It has been bought to our attention that the survey sighted by
Mediawatch UK as “evidence” of massive public concern about film and
video game violence and public desire for tougher restrictions of
violent films and games was carried out on behalf of Mediawatch UK. It
it listed on the ComRes website as a Mediawatch poll.
One has to wonder therefore how representative this survey really is of
the views of the general British public.
This survey shows that 80% o the British public wants the BBFC to be fully transparent and accountable to Parliament? Maybe it does but it certainly doesn’t show that the entire British public want the kind of sweeping censorship and bans that certain MPs, John Beyer and Mediawatch UK want.
From Mediawatch UK:
BRITISH PUBLIC DEMANDS ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FILM CENSORS
mediawatch-uk, the UK broadcasting watchdog, today publishes an important survey* showing that 80% of the British public wants the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to be fully transparent and accountable to Parliament.
The results of the survey, carried out by ComRes, coincide with a Private Members Bill introduced by Julian Brazier MP (Canterbury), which is receiving a Second Reading in the House of Commons today. The Bill attracted publicity earlier this month when the Board classified a number of video works, banned by the Director of Public Prosecutions, such as ‘SS Experiment Camp’.
John Beyer, director of mediawatch-uk, comments: “The results confirm what we have always believed. The British public continues to retain a high degree of common sense and is not impressed by the self interested demands of the film industry. We again call upon the BBFC to review its guidelines on violence, call upon the games industry to act more responsibly on violence and call upon the Office of Communications to enforce the terms of the Broadcasting Code much more vigorously, particularly with regard television programmes that condone and glamorise seriously antisocial behaviour and violence.”
With 76% of respondents wanting the amount of violence permitted in films, games and on television to be more tightly regulated, and 68% believing there are links between violent crime and the level of violence in films and on television, there is great public concern that the BBFC’s classification decisions should reflect broad public opinion and suggests that the general public is dissatisfied with the current system.
Beyer continues: “We believe that the Prime Minister, who has expressed personal concern about all the violence and pornography that children can so easily see, was wrong to exclude film and television from the remit given to psychologist Dr Tanya Byron whose report is due next month. Film is a very powerful global influence and it is astonishing that the Board has escaped proper scrutiny for almost 100 years. It is right that Parliament should represent public concerns and we hope very much that Mr Brazier’s Bill will go through unopposed.”
* mediawatch-uk: Survey On Violence In Films, Games and Television, February 2008
“With 76% of respondents wanting the amount of violence permitted in films, games and on television to be more tightly regulated, and 68% believing there are links between violent crime and the level of violence in films and on television, there is great public concern that the BBFC’s classification decisions should reflect broad public opinion and suggests that the general public is dissatisfied with the current system.”
Pah! 78% and 68% respondents proves nothing. But as usual Beyer and Mediawatch UK jump on some specified survey as “evidence” that there is massive public concern about violent films and games and the apparent link with violent crime. This certainly does not show this!
“The results confirm what we have always believed.”
Er Mr Beyer you and Mediawatch UK have always believed that the public wants heavy censorship and total bans of certain violent films and games. The results do not confirm that at all.
The general public is dissatisified with the current BBFC system are they? Couldn’t just be the Daily Mail middle England mob being disastisified with those “wet lefty librels” passing “filth” for the public’s eyes.
And even if the public are dissastisfied with the current system one has to wonder whether they would be happier with one that has to answer to a bunch of agenda driven MPs and which bans films and video games not based on any evidence of actual harm but because a bunch of MPs says it should.
“Film is a very powerful global influence and it is astonishing that the Board has escaped proper scrutiny for almost 100 years.”
Yeah we are surprised too. After all film is such a “powerful global influence” it must be blame for the illegal war in Iraq. We wondered what made George Bush and his Whitehouse cronies that warmongering bastards they are. Oh film which is such a global influence!
It makes perfect sense.
Sunday’s Politics Show programme on Julian Brazier’s BBFC accountability Bill featured an interview with John Beyer.
Here’s a link to the programme on Youtube:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKEi65uqq0
Beyer predictably enough comes across as extremley arrogant and illinformed with the following:
.He brushes aside public opinion which is AGAINST more censorship of violent films and video games. (We suspect he feels that the opinions of members of the public who don’t want more censorship of films and video games don’t matter and that the government and the BBFC must impose on the public what he and they think is best for them)
.He sights ONE ennoceous case in America where a man who watched Reservoir Dogs shot someone as “evidence” that violent films cause people to kill.
.He says our society has problems with violence and obscene language and that “a lot of this started with films”. (This is his personal opinion and there is no evidence of this).
.He responds to the interviewer saying there is no evidence to show that violent films cause people to kill by saying “If you look hard enough there is plenty of evidence”. But he doesn’t say where.
.He sights a few public meetings with as little as 15 or 20 people (which were probably all Daily Mail reading Tory voting Christians like himself and his Mediawatch UK companions) as “evidence” of apparent massive public concern about violent films and games and massive public support for Brazier’s Bill.
Beyer is asked why the violent actions of a minority of people who may have watched violent films should spoil it for the majority of people who watch such films and don’t kill anyone.
Beyer brushed over this question with the bit about how our problems with violence and obscene language started with films. We suspect he doesn’t care one bit about people who watch violent films and don’t turn into murderers because he thinks what they are watching is immoral and bad for them (because of course he knows excactly what is and is not good for people to watch) and that they should be stopped from watching those films at all.
All in all interviewing Beyer didn’t add anything to the debate. They may as well just got someone in from the Daily Mail. With Beyer you don’t get rational based argument just biased opinion and illinformed arguments not based on fact and evidence but personal belief and his own agenda.
The mainstream press are all for the tougher enforcing of bans on violent video games without any thought as to whether there is any evidence that justifies the games banning in the first place.
From The Times courtesy of the Melon Farmers:
Killing off video game sadists is tough work
Censors are trying to ban a violent video game, but flouting the law is easy
Alex Pell
A few clicks of a mouse was all it took to buy one of the most unpleasant, gruesome video games that has ever been released.
Manhunt 2 involves escaping from an asylum and pursuing the people responsible for your incarceration in order to execute them. It’s distasteful from the off: an inmate urinates on you as you creep past his cell.
The idea is to sneak up and kill people in increasingly brutal ways, using pliers, for example, or sawing through an enemy’s head. Your score depends on how grisly your “execution kills” become.
It is so grim that the title has been banned by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), despite which it’s readily available to purchase on the internet. I found it on eBay for £32 including delivery, and Gamezland, which gave it a Manchester location, had no qualms about sending me a copy in a brown Jiffy bag.
For what it’s worth, the game is dreadful, with bad graphics, jittery camera work and simplistic gameplay.
However, the unrelenting, sadistic violence and the fact that it is so easy to buy (despite it currently being illegal to sell the game in the UK), raises disturbing questions about the process by which video games are classified.
Manhunt 2, made by the London studio of Rockstar Games, is one of only two games ever to be refused a certificate by the BBFC, which regulates the UK release of titles. The first was Carmageddon back in the late 1990s, but that was a walk in the park compared with Manhunt 2.
According to the BBFC, games are banned if they are deemed to cause “possible harm” to those who play them. The ambiguity of this phrase is at the root of a long, continuing legal wrangle between the BBFC and Rockstar Games.
In December Rockstar appealed against the ban to the Video Appeals Committee (VAC) – the appeals body of the BBFC – and won its case. The BBFC quickly sought judicial review of the VAC’s decision, fearing Manhunt 2 would be freely sold through high street outlets such as HMV and Game.
Last month a High Court judge ordered the VAC to rethink its verdict on the premise that the committee had misinterpreted the law. The VAC is due to begin reconsidering on March 11, but there’s no guarantee it will change its mind. If it sticks by its decision, you can expect to see Manhunt 2 on sale legally shortly afterwards.
Clearly much of this academic: is a ban effective if it is so easy to circumvent and so hard to enforce? When I approached Gamezland (which despite saying its products are shipped from Manchester, is itself based in America) the company appeared unaware that there were any legal issues about supplying Manhunt 2 in the UK. Rockstar Games claimed its game contains “content well within the bounds established by the BBFC’s 18-plus ratings certification”.
The government has already realised that it is time for a thorough overhaul of the vetting process. At the end of March Dr Tanya Byron, a clinical psychologist, will release a report on the games industry. Her brief included “assessing the effectiveness of existing measures to protect children and helping parents manage access to inappropriate material”.
Even if Byron’s report does result in a shake-up of UK legislation, it may have trouble reconciling changes with the current pan-European system of age ratings for games, which largely relies on self-regulation by game makers. And nothing is likely to stop unscrupulous internet sellers from flogging their wares online, while the problem will only grow as games are increasingly sold as downloads from anywhere in the world, rather than being provided as a physical disc.
So if you have young children, we recommend you take a peek inside any Jiffy bag that drops on your mat.
“However, the unrelenting, sadistic violence and the fact that it is so easy to buy (despite it currently being illegal to sell the game in the UK), raises disturbing questions about the process by which video games are classified.”
Such bollox will lead to more calls for tougher legislation against violent video games and will lead to more MPs like Julian Brazier trying to pass Bills in Parliament that will result in more pointless laws banning video games based on such scaremongering bollox as this!
“So if you have young children, we recommend you take a peek inside any Jiffy bag that drops on your mat.”
Oh yes try and break down the trust between parents and children why don’t you. Watch out your kids could be getting hold of illegal copies of evil violent filth video games like Manhunt 2. Spare us!
Brazier will be on the Politics Show tommorow on BBC1 at 12pm to argue his case for MPs getting more control over the workings of the BBFC. We hope his case is suitably torn apart.
From the BBC courtesy of the Melon Farmers:
Dismember of Parliament
Paul Siegert
The Politics Show South East
The thorny question of film censorship is hitting the big screen again, as Canterbury MP, Julian Brazier, believes violent films and video games could be responsible for acts of violence.
The Bogey Man, Death Trap, The Evil Dead and Zombie Flesh Eaters. Just a few films that over the years have been called ‘video nasties’.
The Canterbury MP Julian Brazier believes films like these, and also violent video games could be responsible for people committing acts of violence.
He quotes the case of Warren Leblanc who admitted murdering his 14-year-old friend Stephan Pakeerah with repeated blows from a claw hammer and knife.
Stephan’s mother has publicly attributed the murder to Leblanc’s obsession with playing the video game Manhunt, although the trial judge did not confirm her view.
Mr Brazier also talks about the film Eastern Promises. This, he says, includes graphic scenes of throat slitting, child prostitution and a man having an eye gouged out.
Private Members Bill
So next week Julian Brazier’s Private Member’s Bill to make the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) accountable to Parliament will get its second reading.
He claims that in the last few years the BBFC has followed a policy of allowing increasingly violent and sexual material onto the market.
There are several points to Mr Brazier’ s Bill.
.He wants Parliament to choose the four main officers of the BBFC. At present the BBFC makes all it appointments internally.
.He believes Parliament should have powers to force the BBFC to tighten its guidelines.
.He wants MPs to have the right to appeal against a classification. At present only the industry can appeal a decision – either to restore cut material or to lower a classification, but not to raise it or to have it banned.
Personal responsibility?
But should MPs really have the power to decide what we can and cannot watch.
Do adults not have the right to make that decision for themselves?
“Yes,” says Helen O’Hara at Empire Magazine, who adds: “People can get a very good idea of what’s in these films by looking at the box.
“A lot of what are termed as ‘video nasties’ these days are really bad films that wouldn’t get any publicity unless people complained about them.
And some thought the DVD would be the cinema’s demise
“I absolutely think that political censorship is a step backwards.”
While a spokesman for the BBFC said it was up to adults to decide what they wanted to watch and moviegoers were always free to look away from the screen.
So on Sunday we hear from Julian Brazier himself, and we get the views of a leading academic on whether there is any link between violence and the movies.
“He quotes the case of Warren Leblanc who admitted murdering his 14-year-old friend Stephan Pakeerah with repeated blows from a claw hammer and knife. Stephan’s mother has publicly attributed the murder to Leblanc’s obsession with playing the video game Manhunt, although the trial judge did not confirm her view.”
Brazier’s using of the Warren Leblanc Manhunt “case” is based not on evidence that the game caused the death of Stephen Pakeerah but souly on the view of Stephan’s that the murder of her son can be attributed to Leblanc’s obsession with playing the game.
It would be helpful if someone was on this programme to point out to Mr Brazier that his BFFC Bill is based largely on tabloid scaremongering and hersey.
“The Bogey Man, Death Trap, The Evil Dead and Zombie Flesh Eaters. Just a few films that over the years have been called ‘video nasties’.
The Canterbury MP Julian Brazier believes films like these, and also violent video games could be responsible for people committing acts of violence.”
But this is about his belief that films like these and violent video games could be responsible for people commiting acts of violence and not about any evidence that shows they ARE or will be responsible for people commiting acts of violence.
Hopefully Mr Brazier will be asked on Politics Show why films and video games should be banned and the public denied the freeom to view/play them because of what he and few MPs believe people COULD do after watching/playing them.
“He wants Parliament to choose the four main officers of the BBFC. At present the BBFC makes all it appointments internally.”
We shudder to think what kind of officers of the BBFC Parliament would choose if Brazier got his way. John Beyer? Miranda Suit? Christopher Tookey? Yee gads it doesn’t bare thinking about!
“He believes Parliament should have powers to force the BBFC to tighten its guidelines.”
Tighten it’s guidelines to do what? Ban a load of films and video games not because there is any proof they are genuinly harmful but because a bunch of MPs don’t want them to be avaliable to the general public? No fucking thanks!
“He wants MPs to have the right to appeal against a classification.”
Appeal against a classification of a film/video game that they dissaprove of and don’t think people should be able to see/play even though there is no evidence of harm.
“At present only the industry can appeal a decision – either to restore cut material or to lower a classification, but not to raise it or to have it banned.”
Which means that MPs appealing against classifications of certain films and video games will be appealing to get them banned.
“While a spokesman for the BBFC said it was up to adults to decide what they wanted to watch and moviegoers were always free to look away from the screen.”
Brazier and his supporters clearly don’t think so and they want a BBFC that won’t allow adults to decide what they watch but a BBFC that will decide for adults what is and is not good and healthy for them to watch based not on evidence but based on the prejudices and agendas of a handful of MPs with a political axe to grind.
We wonder why there isn’t any plans for someone from the film industry or opponents of censorship to argue against Brazier and to point out that his calls for government interference of the BBFC is not in the public interest at all but just in the interest of himself and a handful of other self appointed moral guardians MPs who want the BBFC to stop the public viewing things they dissaprove of.
But will he agree to MPs being able to interfer in the workings of
the BBFC as Brazier and co wish?
From Mediawatch UK:
Brown’s pledge on film violence
Gordon Brown yesterday signalled support for a crackdown on films
and video games containing appalling scenes of violence. Amid fears
that disturbing scenes can trigger copycat attacks by impressionable
youths, critics have accused the British Board of Film
Classification of allowing virtually anything. Tory MP Julian
Brazier cited the BBFC passing for general release the film SS
Experiment Camp, banned 20 years ago by the Director of Public
Prosecutions … The BBFC insists there is no evidence the film
causes harm to viewers.
But in reply to a Commons question by Mr Brazier, Mr Brown said
yesterday: “I share you concerns”. A review of the impact of
violent scenes on children, headed by psychologist Dr Tanya Byron,
is to report soon. Mr Brazier will next week introduce a Bill that
would give MPs a veto over the appointment of the five main officers
of the BBFC and over its guidelines.
Daily Mail 21/2/2008
“Mr Brazier will next week introduce a Bill that would give MPs a
veto over the appointment of the five main officers of the BBFC and
over its guidelines.”
In other words such a Bill would give MP a veto over who presides
over film classification at the BBFC and it’s guidelines. This would
give MPs a say in what films and video games the BBFC does and does
not allow for release to the general public. This would be the first
step to state control of the film and video game industry.
This is surely something the general public do not want.
As we reported before anti-video game campaigners in America have already tried to link the NUI Campus shooting with video game violence. Here the president of the Entertainment Consumers Association has issued a statement against attempts to link the tragedy with video games.
From Game Politics courtesy of the Melon Farmers:
The Entertainment Consumers Association president Hal Halpin has issued a statement about the Illinois school shootings: We are disgusted, but no longer shocked, to find that anti-game activists are again rushing to conclusions about what drove Stephen Kazmierczak, the clearly disturbed 27-year-old who police say was responsible for this tragedy, to commit such an act.
Blaming video games for the behavior of the mentally-challenged is vile on many levels. And, as Generations X and Y mature, it is extremely likely that just about all of us have played at least one video game at some point in our lives.
Drawing a parallel between games and violence without any substantive proof is sensationalism for its own sake. This is a sad event, made worse by the irresponsible actions of attention-seekers and the media that has given them a platform for their reckless venom.
Unsurprising and predictable from Thompson. Nobody knows what caused
the shootings but hey if he can sniff a big lawsuit against video
games companies he will push his agenda.
From Game Politics courtesy of the Melon Farmers:
Jack Thompson Sees Violent Video Game Link in NIU Campus Shooting
Anti-video game violence activist Jack Thompson appeared on (where
else?) Fox News this morning and once again tried to draw a link
between violent video games and a deadly school shooting. In this
case, Thompson related games to yesterday’s rampage at Northern
Illinois University.
Although we didn’t catch the segment, Thompson e-mailed his comments
to GamePolitics, attaching a screen shot from the Fox interview:
I was on the Fox News Channel this morning because of the possible
violent video game connection to this latest massacre at Northern
Illinois University.
In the e-mail, the embattled attorney related his violent video game
crusade to his ongoing struggle with the Florida Bar:
I am certain that the past and future survivors of these incidents
will not fully understand why The Florida Bar is seeking to destroy a
latter-day Paul Revere… for his telling the truth about companies and
lawyers that are spawning, for money, these types of events.
GP: The facts are not yet in on the NIU rampage, of course, but that
has never stopped Thompson from rushing to blame video games in the
past. GamePolitics readers will certainly recall Thompson blaming the
2007 Virginia Tech massacre on games even while police were still
securing the campus.
Among the few details known so far is that the shooter, Stephen
Kazmierczak, had a stellar academic record. Press reports describe
him as a 27-year-old graduate student, so he was well past the age
where any type of video game content restriction would come into play.
UPDATE: Fox is now reporting that Kazmierczak was not taking his
medication for an unspecified condition and acting erratically in
recent weeks. So, once again, a disturbed person goes on a rampage
with a gun, not a video game.
UPDATE 2: GamePolitics Correspondent Andrew Eisen has pointed us to a
video of Thompson’s Fox appearance (below). Thompson rambles a bit,
loses his train of thought midway through and even makes reference to
a chapter that didn’t make it into his not so highly-regarded 2005
book, as if to say, “look, I predicted this!”
Irish religious fruitcake Mary Doherty, who wants to be bigger than Mary Whitehouse has started her “ban porn” campaign by rallying against a sexy underwear ad from Peacocks.
From the Melon Farmers:
First step in the footsteps of Mary Whitehouse is pants See full article from Derry Journal
A Christian campaigner is protesting against the provocative message one Valentine’s ad campaign is sending out to young lovers on the most romantic day of the year. Christian Solidarity Party member Mary Doherty, from Donegal, is protesting against the Valentine’s ad in Peacocks shop, Derry. The ad shows a glam brunette wearing sexy red and black underwear. Mary – who set up the National Campaign against Pornography and Obscenity in the wake of strip shows in Donegal said: It is the way the model is reclining, with her chest sticking out and legs akimbo. This image is not about love on Valentine’s Day. It depicts a woman as an object. Valentine’s Day is about spreading love, it’s not about raw sex. She added: I demand Peacocks remove this advertisement. Underwear is an intimate part of our lives, not something that should be on show to the world. Some people may not see anything wrong with it, but this model is lying in a provocative pose in her underwear. Fair enough, show women in a feminine pose, but not as objects. Peacocks defended its Valentine’s lingerie poster campaign: We are sorry that this lady has offended by it – it was not meant to cause her discomfort. But this is an isolated complaint.
“I demand Peacocks remove this advertisement. Underwear is an intimate part of our lives, not something that should be on show to the world.”
Oh dear! This is all about this woman’s personal opinion of the advert and that underwear shoud not be “on show to the world” and not to do with any evidence that the advert could offend a lot of people or cause any social harm. She has no right to except that Peacoks will listen to her demands. She has a hugely inflated sense of self importance (which is typical of most self appointed moral guardians) if she expect that Peacocks or any other company will stop an advert on her say so.
“Some people may not see anything wrong with it, but this model is lying in a provocative pose in her underwear.”
Oh right. Some people may not see anything wrong with it but if it offends this looney tune it should be banned. Who cares what other people may think? She says it should be removed so that’s it.
“It depicts a woman as an object. Valentine’s Day is about spreading love, it’s not about raw sex.”
For some people Valentines Day is about raw sex. Who is Ms Doherty to tell couples what Valentines Day should and should not be about. Depicting women as an object? That’s her interpretation of the ad. But the ad should not be removed just because of one person’s view of it.
“A Christian campaigner is protesting against the provocative message one Valentine’s ad campaign is sending out to young lovers on the most romantic day of the year.”
What message is this ad sending out to young lovers? That sex is something that is enjoyable and even fun maybe? Oh no! We can’t have that.
“Peacocks defended its Valentine’s lingerie poster campaign: We are sorry that this lady has offended by it – it was not meant to cause her discomfort. But this is an isolated complaint.”
Yep one complaint by one religious nutter who wants to impose her views on everyone else. Why are Peacocks apologising to a woman who’s taken offence to the advert not because the advert is genuinly offensive but because she has personal opinion of it and an axe to grind?
Mary Doherty wants to rid the world of porn. This just goes to show that like most anti-porn campaigners she casts the net of what is “porn” as wide as possible to include anything with the slightest whiff of sex about it.
|
Very interesting article by Darren Waters, BBC Technology editor on the BBC News website.
From the BBC courtesy of the Melon Farmers:
On the trail of Manhunt 2
|
||||||
 Manhunt 2 is the most controversial video game in history. Banned last June by the British Board of Film Classification, it is at the centre of a legal row that is defining what is and what is not acceptable in video games. But what makes this game so objectionable?In the US adult gamers have been able to buy and play Manhunt 2 since last year. But in the UK the game is not available for sale and developers Rockstar are not even legally able to share the game with journalists. Copies of the game can be bought on eBay from US sellers. But in order to play it I had to visit the developer’s London offices in person and be shown the US copy of the title. The BBFC says its position is clear. When it was first banned in June last year, David Cooke, director of the BBFC, said: “Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone. “There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.” Developer Rockstar is no stranger to controversy – it faced criticism over last year’s title Bully, mainly from a press which mis-understood the game and assumed the player took on the role of a bully. In actual fact, the player’s role was to challenge the bullies. But its highly successful Grand Theft Auto series has come in for regular criticism that the titles glorify crime, especially violence.
Rockstar says its position is equally transparent: It says it makes games that are “well within the bounds established by other 18+ games”. Before playing the game I sat through two of the most violent films of recent years – Saw and its sequel. Both films have 18 certificates and are blood-laden, gore-fests which feature torture, mutilation and strong violence throughout.
Manhunt 2 is a similarly violent and blood-infused experience. The player takes on the role of Danny, who makes his escape from a mental institution leaving behind a trail of murdered guards and inmates. The method of his killing is particularly gruesome – the player can stab, kick, beat, axe and even suffocate characters in the game. There is also the option to make the deaths more spectacular – the longer a certain button is held, the more violent the ensuing death. Death and murder is one of the principal elements of the game, along with basic puzzles. After about two hours playing Manhunt 2, it is impossible to argue with the BBFC’s assessment that the game is unremittingly bleak and callous.
But the violence is stylised – and not particularly real. The deaths play out as mini-scenes reminiscent of action in the current crop of horror movies that are doing so well at the box office, such as Hostel, Cabin Fever and the two titles I had watched. And the amount of killing in the game is no greater than in any number of titles that have been released in the last 12 months – from Call of Duty 4 to Bioshock. The game is currently in limbo. After the BBFC was told to issue the title with a certificate by its own Video Appeals Committee, the organisation sought and won a judicial review which forces the VAC to look again at the game. The BBFC successful argued that the VAC had been guilty of “a very serious misdirection of law” on the question of harm. The BBFC has been the UK’s “censor” for more than 90 years but in the last 20 years it has asked for fewer and fewer cuts in films, reflecting both a modernised certification system and a more liberal attitude. Last year it asked for cuts in just five films, compared with almost 60 in 1989. No figures are available for games but Manhunt 2 is certainly the most contested title in UK history. As games become ever more photo-real and as developers start tackling ever more adult themes the BBFC could find itself at the centre of more disputes if it continues to be the body which classifies games in the UK.
There is a growing body of opinion calling for pan-European game classifications to replace national systems. There is currently a voluntary system, called PEGI, which sits alongside BBFC ratings in the UK. Dr Tanya Byron, who is conducting a review of video games and their impact on children, is believed to favour PEGI replacing the BBFC. One game developer told BBC News that he believed the Manhunt 2 controversy was “the BBFC trying to prove it has teeth in an attempt to avoid being pushed out of the way in favour of PEGI”. Rockstar says it is committed to seeing Manhunt 2 released in the UK and one staff member said he was “quietly confident” the VAC would rule in its favour. Critics of the classification system point out that the VAC is a panel chosen by the BBFC and it is unclear when the committee will meet to decide the game’s fate. A spokeswoman for the BBFC said no date was in the diary. She said: “Classification is not a science; it’s a judgement based on guidelines. “It went too far. There are concerns about the whole tone of the game and what it may or may not do to people who play the game. “Our judgement is a line we have drawn at this game,” said the spokeswoman. “If the VAC do not find in our favour, then that line has to move,” she added. Gamers and the game industry are waiting to see what happens to that line. |
||||||
There are concerns about the whole tone of the game and what it may or may not do to people who play the game 
