Slashdot Mirror
Manhunt 2 Ban Fallout, Game Rated AO By ESRB
In the wake of yesterday's announcement of a UK ban on Manhunt 2 , Rockstar has registered its disappointment at the BBFC's decision. The company simply stated that they 'respect those who have different opinions about the horror genre and videogames as a whole, but we hope they will also consider the opinions of the adult gamers for whom this product is intended.' Meanwhile, here in the US, the ESRB has given the game the dreaded AO rating, for adults only. If you're unfamiliar with this seldom-seen designation, it's essentially the 'kiss of death' for a title at retail; a number of popular videogame outlets refuse to carry titles with that rating. MTV's Stephen Totilo has a lengthy and considered discussion of these proceedings. "For 'Manhunt 2,' signs pointed to the title being both less and more extreme than the first. Gone from press previews were mentions of snuff films and Directors. Instead, a more traditionally violent video game premise: one man's struggle to stay alive in an insane asylum gone mad."
That's right along my first thought after reading the summary. Brutally violent games shouldn't be rated AO? Wha?
I can understand the outrage over an outright ban, but rating a game appropriately, regardless of the consequences to the bottom lines of the companies involved, sounds like a good move to me.
I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
Is there any compelling reason why kids SHOULD be allowed to buy this game?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I LIVE in the US and I've never understood this perspective either. I would rather kids see sex than see violence every single day, let alone realistically murder people. While it is true that 99% of people who play video games WONT go psycho, there is always the remainder who are already rather disturbed or whatever reason, who definately don't need help.
That's right along my first thought after reading the summary. Brutally violent games shouldn't be rated AO? Wha?
I can understand the outrage over an outright ban, but rating a game appropriately, regardless of the consequences to the bottom lines of the companies involved, sounds like a good move to me.
The only thing I really see wrong with it is that it seems that video games get rated more harshly than movies, and there's no reason for it. You press buttons for one and you don't for the other. I'd like to compare Manhunt 2 to Hostel 2 and see which is worse, because I imagine the answer is Hostel 2. Maybe the same board should rate video games and movies?
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
Quite frankly, I personally think games like Manhunt 2 are decadent garbage. That said, if someone wants to purchase and play these games they should be free to do so.
This sort of excessive regulation, to me, reflects the general decline and weakness of the West. We've got these nanny states run by people who increasingly believe it's their responsibility to control every aspect of our lives. More troubling is how citizens are themselves abdicating all responsibility, expecting their governments to do everything for them. What these people apparently fail to realize is that inevitable the system will eventually come around and start trampling on their freedoms; it's a very slippery slope.
Ultimately, it's the parents who should be responsible for what their children are doing. If a child who plays these ultra-violent games has violent tendencies I'll guarantee those issues stem from poor parenting and not the game. From personal experience this has always been the case. The fact that the child has access to such games is merely a symptom of that problem.
As long as humans have been around there has been violence. I'm not making excuses for that violence, but humanity has in general gotten along fine. Look at the level of violence depicted in a lot of anime that officials in the US feel the need to censor. Yet Japan maintains extremely low crime rates.
Sometimes I think trying to shield children by depicting an unrealistic, utopian fantasy is a big mistake. It renders them poorly equipped to deal with the harshness of the real world. I'm not advocating they participate in violent blood sports, but as always everything in moderation is best.
They took a 25 million dollar loss last year, are you sure they have this capital you speak of?
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
"I LIVE in the US and I've never understood this perspective either."
It's actually very easy to understand. Just ask a couple of questions:
How many high school seniors have fathered or mothered a child?
How many high school seniors have killed a person?
The thinking is along the lines of: "I remember what it was like when I was in school, and I don't want my child getting/causing pregnancy and ruining their life." The idea that they're going to go Columbine at a school is a distant thought.
It's not about the act, it's about the probability of it becoming a problem in the household. I don't personally subscribe to that line of thought, but it's not like half the country took a crazy pill or something.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Nonsense. The summary made it perfectly clear why they don't want the AO mark: a number of cowardly stores refuse to stock AO games. Fewer stores means less visibility and fewer sales, even if they really only want adults purchasing the game. For a game that was expensive to produce, an AO rating can destroy the producers chance of making a profit. A Mature mark would get them into most stores with almost identical effectiveness (AO is 18+, while M is 17+).
Exactly as many people predicted, the ratings system, even a voluntary one, has stifled creativity. The ratings system resulted in incentives for stores to refuse to stock the highest rated games to appease the whiners. Not being carried in stores reduces sales, frequently to the point of ensuring the game will be a commercial failure. Developers and publishers to restrict what they do to avoid the top rating mark. End result: you get almost nothing specifically intended for the adult market. What you do get tends to be low quality and pandering, because shameless crap is the only thing likely to make money. The end result is that the highest rating becomes associated with pandering garbage, which just reenforces the entire cycle. You're pretty much guaranteed that some topics and some styles of gameplay that serious game developers might want to turn into a top quality title will either be watered down or simply never produced.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I forget where, but there was a wonderful british study recently that found the suspension of disbelief was harmed by playing a videogame compared to watching a movie. The physical requirement of interacting with a game makes it difficult to forget that you're seeing something fake. Watching a movie, however, has less dischordant elements which stick out, and such things can be more easily glossed over as they require no attention on the part of the user.
Anyone have a link?
The ______ Agenda
Manhunt 2 - Rated so it can only be purchased by adults or with parental permission.
Remember that both these rating systems are up to the enforcement of the establishments as is not actually legally binding
Now for a more telling comparison on why Manhunt should actually be more restricted than hostile. Here are some possible quotes after enjoying these two entertainment devices.
Hostile 2 - "I saw this one scene where the person was killed in a really horrific way"
Manhunt 2 - "I killed this one person in this really horrific way"
Hopefully you can see the difference. One is a movie you were you watch people get killed, while the other allows you to simulate killing people.
Notice I am not supporting a complete ban, but have no issue with realistic ratings.
While both Europe and the U.S. have a pretty retarded policies when it comes to censorship (neither violence nor sex are appropriate things for the government to censor), the idea that sex in media is worse than violence does make sense. It is very, very, very unlikely that someone is going to commit murder. It is very, very, very likely that someone is going to have sex.
And why does it matter? It's very, very, very likely that someone is going to eat sometime, so we should censure all references to food in movies? Sex is a natural behavior, everybody will engage in it sooner or later (there's still some hope left for you slashdotters!), and educating children about sex is a much better way to go about things than making it a forbidden and hidden dirty secret. Procreation is part of the normal functioning of human race and society. Murder isn't. What's the message you send kids when you're ok showing them somebody's head blown off, but have a conniption at the accidental sight of a nipple?
The whole thing still smacks of irrational fear. No different than the Osamas in Pajamas hiding under the stairs. God forbid people actually, you know...pay attention to their kids?
However, I think its not so much about the probability of sex vs probability of violence. Lets look at US history for just a brief moment. Who came here first? Oh thats right the uber puritans...you know...scarlet letter and all. The folks that believed it was perfectly natural to burn whiches, stone whores, drown the nonbelievers, cut out tongues, and any other number of horrifically violent things...and these horrific and violent responses were frequently in response to that horribly impure and immoral SEX!. So this stuff has been ingrained into American thought from day 1. Sex is horrible and impure and an affront to God, violence on the other hand is frequently used to glorify God, so the choice of violence vs sex seems pretty easy, how else could you possibly justify stoning the whore?
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
NC-17 is a kiss of death for theatrical movies because they aren't porn. They didn't just lay down a few grand to get a girl who knows how to fuck on camera, find a room somewhere and capture the fun on video. If a movie is being made, and they're going for an R rating, that's still mass-market. In all likelihood it's a multi-million dollar venture, and they expect a return on that - a return they can't get with NC-17, simply because theaters won't show NC-17 movies. Hence, death.
"Owning NC-17 movies" these days is a bit different than it used to be, thanks to the "DVD special edition" phenomenon - a movie can get released to theaters with an R rating and then sold in stores with both R and NC-17 (or unrated) cuts as alternate purchasing options - the "restored footage" becomes added value. This is a strategy that could potentially work for games, but it would probably be difficult to make it work.
AO is pretty much the same. There is no practical difference between an M-rating and an AO-rating in terms of the definition: 17+ vs. 18+, one whole year. M-rating is just the version of AO that gets sold in stores. It's like AO exists separately only so it can be shunned - to make M-rating look tame by comparison.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
"I forget where, but there was a wonderful british study recently that found the suspension of disbelief was harmed by playing a videogame compared to watching a movie."
The BBFC are the British organisation that refused to give a rating to Manhunt 2 in the UK. They are also the organisation that commissioned the survey you're thinking of,
"Video Games Research to improve understanding of what players enjoy about video games, and to explain their preferences for particular games" (PDF)
Bear in mind that this is a survey of attitudes, not a scientific report that proves anything. It does raise a lot of subtle and complex issues though so I'd recommend you review the following sections in detail,
"6.3 Violence: gamers"
pp. 71 - 80
"6.4 Violence: professionals"
pp. 81 - 87