Slashdot Mirror
AO Rating Basically Bans Manhunt 2 From Release
Yesterday we discussed Manhunt 2's AO rating, and what it meant for the game's retail outlook. Gamespot points out that effectively an AO rating means that the game will never be released in the first place. "Both [Nintendo and Sony] forbid licensed third-party publishers from releasing games rated AO for Adults Only on their various hardware platforms. Though Manhunt 2 isn't slated for any of Microsoft's systems, the company has also confirmed that it does not allow AO-rated titles on the Xbox or Xbox 360. The sole exception to this rule was in 2005 when the already released Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was retroactively rated AO, at which point retailers pulled it from shelves and Take-Two suspended production of the game."
Wait...So console makers do the whole "morality police" thing regarding what games are released on their consoles? WTF? So much for catering to the only demographic that actually has the money to buy one of their consoles. I've got about as much desire to play Manhunt 2 as I do to attach electrodes to my nuts, but it still pisses me off that they would pull crap like this.
Chalk up another one for PC gaming.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
We'll just make it so you'll never work in this town again. Wow! Someone call McCarthy!
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
What about the rights of the company? Why do they have an obligation to let any particular company develop against or game be released for their platform?
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
Keep your Bible off my game and I'll keep my game off of you.
"Don't blink. Don't even blink. Blink and you're dead."
There's always PC gaming, right?
I can see Nintendo with the kid friendly Wii not wanting AO games but the PS3 and the 360? what about Dead or alive volley ball or BMX-XXX I for one have a Wii and would love to play this game on it, but I guess big brothers "Nintendo, Sony, and MS" know whats best for me.
Could this be the time to change the console video game distribution model? Let the customers buy directly from them. The game cases can be very simply [one slip of paper in the from stating the game name], manual could be downloaded form their website in PDF format, etc. If they save all this money of the case/printing manual/cutting out the middle man could they sell the game for 30 or 40 bucks and still profit?
If they tried this model I would more then likely buy the game to support it.
So first we've got the BBFC and now Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo who have decided that adults aren't capable of deciding if they can play a game. That's gotta be the most patronising thing I've come across in quite a while. "Oh sure you can go out and die for your country, but we've decided this game isn't suitable for you. We think this is for the best". Thank God we've got NGOs and multi-national corporations to protect us from this immoral world of mature themes.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
...is just a masterful marketing campaign. Rockstar has always been brilliant with finding ways to piss people off to generate all kinds of press for their games.
They're not allowing a release of any AO titles simply because they won't make any money off them - The major retailers (Walmart, Target, Best Buy) and game stores (Gamestop/EB/etc) have their own company policies of not stocking AO titles. What sense does it make for the three console manufacturers to allow a game to be released on their system if it won't sell? It'd only make *their* system look bad, and none of them (especially Sony) can afford that right now.
they better not say that this is why the game is not selling.
On, one hand, I would love to see more serious AO-rated games. On the other, I think if that would happen, 95% of them would be silly exploitation games like Manhunt 2.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Just how many AO titles are produced each year? And is there anywhere that lists all the AO games?
The AO rating is appropriate.
Denying them the ability to release for the console is silly, though obviously within their rights. I wish they would reconsider, because that's a kick in the balls after so much money, time, and effort has been sunk by developers to create this.
I expect the developer to leverage the power of their other games to convince these companies to relax this AO-ban on their consoles in order for them to at least recoup some of the costs of making Manhunt II.
That said, Manhunt was a terrible game. I'm a gamer, not a violencer. I'm entertained by the gameplay not the violence. It was a severely dumbed down Splintercell, but instead of grabbing and incapacitating guards, it tried to sell itself by incapacitating them with snuff-film kills. Whoop-de-freaking-doo, it adds up to the same thing. The violence doesn't excite me, nor does it repulse me. It -nothings- me, and since that was the main draw of this game, it is filled with mainly nothing. I'm still open to the idea that Manhunt II could improve on this formula, but its predecessor leaves me with little confidence. I'd be more upset about this game not getting released if the first wasn't so boring.
Bullshit. While I enjoy a good emotional appeal like McCarthyism as much as the next guy, in this case it's just bull.
1. During the McCarthy era the government actually sent letters to businesses and otherwise bullied them into toeing the party line. In this case I don't think it's the ESRB who's telling Nintendo and Sony to not publish AO games. You know, what with both being Japanese companies and all.
2. McCartyism made sure that you'll never work again, while this at worst means not publishing a game. For extra points: a game they should have had a good idea from the start that it'll get an AO rating. I'm sorry but there's a freakin' massive difference between the two.
And incidentally: no, you don't have a sacred right to make a profit at all cost. There's a difference between freedom of speech, which is what the McCarthy era was infringing on, and the right to make a profit by selling ultra-violent games to kids. I mean, what next? The right to open a cocaine stand in a school?
3. Sorry to dawn some reality upon your self-righteous parrade, but the ESRB is the gaming industry's own organizations. It's not like that AO rating came from some oppressive congressional comission. It's the gaming industry's own organization, and it uses people who are unaffiliated with either the government or the devs to judge a game's suitability for kids. So basically it's some people like you and me who judged that, nope, a game where extreme violence is the _whole_ game is unsuitable to kids.
And let me say that again: I'm a gamer too, but I _don't_ think it sounds like a game I'd buy for my kids.
And finally, lemme say another thing: I'm sick and tired of the whole retarded hypocrisy. Whenever someone complains about kids and violent games, what's the standard retort? "Yeah, but it wasn't for kids, most gamers are adults, adults have a right to buy a violent game if they want to, blah, blah, blah." Then the game gets an Adults Only rating, and what happens? "Auugh, censorship! McCarthyism! The government is trying to stop me from selling the game at WalMart! We'll be ruined without them selling our game!"
Well, the industry should freakin' make up its mind already. Either A or B, not both. Either you're genuinely making games for adults, in which case freakin' learn to live with a rating that says just that: "Adults Only." Or you want to sell those games to kids, in which case freakin' learn to live with what's considered apropriate for kids. Neither is wrong by itself, but choose _one_. One or the other, not both.
Because the distinct impression I'm left with, is that they want to both make a "duh, it was for adults game" _and_ then sell it to kids anyway.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Maybe it will teach Rockstar to be more original
With PC games, since you don't need Microsoft's, Apple's, NVidia's, ATI/AMD's, or Intel's blessing (dev kits and graphics hardware) to release games, ratings can actually be relevant (or irrelevant) since there are far more methods of distribution for the games (e.g., Steam, selling it online in general whether it be a downloadable or from a site like Amazon). With PC games, you don't need to self-censor yourself in order to publish the game (e.g., JFK Reloaded, all H-Anime games). Hell, you don't even need to get it rated by the ESRB! Just look at all the mods for games (e.g., Half-Life/2, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Unreal Tournament, The Sims) and games themselves (mainly indie games) that people play or buy that aren't rated.
As an argument against the ESRB's practises, however, look at other art and entertainment. Books aren't rated, yet they can be as grotesque (if not more) than Manhunt. Movies more grotesque and violent than Manhunt get away with an R rating (MPAA != ESRB, though). Not only that, but movies can be released as "unrated and uncut" (i.e., all extras haven't been MPAA-rated), yet the stores will still sell them. Hell, the news can be more grotesque on a regular basis than Manhunt, yet that doesn't get rated as TV-MA or anything like that!
If anyone has examples of other arts that have been effectively self-censored due to its rating system (e.g., a movie that was originally rated as NC-17 that had to tone it down to get R for a theatre release), please provide them. This is quite a hypocritical situation going on in the videogame world, but perhaps it used to be like this in another art and I'm just too young to have experienced that.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Rockstar can chalk up the loss of a Wii sale.
The real problem here is will this set a standard for the future of ratings on the Wii. If a game like Manhunt can't appear on the Wii because of the way that you swing the controller to kill your pray is AO, then why wasn't Zelda? Because you're not killing humans? Okay, fine. Why not Medal of Honor? Red Steel? Personally I have no interest in playing any of the Manhunt series of games, but I believe the ESRB knows what they're doing.... I just hope this isn't the new precedence for rating Wii games. I don't want to play Manhunt, but I would love a Tenchu game or similar.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
I cannot stand big brother.
Internet: Serious Business
Wish I had some points for you.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This story is already tagged "censorship." It's filed under Your Rights Online. There are already a bunch of posts about how adults should be able to decide for themselves what they want to play, so Nintendo and Sony have no right to refuse to carry it.
To all this I say Give Me an F'ing Break. I suppose by this logic movie theatres should run gruesome scat-fetish porn because, hey, otherwise they're denying you your right to see what you want! Please. How about this: maybe Rockstar should try making a game that isn't so horrifyingly gory, brutal, and cruel that it can't be justified for sale into a market heavily populated by 15-year-olds? I mean, really, there are a lot of games that get the M rating that have gibs and spurting blood all over the place. You have go out of your way to make something exceptionally vicious and sadistic in order to get an AO.
Now, should people be allowed to make gruesome scat-porn if they want? Well, I guess so. Should people be allowed to make video games that are outrageously brutal? Sure, why not. But by the same turn, Rockstar has no right to expect that the marketplace will greet them with open arms. They made the decision to go for console licensing, and then they intentionally put content into the game that they knew would be too offensive to be widely released. That's their fault.
There's no censorship or foul play of any kind here. Just Rockstar making dumb decisions.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
There are a great many things you can't do while still being able to die for your country.
For example, in the US you can die for your country but you can't drink a beer - service personnel don't have to be at least 21 years old to enlist, but you do have to be 21 to drink legally. And the same is true in the UK and most other countries. And it's not just buying a beer, it's stuff like being able to smoke, being able to drive, being able to vote, being able to stand for election, being able to marry without parental consent, etc.
In fact, I bet that there are very few nations (if any) that give you every adult right before they'll willingly let you die for your country.
But back to the topic at hand...
There is nothing wrong with society in general deciding which forms of entertainment are acceptable and which aren't. In some places cock-fighting is legal, in others it's not. In some places certain sexual acts between consenting adults is legal, in others it's not. In some places portraying certain historical figures as heroes is legal, in others it's not. Somewhere out there, using your neighbours kids for target practice might be legal, but (thankfully) most places it's not. In many aspects, this is no different.
At least in the BBFC's case, those deciding what's acceptable and what's not are following certain criteria in making their judgements, rather than handing down arbitrary decisions. Every film shown in the UK goes through their hands for classification and I don't see film makers complaining that the BBFC is over-zealous about its job, so why assume that this case is any different?
You might not like the idea of any watchdogs but at least the BBFC is a publicly accountable watchdog and will tell you why a certain classification was merited. In the case of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft, well, who knows how they decide what's OK and what's not.
Every society has rules. We don't always like them all (Please tell me why I should have to endure others poisoning me with their tobacco smoke when I wait for my train?) but it's the price we pay for being members of our communities.
If you really feel so strongly about it then I suggest you do something concrete about it: take part in the BBFC's appeals process or write to Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft and express your concerns.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Well, it's more like not allowing an XXX rated flick on any channel. And, even further, it's more like not allowing XXX rated flicks to really exist, because it's like saying "We wont allow your XXX rated flick to exist on VHS, HD/DVD, or Blu-ray. Maybe try betamax?". And it's not that XXX rated flicks are illegal. Adults are allowed to watch them. Developers are just being barred at the door from getting them out there. If they arent allowed to produce the game on any Sony, Microsoft, of Nintendo console... they're almost without option.
Now, there might still be the option of making it a PC game. But once the game has already been developed, I dont know how practical that is or isnt, without some initial console sales to recoup their development losses.
I gave away my Wii and was gonna buy another one when more games came out for it. This was one I was really looking forward to on the Wii. I love the original, and it would have been great with the Wiimote. One less reason to get another Wii. One less reason to get a PS3. One more reason to stick to upgrading my PC. One less reason to give a fuck about this generation of consoles. More expensive, less reliable, and now more censored. Consoles are losing their relevance much like arcades before them. Most are just trying to be PCs anyway, why even mess with them at all. Have fun playing Madden '20 and The Sims Paris Goes to Jail Edition. I think the platform has lost its appeal.
Personally, Sony has the right to decide what is on the hardware, as does Nintendo and Microsoft.
The ratings board just rates games.
Honestly, I have nothing wrong with this whole scenario.
I say Rockstar should release the game on the PC and sell it on the cheap, say $35-$40. Let people download it through Steam since most major retailers probably won't carry it.
Between people buying it through online retailers, and Steam, if the game still manages to sell, it will be an object lesson to those who won't carry AO titles.
More adults game than children. As a parent, I want to keep content like this from my kid's hands.
But I'd like the opportunity to play it myself.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
The game is worthy of an AO rating, nobody has any doubt this game deserves an AO rating.
Rockstar knew it would get an AO rating.
Rockstar knew no console maker would allow an AO rated game.
So basically; where's the news?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
You're joking, right?
Okay, a short list of artistic media whose producers alter content for ratings purposes:
Film, Television, Music, Radio.
When was the last time you saw a nude woman on a non-cable TV channel? Or a DJ swearing? Do you think the producers of Shrek 3 wanted it to have an R rating?
You may be young, but THINK. This happens in every medium, every day, all the time. It's utterly inherent to how these industries work. Grow up, people. This isn't censorship, it's not overblown morality, it's just normal economics. In fact, now that I think about it... just about the only medium that seems to allow TRULY free expression is literature. Go read a book.
You still don't seem to get it.
Talks about how "they" wanted to ban it, "they" found a back door, etc, are good and fine until you realize who "they" are. _Again_, it's not some government organization that gave that AO rating: the ESRB is the gaming industry's own voluntary asociation. It answers to noone else.
So who are "they"? You're trying to tell me that the rest of the game producers were conspiring against Take Two? Or what?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
There were many early horror comic books that were banned due to extreme violence. Now you don't have such restrictions. It's all a matter of Video Games maturing and gaining acceptance.
I don't see why Rockstar doesn't try to leverage GTA IV in order to get this sucker released. Just got to Sony or Microsoft and tell them which ever one lets Manhunt play on their console gets something exclusive in regards to GTA IV. These big companies treat rockstar like they have the bird flu for every other game, but when it comes to the GTA series, they are bending over backwards to accomodate them.
Come on, don't run around shouting censorship. Sony and Microsoft have a completely legitimate cause: Business.
What would the Jack Thompson crowd do if this got released? By denying to license AO games for their consoles, they can avoid bad press. Bad press = less sales. Which parent would buy a console for playing snuff games?
As a bonus, they can claim having done a thing about violence. "But look, it's only aliens or terrorists or nazis that get killed, not real humans. It could be much worse, just look at what games we had to ban from getting to our systems!"
As for the negative effect on developers: Rockstar knew about this beforehand. They decided to do this game anyway, fully knowing that an AO rating would lead to financial disaster. Perhaps they underestimated the risk, but anyway they lost the gamble. Tough shit.
The movie Team America: World Police was original given an NC-17 rating if you can believe that because the puppet sex scene was too long. You can see the original version on the Unrated and Uncut edition. The only addition is about 20 seconds which includes a scene of anilingus, the Gary pissing on Lisa's face, and Lisa shitting on Gary's face. Either way, it's still one of my top ten favorite movies of all time.
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
So, you're more comfortable with people you have no control over controlling your life than those over whom you exert direct control...and this makes you feel sublimely free from oppression. This, I hope, will soon be recognized as one of the greatest propaganda successes in history, wherein the populace has inexplicably been convinced that feudalism is preferable to democracy.
This smacks of the stuff they talked about "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" in relation to Hollywood. Self-censorship that ends up growing and becoming a lot worse.
The US MPAA film rating system is setup with R and NC-17. R means that people under 17 need someone to be there (an escort), while NC-17 is supposed to stop anyone under 17 from being in the theatre (which is a joke and useless, since you can just watch it on DVD in the comfort of your own home within 6-8 months). An NC-17 rating no longer allows a movie to be an adult movie for adults; it means you can't be shown on a number of screens, and you won't be allowed to advertise to your potential audience. It's a kiss of death done by the MPAA board to censor what the US people see.
The ESRB M and AO ratings are both like R because any adult can purchase the game for people under 17 and 18, respectively, and be well within the law. Yet here we have console makers saying that while they allow people to have games on their consoles, they don't allow AO games on their consoles. This is outright ludicrous. Microsoft and Nintendo both had some fairly explicit nudity on the Xbox and Gamecube with BMX XXX (the Sony PS2 version was censored and did not have the stripper videos uncensored like the other two versions). There has also been plenty of explicit violence (Manhunt is a good example; you sneak up and brutally murder people!).
To say that they won't carry AO is just a way to start enforcing other people's views on the views of people who are actually interested in purchasing the games mentioned.
A further thought: is it really wise to control so much what children see and do? In the UK, it's very legal for a 16-year-old to drink. France as well. A normal, moderate consumption with a meal is not looked down on. Their percentage of binge drinking of young adults is nothing compared to the US. It seems that by keeping these things unaccessible for a longer period, people don't build up the understanding needed to deal with these situations when they are old enough to be in them. Imagine if the first time you were allowed to play Doom or Duke Nukem 3D was when you were 18 or 19 -- how would that change your outlook on those games?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Heh. Trust me, religion for a change has nothing to do with it. It makes for some popular bullshit rhetoric in some circles to blame everything on religion, but it's rarely that simple.
Let me say it loud and clear: fear of violence has _nothing_ to do with religion, and wanting to protect your kids has _nothing_ to do with religion. If you think society fears murder and murderers only because of some arbitrary commandment in the bible, then, sad to say, you may be a psychopath. No, seriously, medically speaking. Ditto if you think that it's only some arbitrary religious commandment that makes people try to protect their kids.
Now whether censoring games actually helps with either, that's not clear indeed. But a religious thing it isn't.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Brilliant theory troll, I'd love to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yet the 'major retailers' that are cited as being extremely important to game sales(Walmart, Target, etc), will happily sell you Hostel and other such gory shit that is much more realistic than any game will ever be. Way to be a hypocrite you fuckers. The horror game genre is just as much of a niche as horror movies. "But they are interactive", is nothing but a bullshit fantasy that means nothing at all.
So first we've got the BBFC and now Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo who have decided that adults aren't capable of deciding if they can play a game.
Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo didn't decide adults aren't capable of deciding if they can play a game...
Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo decided that they didn't want to get sued, win, but still pay a hell of a lot of money and take a hell of a lot of bad press for that win, when Jack Thompson or similar sued over the next publicised murders.
Their view isn't that you can't play the game - it's simply that they're not going to do anything that'll get them sued for aiding you in playing the game.
Does that suck? Absolutely. But you've got to question where the blame lies for that? With the companies for recognizing the system they live in or the system itself?
When it comes down to the system itself, who's responsible for the massively abusive legal system where getting sued in the first place is often the real loss? That'd be the politicians who wrote the abusable laws and the ones that followed who failed to tighten them. Why haven't they addressed it? Because their voters haven't told them they'll kick out anyone who doesn't address it. And who are the voters? Oh, yeah, you.
Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are corporations. They're not moral police, they're not immoral police. If anything they're amoral - they don't give a shit about morals either way except for where pretending to either makes or loses them money. If they could profit (and profit overall, so factor in lawsuits, bad press, etc.), they'd sell crack to babies and more than happily let the babies choose for themselves.
The problem is, they exist in a system where they can't sell crack to babies without hurting overall and they can't realease Adult Only titles for the same reason. That's not their judgment of you... That's yours, your parents, your friends, your neighbors faults for letting that world happen. Good work on stopping them selling crack to babies though.
Sure, it's easier to blame people who respond to a system rather than look at who created the system that makes it an inevitability in the first place. Still, until you address real causes, you'll never change anything. And the reason AO titles don't get launched by console companies is they know the system people like you, me, and everyone else have created will punish them for it overall.
Clerks was originally rated NC-17. They had to cut it down by 5-10 minutes to reduce the rating to R. Note that this is a movie with no nudity, no gore, only talking.
"Gaming consoles are used mostly by children"
That is an outright lie. The average game player is 33 years old and has been playing games for 12 years. http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php
Let me inform you on something that everyone should know at this point. Games are not just for children.
"I bet most of the time parents do not know what games their children are playing."
Eighty-seven percent of game players under the age of 18 report that they get their parents' permission when renting or buying games, and 89 percent say their parents are present when they buy games. http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php
"This is why both Nintendo and Sony do not allow AO games and that gives a peace of mind to millions of parents who do not want to go through their children possessions to look for 'adult' games."
Well parents really shouldn't have to go though their child's possessions to look for them. Where was the parent when the kid was buying the game? How did the kid get money to buy the game? Where is the kid playing the game? Now if you are worried about your child earning enough money themselves to buy the game, getting to the stores without relying on you, only play the game when you are not around, well then perhaps you could talk to them.
http://www.petitiononline.com/4manhunt/petition.ht ml
I have created the following petition after being wholly unsatisfied with the current state of game ratings affecting console licensing, Manhunt's AO rating being the most recent example. I have sent an email to Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Wired.Com, the ECA, Rockstar Games, Take-Two, and await response. If you support the petition, please sign it and pass it along to others. Thank you.
L. Ray Porter
Bomberman is a robot engaged in the production of bombs. Any robot that could escape the underground compound and make
When they did an article about it being banned on the BBC breakfast news a lot was made of the fact that it was on the Wii and that the Wii's controller actually made it more imersive. As though the player was actually performing the act. A piece aimed at a casual non-tech audience saying that the Wii version of the game was the most disturbing. You could easily see it having a negative impact on the Wii's kid/casual gamer friendly image.
I was surprised it was coming out on the Wii, considering the audience they are targeting with their ads, the original hit the news here for all the wrong reasons as well (implicated in a murder it had nothing to do with).
South Park movie was nc-17 and recut too, as someone else stated team america, hell all of Matt & trey's films are nc-17 only the later films got recut because they're so popular and they need the R rating to make the product more available.
Imagine if the DVD CCA decided that anything above R and Unrated content would not be permitted to press disks. I'd suspect the MPAA, wanting NC-17 to succeed, would put pressure on them to allow it.
Do the ESRB have equal power? I don't think they do. And anyway, they would appear to have no incentive.
I'd hope R* would at least push up the release date of Manhunt 2 for PC, at least while that platform is still open.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
It was well known the console makers would not sell a game with that rating... so don't blame them when a game comes out with an AO rating and they announce they won't sell it.
I'm sure some of you will say that rule is dumb to begin with.. but hey, you aren't the ones running the company. Put it to a shareholder vote, and the rule would probably remain.
Rockstar needs to work with the rating agency to see if there is anything they can do to get it downgraded to a Mature rating without modifying too much. I'm not familiar with the game, so I'm unsure if it's even possible.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Manhunt 2 released on consoles only... yes its a much bigger share of the market, more people play your game, but if they were worried about this being an AO and getting slammed against the wall of Nintendo and Sony saying no dice... they should have made sure there was a PC release to at least recover some losses... because it can be rated as 'Seriously Fucked Up DO NOT PLAY' and still be released to the public... granted Walmart wouldn't carry it, but more and more people are finding its just easier to get it direct or at least through Amazon these days... Nintendo and Sony can say yea or nay to anything they desire to and no law in the land can say they have to change that decision. So Rockstar loses this title as it stands, and either seriously retool it to get an M so they can recoup their losses or eat the loss... I suspect the latter is not the course that will be taken. But with the re-tooling one could beat the just plain bad game rap with the "Well the game was much better before but blame the ESRB for us having to change it."
"I'd rather think I'll find him in the 20-30 year old crowd. No kids, expendable income, party person."
Replace "Party Person" with "Virgin"
That should do it
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Imagine a world where Jack Thompson goes after console makers for banning AO games yet not banning M games, resulting in the console makers caving on their ban of AO games.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
These ratings might as well not exist. Sure, feel free to make an NC-17 movie - just don't expect anyone to see it in theaters, be able to rent it, or even purchase it from retailers for fear of an imminent lawsuit, or worse, a moral-majority boycott.
Corporate censorship is alive and well.
If I were Rockstar, I'd say to Sony "Release Manhunt 2, or GTA IV is exclusive to Xbox 360".
Sony are in no position to be dictating what does and does not get released, given their terrible sales.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I'd guess someone at ESRB didn't complete the game :P
I wonder what would have happened if they'd called the game pretty much anything other than 'Manhunt 2.' Say, 'Asylum' or 'Blackout.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Now I may be an idiot, but there is one thing I am not, sir, and that, sir, is an idiot.
This is just as lame as movie ratings. Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, and any other big name stores and rental clubs refuse to carry "NC-17" films for reasons that are deeply entrenched in the cosanguine roots of America. Now game retailers refuse to carry "AO" games. What was the point of rating it in the first place ? Seems to me that from a business perspective, if I were running the shop, I'd sell whatever the customers want. If there's a market for Manhunt 2, then I'll happily sell it for profit! I'll even put in the extra effort to ask for ID if a ten year old tries to rent it. The fact is that the huge retail chains hire the dumbest of the dumb, who lack the cerebral activity to stop kids from buying games and films with explicit and gratuitous violence/nudity. Rather than solve the staffing problem, they'd rather punish the creators and "protect our youth" by not showing them what mentally and morally inferior people end up doing for money in the real world.
It would be nice if they could just print the rating on the box, like they already do, then let the consumer make an educated decision based on that information. God forbid someone would actually have to think before buying some shiny crap for their prepubescent child.
Unfortunately for now, the only solution to this fountain of stupid is to get your "obscene" goods from Europe or Asia, where civilization comes from!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Put it on PC. I will buy 2
No sig for you!!
So your objection stems from the fact that the market is "heavily populated by 15 year olds"? What about heavily populated by twenty something white males sine it is closer to the truth?
What about the fact that there are parental controls on *ALL* consoles in the current generation that can be set by either ESRB rating or by individual game?
What about the fact that not only am I not a child I shouldn't have to suffer because some parent is unwilling to get off their ass for the *FIVE MINUTES* it would take for them to RTFM and set the parental controls?
Don't tell me that censorship, in whatever form, is acceptable when there are already ways to keep this content out of the hands of children.
Assuming they can get it out on the PC sometime soon.
Deleted
It sounds like the "Adults Only" rating is a little misleading.
How about "NO" for Nobody
or "F U" for Fun is Unacceptable
God damn I hate these morons
Fucking America.
I think many people who are championing the cause for keeping kids off violent video games are missing the entire point.
There are restrictions already in place to prevent your children from purchasing these types of video games. Just as an "R" rated movie or a pornographic DVD requires Identification and verification of age, so does an "M" or "AO" rated video game. The penalties for any retailer caught selling these games to minors are as stiff if not worse than selling alcohol to a minor.
The anology of a cocain store in a school yard is purely rehotric used to insite emotional response and has absolutely no bearing on reality. Even if cocain were made legal, which it was at one point, there would be strict regulations surroundings its distribution and use.
In short, to have a world where we are free to choose for ourselves what is right and wrong, we are required to spend a bit more time in making those decisions. Parents who purchase just any video game for their kid because they have some ridiculous notion that all video games are mario or pong, need to wake up and join the 21st century.
If you are not aware of the things your children are doing under your own roof you have no one to blame except yourself when they go out into the world and do something messed up.
I abhore games like manhunt, I refuse to watch movies like saw or hostile, and I do not enjoy satanic rock or other angry music. However, I believe that it is up to a ratings board to preview these things and then the responsability falls upon the consumer to pay attention.
Art often imitates life and not the other way around. If you want to ban violent video games, then ban the war in Iraq, ban hate of any kind, ban anger, ban greed, ban every bad emotion, idea, thought, or feeling that any human being has ever had and will ever have. But if you did that, we would lose sight of what is actually good and have nothing worthwhile to compare it too.
The moral minority is always wrong when they force their brand of mindlessness on others. I prefer to make my own decisions, but thank you anyway.
In all likelihood, ESA is using the broadest definition of game player conceivable in order to support their position. The statistic isn't really meaningful if you count people who do online crossword puzzles as game players. Also, they say "average game player" not "average console game player".
Games aren't just for children, but to try to suggest that the children aren't the largest segment of the console market is just silly. Think about it: when you go to the video game section of a store, do you usually see more kids or adults browsing through the games?
If Nintendo allowed an AO game on one of their systems, they would likely face a boycott from parents' groups. And while there are a significant number of adult gamers, the lost sales from not releasing the game aren't as big as the lost sales from a boycott. It's not really fair that adult gamers have to suffer just because parents' groups overreact, but them's the breaks.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Fuck em', where's the PC version?
Fuck them all if they are going to dictate what games get released. FUCK THEM ALL RIGHT IN THE ASS.
Here's a fucking Idea. Release it for the PC and never have to pay Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo a fucking dam thing.
Oh and btw.. People are Jacking off and flopping their dicks around all over Xbox360 live, in games like Uno and private chat. Some 14 year old flashed her fucking cunt the other day. Some 30 year old guy whipped out his ball bag and played with it, then took his camera and controller to the toilet and pissed in it while on mic and cam. So....
Where's the moral high ground? PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS.. LET THEM BE ANIMALS. Fuck microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. Sony was the company that put an end to the years of Nintendo censorship. Sega had the balls to push content beyond where Nintendo would. Although i remember importing Street Fighter 2 from Japan for the SNES because i was an insane SF2 player... and then when i saw the US release for SNES.. they took out the blood and puke.
Fuck them. What world are they fucking living in? Who gave them high horse to tell people what to do with their lives? FUCK THEM. BURN THEM TO THE GROUND.
does it bother anyone else besides me that any company can say that they won't allow games to be made for their system if the rating exceeds X? what is the point, and how is this not illegal censorship. If the game companies won't allow such a rating, then why have a rating system in the first place.
I also love how THEY can make them, just not third parties. Decision on whether to buy a game based on its ratings should be left to the buyers, much like movies. If walmart doesn't want to carry it, fine. I'll buy it somewhere else.
here's a better idea, instead of targeting the game platforms and industry, target the people who are respobnsible for the games reaching underage kids (as deemed by their sometimes appropriate, often moronic parents) the STORES.
you don't fine budweiser when jonnny teenager gets busted for drinking underage, you bust him and possibly his provider if you catch them. Go bust the stores who sell games to underage kids ignoring the ratings, and the moron parents who ignore the ratings and by games rated inappropriate for their 7 year old kid. If they can't read the box then they probably shouldn't be either a. buying anything or b. be parents.
this might just cause me to buy a 360, not because i want this game, or because i want an AO game, but because the dev's should have the freedom to produce whatever game they think will sell. If i like it i'll buy it. leave your morality for your family please, I am intelligent enough to have my own set of ethics and morals.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
Its amusing the way some people are jumping on this like it's a censorship issue. Check
d ucts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AO_rated_pro
As long as there have been ratings there have not been games released on any major console that have been rated AO. The closest would be GTA San Andreas which was rated M, changed to AO after the Hot Coffee incident and edited to be re-released at M again. Its been that way since the begining of video games, back in the Atari day's they were highly pissed off but had no control over unauthorized games such as custers revenge today there is better control over content. The anger directed at the ESRB is ill founded, if anything it shows that the ESRB is working and should be left alone. Would people really rather see government intervention (which would most likely result in what would essentially be a ban on M rated games as well, think black plastic wrappers like they use in the adult magazine industry) than a standalone ratings system?
I wonder how many people would be up in arms over this if the game was Woman Hunter and the point of the game was to rape as many women as possible? I would imagine the outcry would be fairly minimal in fact I would guess that the voices of those wanting the publishers to die in a fire would be more visible than supporters. What makes one more socially acceptable over the other. From what I have seen from rockstar itself, this really is the "Murder Simulator" Jack Thompson has tried to turn every other game into. At least GTA had a point other than banging hookers and killing people. For me the test is can the game stand on its own without murder, GTA could, nothig I have seen indicates that Manhunt2 can.
Rockstar took a rather poorly recieved game made a sequel as over the top as possible and submitted to the ratings board to get avertising the cheap and easy way. Now everyone is talking about manhunt 2 and I'm sure sales will go through the roof for the no doubt intended M version soon to follow. All the teenage crowd will see it as the cool game to get cuz its so "edgy" in the meantime gameplay will be crap the violence gratuitous and the actual entertainment value will be next to nill...but hey at least we get to see heads explode.
I've been following this very closely. I find the "double standard" presented here amazing and disturbing. As I said in an earlier slashdot comment where I was feeling rather pissed off, it bothers me greatly that this game can be effectively banned from even being published because of a rating, while other extremely psychologically disturbing games (Silent Hill for example) are sold and available everywhere, undoubtedly being sold to people under the age of 17 or 18.
;)
Personally I have a huge interest in these games that push the boundaries of what is socially/morally "acceptable". Going onto a bit of a tangent here but when I was 13, I bought the game Postal, which my parents totally amazingly allowed. I was of course happy as hell since I had played the beta and was STOKED about the extreme violence and harshness in this game! I was going through really rough times at school and had a really hard time handling it - until high school I was really socially accepted and quite popular, but that changed and became quite the opposite, which I had never dealt with before... Anyway so I pretty much took out my anger in games like Postal and Quake all the time. For me (and probably many others over the years), it was about the only option to deal with anger and stuff - either that or I'd end up kicking the shit out of people at school who picked on me. I'm pretty sure playing some violent video games (and hugely improving my hand-eye coordination and stuff) was a pretty good alternative to getting expelled or having some assault charges on my record, because I can guarantee some serious shit would've happened had I not had some non-harmful way to cope with how I was feeling.
OK, so my whole point is that these kind of "barely acceptable" games really gave me a chance to live out my anger in a harmless manner. It probably wasn't the most efficient way to deal with things but honestly being able to go into a virtual world and blow people away was a very satisfying experience. This stuff kept me from having anger build up to the point where I'd just resort to violence and end up snapping on some asshole fellow student one day. Yeah yeah, I can hear you saying "you just have anger issues" but considering I am doing totally fine now, it's pretty safe to say the school environment is what the root problem was here.
So, I'm not trying to say that games like Manhunt are going to keep kids from committing violent acts, but the point is that some people really value these types of games. Of course not everyone is going to value such a game the way I did back then (some will just find it entertaining in a less serious way), but...:
How are developers expected to push the boundaries of creativity and come up with games that challenge ideas and push the envelope, when they're just going to be told "oh, no platform in the world is going to release your game because some ratings board gave it the Adults Only rating"? Are we just going to be kept in a closed shell of only being provided with confirmist politically-correct entertianment for our entire lives, even as fully grown self-aware and responsible adults? Is it really acceptable that, despite the creative goals of some software developers (and huge $$ expenditure), we're not even being given the chance to experience or observe the creations of these people even if we have full interest in them?
It seems small enough of an issue when it's just some random guy on Slashdot saying it, but when you really take a minute to think about this, the implications regarding the video game & entertainment industry are quite serious...
I bought each GTA game twice. Once on the PS2, and then once when the superior version came out on the Xbox.
I've sort of wanted to get a next-gen console. I haven't been able to find a Wii yet, and I will get one if they ever become available. I also want a high-end console such as the 360 or PS3. My sole criterion for this decision is which console has the better version of GTAIV. Game companies should realize the influence of this franchise.
Who yearns for the days of old when the ESRB did not exist?
Back in the day, I got an Atari 2600 for Christmas. I was five. When the Nintendo NES came out I bought that, then the Sega Genesis, etc. There was no ESRB and we liked it!
Why do we need an ESRB now? To prevent the government from stepping in and censoring games? If the government did it, we'd at least be able to sue them for violating citizens' civil rights. What's the problem with a retailer carrying Adult Only rated titles? If that's what the people want to buy, then sell it to them!
Also, what's with this crap about the console makers dictating which games they will and will not allow console owners to play? The VCR and DVD manufacturers don't get to tell you which videos you can and cannot view on their devices. Why should Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have the privilege?
I imagine it's unlikely, but I really wish Take2 would simply sell the game directly to consumers. With all of the controversy surrounding it, I'm sure it would sell like mad. Hell, I own the first Manhunt and found the gameplay boring, but would buy two copies of this game out of protest.
Its the parents job to keep inappropriate things from thier kids, not society's.
So we'll be having the cocaine stands for the high school prom then? Fantastic! And E. coli? It's the parent's job to test that stuff! Let's pit each and every family up against corporations with $$$ and drugs and sex and heavy-metal laced foods!
I know what you're thinking, "centipedes, in my vagina?" But it can happen to you.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
Take Two confirmed to at least one retailer that the title will ship with an M rating, even if that means changing it and resubmitting to the ESRB. It might delay the game another month, but I suspect this AO rating was just a way to get ridiculous amounts of free publicity.
I am suggesting that. The last few times I went to a game store there was 1 child a few teenagers and a few adults. This has always lead me to think the largest demographic of console gamers are young men (16-30). Here is another tid bit 60% of console gamers are over 18. http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php
I tell you what I cited a source, why don't you?
If nintendo allowed an AO game on their system is may lead to some bad press thats true. Even though the wii is supposed to be a console for everyone it has been holding on to it's console for kids image. This might go to sway that image. But what is sony's and microsoft's excuse?
So you are saying if "Disney" had a "Mick-Box" gaming system, you would be "pissed off" that they didn't port an XXX-rated game to their family-aimed gaming system?
Which proprietary gaming system manufacturers do you feel should be forced to carry titles that they don't wish to carry?
They are "Proprietary Platforms" (PPs) -- first you buy their platform, then, you and publishers have to abide by the hardware company's 'rules'. The game publisher, "Take-Two Interactive Software"studio still has the the option to release it for the PC. However, it appears they were only planning to release for the PPs (PS2, PSP, Wii) on their Release Date, july 10, as the PC platform isn't mentioned on their website in their list of available platforms.
So kick the publisher, maybe, for not releasing on the PC? At least then you would be free to buy it. Seems weird to not release to the PC-market where "% owners over 18 (or 21)" would be greater than "% owners over 18 (or 21)" for game consoles. Statistically. Seems like their age-group focus was for "17 and under". It's one thing to restrict adult-violence games to adults, but quite another to target adult-violence games to the "17 and under" market.
This isn't about "adult's rights", it's about restricting adult content to adults while Take-Two and Rockstar were marketing adult content to minors, from whom they expected the highest payback.
So who do we be "pissed-off" at here? The ratings board? It sounds like they may have given an accurate rating. Should it be the "PP's" for being family-image conscious - maybe, but their customers give that power to them. Or do you blame the game's producer and creators who were marketing "adult-only violence" to minors?
I haven't yet played Super Paper Mario (I'm in Europe, the Ass of the videogaming world), but nothing can beat the ending of Link's Awakening!
Some people can compartmentalize -- most of the time -- maybe 99% of the time but the more the "training", the greater chance of going past one's safe limits -- but worse -- what about those "not so good" at compartmentalizing? Can we tell in advance when something will override our "squick" point? If some random "VR" game is focused on violence wouldn't it be better to restrict it to adults or not release it at all? Do we really need more people trained as killers?
I suppose one could try to claim that VR training doesn't work or wasn't "real" or that it doesn't work for everyone. However, relying on someone's inability to learn in a VR environment as being the "Green Light" for being "unaffected" by FPS or Violence-practicing VR doesn't seem like it would be good policy.
as i cant seem to find a link at the moment, but im sure i read a release from rockstar a while ago that said they had done the deal with nintendo to release manhunt 2 and a (cut down) GTA 4ish for the wii. As for nintendo they stated that they would publish adult games (if not in mass quantities) as part of there gaming is for everyone stance. Oh and slightly off topic im extremely vexed to see the uk papers running the "manhunt killed my son" story AGAIN.
Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
In the UK we dont have an adult only rating, over here they get a (legally binding) BBFC 18 cert. im just interested how this self policing works here as i have plenty of 18 games hell i even got a couple of gamecube games that are rated 18, and an 18 cert here basically makes them Adult Only.
Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
It's not going to help MS move away from the adult male demographic that they are stuck with but I think it would move systems. No one likes being treated like a child. The rating tells me what is in the game. Nintendo and Sony should let me decide whether I want to buy that or not.
Come on Bill - step up to the plate, the world needs some torture porn.
You could not have crosses or other recognizable religious symbols. They also had a list of "dirty words" you could not use... Not even something like "ass".
If you had a high score table and permitted the player to enter a name, you had to do a "bad word" check to prevent dirty words from being entered as a name.
This even applied to password codes. They made you remove some letters, like F, so that there was no chance of an algorythmically generated password ending up spelling "fuck", "fuk", "fuc", or "fuq" (or other such words).
Why even have the ESRB if console makers are going to police what we play? Console makers are simply looking to avoid the next suit because some parent blames there child's actions on a video game that was clearly rated for them not to play and the parent bought it anyways. How often do you see triple x rated movies next to sponge bob square pants? (wow thats a setup for a flame) never. The corner store has that little room in the back covered with beads, and we have whole stores dedicated to adult material. The reality of the matter is if the console makers are going to say what we can and cannot play, ESRB ratings really don't matter and the console maker might as well slap whatever they want as a rating on the game. The purpose of the ESRB is so we the consumer can make decision on if this game is appropriate for us. If a store does not wish to carry such material so be it, fully within there rights. Personally this game looks like crap to me, and the idea of a snuff film as a game sounds wrong, but that's my opinion and my choice. It's a game, disturbing as the content may be to some people no laws we're broken during the making of it, and no person we're harmed... well we hope not. Console makers need to get there act together the ESRB is the rating system let it do it's job.
"kill bill" got by without getting a tougher rating by turning its bloodiest scene into black and white. Manhunt should do the same at bloody times if parental control is on, or something like that. If I remember correctly, Mortal Kombat for the arcade had a setting where the blood could be green or red too. The Wii has a global parental control on it, so as long as parents take control, just like cable, then there isn't a problem. I don't blame Sony or Nintendo for saying no, it is too much of a hassle getting sued. People like Clinton are trying to get these laws passed so Sony or the game makers can not get sued, and for some reason people hate her for it. Too many double standards right now.