Robbway
Shared on Tue, 06/19/2007 - 11:22I'm a stickler for details. The original article in Gamepolitics says that "Citing “unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying,” the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has refused to rate the ultra-violent sequel, effectively banning it from U.K. shores." The game isn't actually banned. The important thing to understand here, is that the BBFC is stating quite publically that they are incompetent and can't rate a game based on their own system. Since it is an "effective" ban, it opens them up to civil suits based on fair trade practices. Keep in mind that I'm in the USA and I'm not totally sure how the BBFC is backed by law, but the BBFC was FORCED to rate the game Carmageddon for that very reason in 1997 (ref. featured article).
Here in the USA, an "AO" rating would probably make it fail as a product, but it wouldn't be banned here, either. The ESRB is also in a really tough decision point. Unless they rate it "M," for 17-and-older people, it will appear that politics was the deciding factor in not rating or rating an AO. From that reasoning, an "M" decision is also a politically-motivated decision. No matter what the ESRB does, they're screwed. The best way to rate this game at this point would be to find a similar game and rate it the same. Mortal Kombat pops into mind, and its an "M." They should make a point-by-point record of this decision. That way, even if the rating seems politically motived, you can look at the decision and how it did its best to rise above the hype.
Personally, I feel this game is thriving enough on this negative press that it may be the first mass-sold Ao or unrated title. I still have no intention to buy it. It just sounds like a silly game.
- Robbway's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Submitted by Robbway on Thu, 06/21/2007 - 05:43