Fairly recently in Britain, the video game Manhunt 2 was banned outright. This means it is actually illegal for game vendors to sell it anywhere in the country. Anyone caught selling the game can face up to 6 months in prison, and a fine of up to £20,000 (approximately $40,000). As it is only illegal to sell and not own the game, it is fundamentally possible to purchase a copy from the continent, but all imports of the game face a risk of being seized by HM Customs.

The basic premise of the game is: Your character is blackmailed into killing people in an increasingly brutal manner by an unseen antagonist in order to stay alive and find out exactly what is going on. It involves the player using stealth tactics to achieve their goal, a result of which is the creation of an almost crippling sense of tension. I would like to point out that I played the first Manhunt game for about half an hour and got fairly bored of it, so it's not like this whole argument is a biased opinion based on the fact that I love the game.

The British Board of Film Classification has banned the game on the grounds that "There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.". Now I don't know about you, but if I were to dip my hand into a big basket of first-person-shooters, I'd be very likely to bring back more games than I could physically carry in which the player "casually" shoots the hell out of wave after wave of marauding bad-guys in varying guises. Apparently this is different though. Somehow this doesn't show that guns can be fun. Kind of ironic that in a country with an increasing level of gun violence, the government's "Games teach kids how to murder" policy overlook these matters. Or is it maybe that they were brought up playing Doom and Wolfenstein, and that these games are actually OK.

Another factor that leads to the banning of this game, and near banning of the previous game, is that the game was found in possession of a 17 year old boy in Leicestershire, who attacked and murdered a 14 year old with a hammer and a knife. The parents of the victim blamed the murder on fact that the defendant seemed obsessed with playing the first game. I do not agree with this accusation in the slightest!. It is not the fact that the game depicts graphic violence that gave the boy the incentive to murder, it is the simple fact that - If you have the capacity to murder, you are ever so slightly fucked up in the head, and therefore, will enjoy games with a hint of sickness about them more than anyone else. Thankfully, I believe the court saw it this way too, and this did not stand up. It did however lead to the game nearly being banned as a result of it's use in the trial.

Now the BBFC has got their greasy mitts on Manhunt 2 and have successfully banned it in this country. I believe that this is a step too far with little reasoning behind it. They claim that the game portrays graphic scenes of violence and should therefore not be on sale in Britain. However, I can think of plenty of films that show mindless violence for the sake of violence. Might I bring to light as an example, the three "Saw" films, and to a lesser, but still as gory extent, the "Final Destination" films? These are films that appear to have been written with the simple fact of the justification of the violence inherent in them, yet they are slapped with an 18 certificate, and stocked on the shelves. I believe that Manhunt 2 should also get this treatment, as it is clearly in the same vein. The only difference being, the people enjoying the game are in control of the action instead of just watching it. This fact in itself should warrant it less disturbing compared to the films, because the player has some control over what goes on, and is not forced to simply sit back and watch events unfold. Simply viewing would encourage the close watching of the violence in the films and how it is achieved. Much more dangerous than pressing a button on a controller, enjoying and almost cartoon-realism depiction of a murder, then moving onto the next 3D rendered character. I would also argue that during game play, the player is not in the correct state of mind to pick up any helpful hints on how to murder someone, because of the state of tension that is created by the game itself.

I live in a country where the laws on alcohol for under 18s are governed so well, you pretty much have to get a fake ID if you want to get served before that magical age. If they can police these laws so well, why can't they be as strict about the 18 certificates on movies and games if they believe them to be so "dangerous". This also draws up the argument concerning parents who will buy their children these games because the children are not old enough to buy them themselves. I myself received Grand Theft Auto III for the Playstation way before I was 18, but my parents made an educated decision based on what the game depicts, and who they were buying it for. They know that I am not the sort of person who would rampage around in the game, then pop out to steal myself some cars. You have to wonder if it's the parent's fault for basing the kids on a shoddy upbringing and buying them these games. If the kids don't have the fundamental knowledge of what's right and wrong known as common sense to those of us brought up properly, then how should they be expected to behave when they are faced with these fun things to do on their consoles? I believe how a person reacts to a situation is firmly based on their knowledge and their upbringing. Those who don't know better will do these stupid things. However! When it comes to things like murder, it's written deep down in the very cockles of our souls that taking another life is wrong. Unless, as I mentioned before, they're one can short of a six-pack.

Certificating the game could well prove to be a double edged sword however. On the plus side, the game would be on the shelves and available to the straight minded mature public, but it would also place the game in a certain class of "unobtainable, and therefore cool" things in a teenager's eye. To a juvenile, things like smoking and drinking are considered the height of cool, because they are prohibited in relation to their age group. As soon as you take something away from a child, they want it more than ever. Again, it's a basic human instict to crave what we do not have. Unfortunately there does appear to be no way of blunting one side this particular double edged sword because should the certificate be taken away, the children will play the game regardless. It's a computer game, it's their domain. Certificating it seems to be the best and most realistic course of action, and parents need to take heed of the somewhat obvious warnings about the content of the game.

I would say that the game depicts lessons to be learned about how blackmail and murder are bad things though. It sure as hell does not glorify the murders. There is nothing bright and shiny about the atmosphere and environments in the game. If somebody plays this game, cracks a beer, sits back and thinks "Yeah, murdering people in seedy run-down back alleys in the dark is my idea of a great evening" then its generally considered that not all their dogs are barking. I would also wager that their dogs have been somewhat mute for a fair amount of time before they played the game as well. You don't watch a horror movie because you want to be invigorated by the fantastic screenplay, you watch it because you want to get away from your dreary day to day life, spend an hour and a half in another world, free from actual danger, yet somehow full of it at the same time. People like this make the mature decision to watch the movie, or not to watch the movie - and it works exactly the same with computer games. If you don't want to see graphic scenes of violence in a video game, there's a very simple solution. Don't play the videogame! The certificates and the descriptions are there for a reason! You can't claim that you stumbled into paying £40 pounds for the game, accidentally tripped and dropped it into your console, and inadvertently played it for 3 hours straight, and them came across the incredible notion that it contains graphic scenes of violence that shock the sweet bejeezus out of you. You made the decision to play the game, and you have to take the consequences that come with that decision too.

What has happened with Manhunt 2 in Britain (Ireland, and soon to be Italy too) is censorship gone off the chain. People who are old enough to play the certificated games are generally mature enough to know that it is not cool to go copy what goes on in them during their spare time. This is primarily why they play the game in the first place, because it allows a temporary escape from reality. (After all, they are a virtual reality) Another thing that is unfortunately written deep down in the very cockles of our souls is to fear what is different. When all is said and done, all this seems to boil down to the simple old story of the older generation not understanding the younger generation, and vice versa. Discouragingly, this story does not have an ending, and continues to be written as you read this...

One final unfortunate fact, is that the older generation always seems to be the one with more power...