advertisement

Develop 08: Lawyer warns about ratings

By Alex Sassoon Coby, GameSpot UKPosted Jul 31, 2008 8:51 am PT

Arbitrary nature of the UK system for denying games classification puts the industry at risk, says developer representative.

BRIGHTON--Attendees at the 2008 Develop Conference and Expo today heard that BioShock 2 could theoretically be next in line for a ban in light of the BBFC's attempt to block the publication of Manhunt 2.

Vincent Scheurer of Sarassin LLP, who represents UK games developers, gave a talk titled "Games Censorship in Britain: What really happened with Manhunt 2 and why your game could be next." He addressed what details there are about the reasons behind the BBFC's 2007 decision to ban Rockstar's survival horror game and what that decision and the subsequent legal wrangling mean for developers.

He also touched on the current "playground fight" between ELSPA and the BBFC over the future of game ratings in Britain but made it very clear that the current system through which games are potentially refused classification is an entirely different issue to the classifications themselves.

The BBFC's reasons for banning Manhunt 2 lack the clarity expected or demanded of a public body, Scheurer said, and those reasons that they have made clear fail to hold water in any meaningful way. It is this lack of clarity, and the seeming arbitrary nature of the decision, that pose a clear and present danger to UK developers, he explained. The ban was overturned by the decisions of the Video Appeals Committee and High Court.

Other than the initial release citing the game's unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone, the only publicly available information on the reasons behind the BBFC's decision are those statements made in court during the process of the appeal. These include their recommendations to the Video Appeals Committee and some of the statements made during the hearing held by that committee.

It is those recommendations and statements that make the most chilling reading, according to Scheurer. The lawyer representing the BBFC at that hearing cited as problems, among other things, that violence was being perpetrated against "real people" and not "daleks or griffins" and that the weapons were generally everyday objects rather than "magic wands." The statement from the BBFC head made to the VAC was obtained by Scheurer. The BBFC executive took particular exception to the game's emphasis on stealth and the advantage conferred on the player by sneaking up on enemies, rather than fighting them face-to-face, and cited the game's emphasis on sneaking and sneak attacks as a particular reason for the decision to deny it certification. The realism conferred by the visceral nature of the game's soundtrack was also called out as a particular concern.

Scheurer was at pains to point out that Manhunt 2 broke no laws, criminal or civil. He said that there are laws in place to ensure that publications of any kind--be they books, movies, or games--that do break such laws are removed from the public domain and to ensure that those responsible for their publication are punished. The difference, according to Scheurer, is that the BBFC system is not based on evidence or proof of any kind, but merely the moral judgement of those at the top of the BBFC. The BBFC itself cites such things as "reinforcing unhealthy fantasies" or "limiting [players'] ability for compassion" as potential reasons for blocking publication of anything that falls under its remit.

The upshot of all this, Scheurer said, is that under the current legal system and with the Manhunt 2 case as precedent, the BBFC could on a whim decide to ban any other title that it feels has "no humour substantial enough to alleviate the unrelenting bleakness" or where "the puzzle element is limited and does not alleviate the dominant violent theme" as it did with Manhunt 2.

So what does this mean for UK developers? Addressing the points made by the BBFC in their decision, Scheurer indicated that games such as Metal Gear Solid 4 and BioShock could easily have fallen foul of any number of the criticisms levelled by the BBFC at Manhunt 2, especially given the abhorrence for stealth gameplay in evidence. This puts UK developers in a legal quandary, as many publishing contracts are dependent on games passing classification hurdles and the current uncertainty makes the process of independent games development that much harder and more uncertain.

40 Comments

  • Hexagon_777

    Posted Apr 14, 2009 2:14 pm PT

    This is why the PEGI should do the age ratings for videogames in the UK, not the BBFC.

  • it009x9281

    Posted Oct 20, 2008 4:41 am PT

    Anything happens these days the games get the blame

  • Valdir_Imrov

    Posted Aug 24, 2008 10:16 am PT

    @ bfme2_master

    They allowed Bioshock 1 through, so I doubt they're going to ban Bioshock 2. The only games that have been banned so far are the Manhunt games, and the Manhunt 2 ban was overruled.

    But I do agree that the BBFC = bad news for the games industry, with their power to ban any game they want for reasons such as "the puzzle element doesn't detract from the action element."

    This is why I'm glad the PS3 is region free and that I can import my games from the US. If only I could do the same for my 360. You'd think that a company that made PCs would see the need for region free coding. I hate censorship. Censorship is just another form of dictatorship. I mean there are obvious exceptions, but on the whole, the age rating should be enough to indicate that some games are not for children.

  • bfme2_master

    Posted Aug 23, 2008 1:30 pm PT

    haha! in the usa all game bans have been struck down as "unconstitutional". i can only hope that this defense holds. in the mean time, i'll pity the brits and aussies while playing bioshock 2.

  • ps3thabest

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 4:40 pm PT

    mgs4 and bioshock? wow, what a bunch of losers.

  • Pete5506

    Posted Aug 3, 2008 5:04 pm PT

    This is sorta dumb

  • tawagivercetti

    Posted Aug 2, 2008 7:49 pm PT

    would hate to offend those sensitive censors..... in twenty years people will laugh at what we censored.

  • sandshark8

    Posted Aug 2, 2008 6:04 pm PT

    No Bioshock 2!!! Don't leave me!!!

  • Blood_Diamond

    Posted Aug 1, 2008 6:03 pm PT

    WHEN IS THIS GAME COMING OUT IN THE UK! THAT'S ALL I WANNA KNOW... or does the USA version work on uk ps3's? some please drop me a P.M. if you know the answer

  • WeWerePirates

    Posted Aug 1, 2008 1:59 pm PT

    This is a problem with the BBFC in general and not just video games. There is minimal accountability if they they arbitrarily decide to ban something. However in practice it isn't that big a problem, In principle they could ban anything on moral grounds leading to a lengthy appeals process which they invariably lose in practise they will do so very rarely. It's more worrying that they've decide to single out games as a battleground to make a moralistic stand. They can get away with attempting to ban one game every now and then and not enough people will be that bothered, do it too often and there'll be mainstream backlash on the issue of free expression. If that happens there will be political points to be scored in clamping down on the BBFC. So while on a point of principle I am sad that this afront to free expression is allowed to stand in practice it isn't a huge problem.

  • darkdragonmage9

    Posted Aug 1, 2008 8:47 am PT

    @VirtualTofu I guess if you consider nudity to be sinful then there is no way to could be the overly religious type that that post makes you look like

    nude is the way god made us after all that and we all came from 2 people so no matter who you do it's incest but you get the picture

  • pimpfrogpimp

    Posted Aug 1, 2008 6:28 am PT

    The BBFC are idiots, I mean I don't even use the ESRB rating system...if i see a game I think i'd like i get it...I understand it is good for parents that don't really play video games but still buy them for they're kids, but other then that it's useless and groups like BBFC should just stick their nose where the sun don't shine and leave our games alone.

  • Irve

    Posted Aug 1, 2008 2:33 am PT

    oooooo , scare mongering !!
    he does have a valid point the BBFC really dropped the ball with Manhunt 2 .. the edited version should have passed without comment .. but they wanted to prove a point and ended up getting burnt !

  • auntbessie

    Posted Aug 1, 2008 1:00 am PT

    It's all crap, if you're already a psycho then a computer game isn't going to send you over the edge. The censors are a bunch of old farts out of touch with the modern generation who are deluded in thinking they're doing the right thing. They piss on my barbecue all too frequently for my liking, get's right up my arse

  • CureForLiving

    Posted Jul 31, 2008 11:14 pm PT

    I have no problem with ratings what bothers me is the fact that people thing that by banning games the world will be a better place, but the truth is there are good people that do good things and bad people that do bad things and video games don't factor into that.

  • VirtualTofu

    Posted Jul 31, 2008 8:42 pm PT

    We need ED (Educational; Suitable for Everyone, but Made For Different Age Groups ED4+, ED7+), EC (Early Child for Non-Educational Games), Everyone, Everyone 10+, T13+, T16+, M, AO (Adults Only), and Adults Geared. Adults Geared would have games like Playboy that may not have nudity, but are still adult orientated or Scene It, where an adult with more movie experience would enjoy the game better. I think some E10+ plus games are too violent, but way less than T games. I think Halo is far less violent than most M rated games, but what is God of War doing with nudity, violence to appeal to adults, and gore, when its' rated M. It should be AO. Games that reward players with violence like MK and God of War should be AO. Nudity should be for adults only, although I can't decide what's worse anymore. Porn nudity is worse than violence, nudity in general is tamer than violence, yet children see more violence today and are enthralled in it. Then again, if they saw adults being nude, they might feel its fine to emulate that. Nudity is illegal to view under 18, yet it exists in 17+ games. I don't think the plus is for "Must be over 17" Then again, nudity can exist in animation form as long as its on DVD, not television.

    Violence or nudity for fun should be considered sinful and kept from children, however, you can't condemn children taught to be violent like those captured in Africa or condem nudity in countries that legalize beach nudity for children or condem poor nude children seen on "Feed the Children" commercials, etc.

    I'm not saying young children would witness violence and porn that often, but I know many pre-teens who have played a GTA game. I also find it outrageous that gambling is in E games and Alcohol is in T games. The games don't usually authorize drinking, but shouldn't a game be 21+ if it involves doing something you must be 21 in real life to do?

    I always considered myself mature of course and played Casear's Pa lace at age 11, MK at 12, and Resident Evil at 15, but I never fell in love with the gameplay. Well, MK was cool for violence, but I now realize it doesn't make a game better. Unless you consider combos violent. Then, yes, combo violence makes a game WAY better.

  • somberfox

    Posted Jul 31, 2008 7:48 pm PT

    "The ESRB system isn't the perfect solution either. I mean, why even have a category of AO when the console companies won't even allow that game to exist? It just doesn't make sense to me."

    Because there are PC games that carry the AO rating. Like the uncut version of the last Leisure Suit Larry game, or Fahrenheit (uncut version of Indigo Prophecy), or Playboy: The Mansion's Private Party expansion pack for example.

  • Birdman1333

    Posted Jul 31, 2008 4:42 pm PT

    Has anyone thought about legally trying to get an AO game on a console? I would think there is some wiggle room to challenge that restriction. You don't have dvd player manufacturers dictating what can go in the dvd player.

  • xlizard-beta

    Posted Jul 31, 2008 2:36 pm PT

    i think its rediculouse they have ratings and the players are warned before the play the game and i mean you have to be a certain age to buy rated M games so just let M rated video games be.

  • killer_rabbit20

    Posted Jul 31, 2008 1:59 pm PT

    I don't understand why we need ratings anyways. They are just games, it should still say on the back "violence, laungage, ect" but that's it. They are games, and they are animated charactors fighting eachother. What's the big deal anyways?

BioShock 2 Quick Links

Summary | News | Previews & Features | Images | Videos | Downloads | Answers | Forum | Check Prices

Check Prices: $59.99 – 59.99

GameStop $59.99 SHOP ›
Best Buy $59.99 SHOP ›
advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

Related Unions

BioShock 2 Boxshot Enlarge the boxshot
BioShock 2

Game Stats

Full Game Details »Close
Also on

Games you may like…

Users who looked at content for this game also looked at these games.

See More Similar Games
advertisement