A Right To Know user successfully submitted a Freedom of Information request to see files related to the Australian Classification Board’s decision to manhunt on the PlayStation 2 in 2004.
They got their wish. You can read all files here.
It’s a fascinating journey back in time and will bring back a wave of memories for gamers who were around before. In 2003, the game had been swinging for sale in Australia, but was later banned in 2004 when then Solicitor General Phillip Ruddock asked for the game’s classification to be revised. Since Australia did not have an R18+ rating for games, manhunt exceeded the limits of what was considered permissible under an MA15+ rating, which meant that classification had to be refused. The ban was maintained and copies from across Australia were recalled. In the short window it was available, manhunt sold 18,000 copies in Australia.
Manhunt’s ban foreshadowed a tectonic shift in how video games were perceived in the Australian media landscape. Still considered children’s toys and not much more, the game’s ban sparked a tidal wave of support for expanding the R18+ rating used in film and television to games. Again, games were already using the same system – but it didn’t go any higher than MA15+.
It would be another nine years before the R18+ rating would be applied to games in Australia. Wild to think about now, isn’t it? We have only had an R18+ rating for games in Australia since 2012.
manhunt, a Rockstar game, was a thriller about a death row inmate who was forced to act in a series of snuff films. It wasn’t a very good game either, but that wasn’t the point. Australian gamers weren’t allowed to have it and that’s why we really wanted it.
There are so many clumps of information in these files. So many tidbits that tell us about the procedure back then for rating games like manhunt. The game’s synopsis in the Board’s report makes it rather tame: “A death row inmate wakes up and finds himself in a game. He follows mysterious instructions and must fight his way out gang-ridden environments.“
“In the opinion of the Council, this game deserves an MA rating because, in accordance with Part 4 of the National Film Table, Classification code, this is not suitable for access by persons under 15,” reads the ruling.
Further on you can see what GG Ruddock’s office got involved in at the time. There is some back and forth as the board makes it clear that they have already reviewed the game and there are procedures in place to review it should Ruddock’s team wish.
Finally the deed is done. An e-mail from an Assistant Policy Officer dated Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 10:29 AM:
Hi OFLC,
Following a meeting on September 20, 2004, the Review Board decided last night (via conference call) to deny classification to manhunt.
If you have any questions, let me know.
Thank you to everyone who helped with the review.
But there’s more! Documents show that in December 2003 publisher Take-Two Interactive appealed to the OFLC for classification with a detailed explanation of the game and footage on a VHS tape. submission, “manhunt is essentially a traditional story of good versus evil, of well-meaning individuals triumphing over a corrupt and controlling system and ultimately some sort of redemption.”
Take-Two seems to acknowledge that some of the media hysteria surrounding the game’s content at the time was an accident, in part due to its own creation. By keeping the game a secret but marketing it as a sadomasochistic thriller never seen before in games, Take-Two had inadvertently let people construct the theory about its content. Those rumours, mostly fabricated by internet edge lords, sparked more media scrutiny. Take-Two tries to explain: “The level of secrecy surrounding the game’s development and lack of official information has led to a lot of speculation about posting this game on bulletin boards, most based entirely on rumors and completely lacking on which ones. factual basis whatsoever.”
And finally we have the notes. Pages and pages of handwritten notes by the person assigned to give manhunt a review. They are brilliant.
The notes cover a wide variety of topics, such as violence (“Baseball bat with spikes – close by – blood flies/sprays”), swearing (“fuck, shit, bastards”), or both (“head blown – “damn”) . Some are just to remind the writer of certain details or likely future conclusions – ’12 levels’, ‘MA’ and ‘medium violence’. Certain incidents of violence are noted to determine whether they fall under medium or high violence.
The game is judged by at least three people, all with different handwriting, all drawing the same conclusion: MA15+. The final sheet below the documents is the game’s original consumer advice: “MA15+, High-Level Animated Violence, Medium Level Coarse Language.”
Either way, a fascinating insight into what went on behind closed doors at a time that would revolutionize the Australian media landscape. You can read the files in full here.
0 Comments