freakish storm of lightning hits the power, leaving it dark and haunting\u2026\n<\/p>\n
\n\u2018Demented screams echo around the dank asylum that has caged you for the last six years. You open your eyes. A white-coated body slumps to the floor through your shaking hands. A bloody syringe slips from your arm. Waves of confusion and paranoia crash over you. You have no idea who you are or how you got here.\u2019\n<\/p>\n
\nDoctor Caligari would have been proud. Come to think of it, Winston Smith with a cage of rats on his head would probably have nodded in recognition, in between dementedly screams.\n<\/p>\n
\nOf course, the characters above are parts of works are classics in their respective media. I have to say that Manhunt 2 is far from a classic. It\u2019s an ultra-violent videogame \u2013 and an average one at that.\n<\/p>\n
\nBut this is not an issue of quality. This is an issue about a relatively new medium confusing older mores. It\u2019s an argument about a censorious bureaucracy misunderstanding the people it is supposed to be guiding \u2013 not protecting.\n<\/p>\n
\nWhat we face is a latter-day Mervyn Griffith-Jones<\/a>, asking if it\u2019s the kind of videogame \u2018you would wish your wife or servants to play\u2019.\n<\/p>\n \nSo, the BBFC has made Manhunt 2 only the second video game in history to be refused classification in the UK. The first being 1997\u2019s ban of Carmageddon from SCi (now SCi\/Eidos \u2013 of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider fame).\n<\/p>\n \nThere maybe a clue in history. Way back in 1997, Jane Cavanagh ,SCi\u2019s managing director, accused the BBFC of having an \u2018arrogant and secretive\u2019 approach to regulating the games industry.\n<\/p>\n \nShe stated, \u2018They were hugely swayed by sensational tabloid reports written by people who had never even played the game. The BBFC was wrong and the whole thing has been extremely time-consuming, stressful and expensive.\u2019\n<\/p>\n \nCarmageddon gained an 18 classification following its resubmission with modifications.\n<\/p>\n \nThis time around the BBFC\u2019s stance is less flexible, with Sue Clarke, head of communications for the BBFC, stating that due to the structure of the game she could not see how Rockstar could resubmit it in an acceptable form.\n<\/p>\n \nSo, what does the Board actually know about videogames and gamers?\n<\/p>\n \nOn 17 April 2007, the BBFC produced a research paper entitled, \u2018Video Games: Research to improve the understanding of what players enjoy about video games, and to explain their preferences for particular games\u2019. <\/a>\n<\/p>\n \nDavid Cooke, Director of the BBFC supported the paper, stating:\n<\/p>\n \n\u2018The element of interactivity in games carries some weight when we are considering a video game. We were particularly interested to see that this research suggests that, far from having a potentially negative impact on the reaction of the player, the very fact that they have to interact with the game seems to keep them more firmly rooted in reality.\n<\/p>\n \n\u2018People who do not play games raise concerns about their engrossing nature, assuming that players are also emotionally engrossed.\n<\/p>\n \n\u2018This research suggests the opposite; a range of factors seems to make them less emotionally involving than film or television. The adversaries which players have to eliminate have no personality and so are not real and their destruction is therefore not real, regardless of how violent that destruction might be.\u2019\n<\/p>\n \nKey phrases that set the games media and gamers nodding in unison: \u2018Firm grasp on reality\u2019, \u2018less emotionally involving than film or television\u2019, \u2018regardless of how violent that destruction might be\u2019.\n<\/p>\n \nLet\u2019s contrast this with Cooke\u2019s 19 June statement following the refusal to classify Manhunt 2: \u2018Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing\u2026\n<\/p>\n \n\u2018Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game\u2019s unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game.\n<\/p>\n \n\u2018Against this background, the Board\u2019s carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.\u2019\n<\/p>\n \nKey phrases that jarred with the board\u2019s own research?\n<\/p>\n \n\u2018unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone\u2019, \u2018exceptionally little alleviation or distancing\u2019, \u2018alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer\u2019, \u2018unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors\u2019.\n<\/p>\n \nIf any of the first three elements quoted above are benchmarks for censorship then Requiem for a Dream<\/i> (Darren Aronofsky\u2019s unremittingly bleak movie regarding drug addiction, death and more death) would never have received its 18 certification.\n<\/p>\n \nThe meaningless, jargon-laden fourth statement reads more like a health and safety justification than a considered act of public guidance.\n<\/p>\n \nQuite simply put, Manhunt 2 is a stalking horse. It is quite possible that the BBFC is attempting to atone for perceived failures \u2013 specifically the 18 rating it gave to Manhunt in 2003. This mediocrity was erroneously cited as the cause of the murder of teenager Stefan Pakeerah by Warren Le Blanc.\n<\/p>\n \nAs we reported<\/a> at the time, a police spokesperson said in August 2004 that \u2018the video game was not found in Warren LeBlanc’s room, it was found in Stefan Pakeerah’s room. Leicestershire Constabulary stands by its response that police investigations did not uncover any connections to the video game, the motive for the incident was robbery.\u2019\n<\/p>\n \nSPOnG.com\u2019s readership, which is reasonably indicative of videogames players in the UK, ranges from mid-teen to the ancients such as myself (43). The response has been uniform.\n<\/p>\n \nThe feeling from the frontline \u2013 the gamers \u2013 is one of outrage that we are not being given the chance to waste our money on a mediocre piece of adult entertainment; that gamers are children. This outrage has led to anger and a deep mistrust of the regulatory organisation.\n<\/p>\n