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."

Comments

What?

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Re:What?

[the_humeister]

You apparently don't remember the time back in the early '90s when Nintendo wouldn't allow the release of Mortal Kombat on the SNES. And then it was finally released without blood or the gruesome fatalities. Back then, no one played Mortal Kombat for the fighting aspect: we wanted to see Sub-Zero rip someone's head off with the spine still attached!

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for catering to the only demographic that actually has the money to buy one of their consoles.

The one demographic that cares least about "Adults Only" rated games are actual adults.

Re:What?

[Red Flayer]

Wait...So console makers do the whole "morality police" thing regarding what games are released on their consoles? WTF?

No. Console makers do the whole "sales protection" thing regarding what games are released. Their motivation is not to police morality, but to ensure they don't alienate a large portion of the market.

Like it or not, a lot of parents factor in whether content is appropriate when deciding what to buy their kids. And if one console says they won't allow AO content, then a lot of parents will choose that console. This is especially relevant since kids are able to download content for the 360.

The simple fact is that a significant portion of the US market responds well to actions like this. If you don't like it, then your options are to not buy that console, or to change the viewpoint of the market.

My point is that you shouldn't get annoyed with MS for this; you should be annoyed with the segment of the US population who factor it into their purchase decisions.

Re:What?

[Opportunist]

Console makers do the whole "sales protection" thing regarding what games are released. Their motivation is not to police morality, but to ensure they don't alienate a large portion of the market.

But that's exactly what's going to happen. Consoles ain't kid's toys. Yes, Gameboys and DSs are. PSPs may be. But a PS3 for 600 bucks with games costing in the 60 bucks range? If that's targeted at kids, how much allowance do they have today, and could I get adopted please?

The average console freak ain't the 14 or 16 geeky, light-shunning hermit anymore, I'd rather think I'll find him in the 20-30 year old crowd. No kids, expendable income, party person. The success of "party console games" like SSBM or Mario Party (or whatever the name was) suggest that, if nothing else. I know a fair lot of very dedicated console players, none of them having kids but they usually have the dough to buy about 2-3 games a month on average. And they do. And they do enjoy "mature" games.

I'd rather see this move as one that might alienate the core buyer population. I don't really think the majority of games sold these days are bought by parents. Most are bought by the ones that want to play them.

Re:What?

[LKM]

Consoles ain't kid's toys. Yes, Gameboys and DSs are.

Yeah, beause kids just love Brain Training and Yoga Lectures.

"Mature" games like Manhunt aren't targeted at adults. They are targeted at teenagers.

Company rights?

[Tebriel]

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?

Re:Company rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody said they had any obligation, of course, so the strawman aside...

People are merely expressing their outrage - as is THEIR right - at the censorship.

They have every right to do things that make people angry, that's just not normally good business policy. The only message this sends to me, for example, is "don't buy a Wii or PS3 because we might just decide you're not allowed to play games you like because we personally find them too 'offensive'".

Hey, whatever. More power to you if you think you can maintain a "kiddy system" by eliminating adult games from it, but I'm the adult holding the purse strings here, and this doesn't make me want to open them up.

Won't somebody please think of the adults!

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

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.

Re:Won't somebody please think of the adults!

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Stick BBFC in Wikipedia and what do you get? "British Board of Film Classification"
Stick BBFC in Google and what do you get? "British Board of Film Classification" x1000

I "arrogantly assumed" people would know what it stood for because there was a /. article on the subject of this exact game being banned by the BBFC not more than two days ago.

Re:Won't somebody please think of the adults!

[zoney_ie]

Give over. I'm certainly in favour of using censorship very sparingly indeed, but this seems to definitely be a game deserving of being the first computer game ever banned in my own country, Ireland. It is entirely sensible for a government to decide that it's not particularly good for society if some adults let alone kids play a computer game where they pretend to use "a saw blade to cut upward into a foe's groin and buttocks, motioning forward and backward with the Wii remote as you go". In fact, it would probably better for them to allow people to buy this and keep tabs on people who are happy to be entertained by such violence.

Let this go and what happens when something worse again is published? What about the time after that? Is it perfectly fine to allow society to go in a direction where such "freedom" is allowed? The ultimate end would be the destruction of society. We're already on the road to that - people still have strong values concerning protection of children for example, but for how long? Already much of the public are allowing commercial forces to deliberately market sex fashion to lower and lower age groups.

With the banning of this game in Ireland and the UK I'm glad to see that the issue of violence in "entertainment" isn't a lost cause.

This whole thing

[Mr_eX9]

...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.

Stop whining about Sony, Nintendo and MS

[EveryNickIsTaken]

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.

Re:Stop whining about Sony, Nintendo and MS

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Like I said to the other replier, Manhunt 2 is the second game to be refused classification by the BBFC. Carmageddon was the first and the ban was revoked on appeal. I have a sneaking suspicion there are more than two games that have been given an AO rating in the US.

If the government are dictating the rules I see no reason why companies should play any part in the situation. If the government wants to make bans certain things it should be forced to come out and do it. The companies that either refuse to sell adult games or allow them to be developed on their console are doing one of three things:
- Trying to impose their morality on people
- Being patsies for their government to avoid them having to issue bans and risk the wrath of censorship groups and a possible public backlash
- Playing a cheap marketing trick to try and win over the morally self-righteous demographic of the public, with the undermining of freedom of expression simply a non-profit-making side-issue that can be ignored

I don't see a single thing on that list which shouldn't earn each of these companies the contempt of every person who gives even the slightest of shits about freedom of expression and censorship.

As a side-note the BBFC is a non-government organisation.

It's in the hands of the console companies

[Kelbear]

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

[Moraelin]

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.

Re:Bullshit

[thebdj]

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? The problem is, if the game is effectively banned because Nintendo won't allow an AO rated game, it isn't the kids I would be upset about, but the adults who wanted to play the game. While this doesn't amount to government censorship, it is effectively banning a game from a platform. No one ever said they were marketing this game to kids, and I am sick and tired of everyone saying "only kids play consoles."

That rhetoric is old and bullshit. You now have a fresh generation of adults who grew up on consoles and arcades during the '70s and '80s. You have people who are now in the 18-34 demographic (one of the largest targets for advertisers, especially the male side) that are not only buying consoles for themselves but buying video games to play for themselves. Video games are a new form of entertainment which are gaining a widespread appeal, in large part because consoles like the Wii have made games more enjoyable and are not focusing on the hardcore gaming crowd that MS and the X-Box line have been accused of going after.

You see, the problem with your whole argument is that the console makers have decided they do not want these AO games on their consoles; probably for one of two reasons: 1) the stigma around AO has always been sex, sort of like NC-17 to the movies and/or 2) they do not want their consoles directly attached to these rated games because of the crap they have to put up with from the zealots (and we do not need to name them).

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. Please explain to me how you came to this conclusion? The game would have gotten an 'M' rating otherwise, which for those keeping score, stands for Mature and mentions for 17+. AO increases that required age by one year to the whopping age of 18+, so what difference does this one year make? If they were ranking it 'T', I could see more anger because that would carry a much lower age. However, it should also be noted that not all 'M' rated games are created equal.

This is slashdot, so let us use an analogy (and one that hopefully isn't too bad). There are many 'R' rated movies that I would not want my children to see (assuming I had any) until they were probably 18 or older. Some of them are movies that I myself cannot even stomach to watch (the Saw series and Hostel come to mind). While other movies are far more acceptable in my eyes because their violence content is much lower and the worst thing some of them have is foul language (Lethal Weapon series comes to mind). Look at another 'R' rated movie, "The Passion of The Christ". People took their kids to this movie (some rather young), despite it being considered somewhat graphic by people. I doubt these same people would be quick to let their children watch other 'R' rated movies. If we are to agree that 'M' most closely related to an 'R' movie rating, then how can a game whose violence level has been compared Saw and Hostel be given a rating that denotes anything worse? In the end, ratings should be only a guide for parents and other consumers in the purchase of a game, whether it be rated 'E', 'T', 'M', or 'AO'.

Re:Bullshit

[plague3106]

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.

Right, because Sony of America and Nintendo of America don't need to rate their games.

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.

You're right, all the development effort put into the game is worth nothing after all. Also, when you release a game that's actually tamer than the first version (and much tamer than many R rated movies), you expect to get an AO rating.

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?

Ahh, I'm glad we have you to decide what is an infringment of free speech and what is not. Who said this game was marketed at kids? The previous version was rated MA, which is also not for children. Take your 'think of the children' argument and shove it up your ass. Its the parents job to keep inappropriate things from thier kids, not society's. Finally, there's no proof that kids playing violent games has any real effect on them. I imagine there are millions of kids that grew up playing things like Mortal Kombat, and turned out just fine.

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.

You need to research why the ESRB came to be. If the industry didn't build the orginaization, there would have been laws passed banning or putting restrictions on the games. You don't seem to remember Congress debating Mortal Kombat in the 90s do you? MA also indicates a game isn't sutible for kids as well, but stores don't have policies against those ratings.

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.

Fine, then don't. But don't pretend that you aren't supporting this to prevent adults from buying the game too.

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!"

Its not just Walmart that won't sell AO games. You realize its possible for citizens to attempt to censor each other right, and that its just as wrong. Unfortunately our consitution doesn't provide for protection against that, probably because our founders never imagined that we as a country would be trying to strip others rights..

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 kid

Re:Perfect Time to change the model?

[Altus]

Doesn't this seem wrong though? I mean I can see needing a license to say that a game is an official Nintendo Wii game with the logos and all that shit. But what is to stop them from selling me a disk that happens to work with the wii and then with me actually putting it in the wii and playing it?

This would be like saying certain music cant be released on CD because its offensive to the group that holds the CD trademark.

I'm sure it has something to do with the licensing on the SDK or something like that, but it still seems totally absurd. Didn't there used to be unlicensed games for the original NES? How did that work?

Give me a break

[Wylfing]

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.

Re:Give me a break

[Fross]

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.

The ESRB has effectively made it so the marketplace CANNOT embrace or reject it. It IS censorship, as much as the full ban on the game in the UK is.

I have no taste for these sorts of games, I'd be happier if they got released and failed. But Sony and Nintendo are shielding themselves from lawsuits from BAD PARENTS, who will try to sue them when they buy Little Johnny "Evisceration 4", and try to blame the companies for their own lax attitude and lack of involvement. These people expect the products to take care of their kids for them, figuring "video games = for children", which is why Nintendo and Sony have taken the policy of "No AO games". The parents+kids demographic is much larger than the AO one.

The policy that needs to change is Nintendo's and Sony's, to allow an AO market to happen, whether it's horror, vulgar, pornographic or whatever content. They won't shift until they have evidence that they will be protected from lawsuits from idiot parents, that is, until when the courts determine that parents are responsible for their own decisions in bringing up their children, and that they can't blame the government or product creators for not protecting their kids. Until then, we'll all be treated like 10 year olds, incapable of making our own decisions or deciding for ourselves what we want.

Re:Give me a break

[mqduck]

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.

Poor analogy. This is much more akin to Sony or whoever (I don't know who, don't beat me up about it) forbidding the creation of scat porn DVDs because they hold a monopoly on DVD players... or whatever. More to the point, is censorship not censorship if it's not done by the government? Corporations scare me much more than (supposed) democratic bodies.

Re:Give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

10 years ago, Mortal Kombat was "horrifyingly gory, brutal, and cruel". So in 10 years this game will be laughably rated down, or at least considered "tame."

There was a point early in movie history where a "horror film" was a villain pointing a gun at the audience and firing.

Censorship is not something that really progresses us as a people.

Re:Give me a break

[OMEGA Power]

"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!"

If by "movie theaters" you mean private screening rooms and home theaters where people can view content that they have purchased without anyone else seeing it then yes.

A much better analogy would be should DVD players refuse to play NC-17 or X rated movies, or any other content that the hardware maker doesn't approve of. Why should I need corporate permission to, in the privacy of my own home, use a piece of hardware I've purchased (video game console, DVD player, VCR, etc) to access content I've purchased (game, movie, music, etc). If a individual store wants to refuse to stock it that's there right but a hardware manufacturer shouldn't be able to dictate what content you can watch (or do you want to have to buy a Sony licensed DVD player that plays only Sony movies, a Fox licensed DVD player for Fox movies, etc)

"Die for your country" vs "society chooses"...

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.

Re:Perfect Time to change the model?

[sesshomaru]

But what is to stop them from selling me a disk that happens to work with the Wii and then with me actually putting it in the wii and playing it?

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This is because you'd need to sign your disks without having legitimate signatures from Nintendo. You aren't allowed to circumvent an encryption system. It's not a problem with regular DVDs because all DVD players will play unencrypted DVDs, as far as I know. For a Nintendo, it's bypassing a content control system, which is illegal.

Oh, also, you'd have to do that for every game your company produced from then on, good luck getting Nintendo to agree to let you produce licensed software after you've produced one unlicensed game.

The original NES wasn't protected by the DMCA... because at the time there was no DMCA.

Re:Outrageous

[abaddononion]

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.

Let the market decide

[Enderandrew]

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.

I don't care

[mwvdlee]

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?

Re:I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

The game is worthy of an AO rating, nobody has any doubt this game deserves an AO rating.

Manhunt II is porn?

M is 17yo+.
AO is 18yo+.

Why the one year difference? Because AO is intended for porn games. You can't sell porn to a 17yo, but (in most states) you can to an 18yo.

The only reason it received an AO rating was to prevent it from being released. It's not like an 18yo magically can handle things a 17yo can't.

Leverage GTA IV?

[FreeKill]

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.

Ridiculous.

[Inoshiro]

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?

Re:Perfect Time to change the model?

[Cecil]

Legally they can't stop you. You're welcome to release your game. The trick is, it will only run on modded hardware, same as any other homebrew game. They're not preventing you from *releasing* it, it just won't run on most hardware without the magical cryptographic signature that licensed games get.

So, they can't sue you to stop you from releasing it. But they don't need to, because it won't work anyway. And if you manage to break the cryptographic signature and release it in a manner that actually works, well, that's where the DMCA comes into play. Nintendo/Sony/et al. have all their bases covered.

Religion has nothing to do with it

[Moraelin]

Parents want to protect their children (based on religious imposed morality).

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.

Re:Game Morality

[oddfox]

Snuff simulator? It's a game. I suppose Doom 2 was a combat simulator that helped train Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold and that music drives kids to shoot up their school? This isn't something like Microsoft Flight Simulator for killing people. Rating this AO has everything to do with Bibles (and every other religious prude who thinks everyone should think the same way they do) and the busy-bodies in this country and others who love to play moral police whenever given a chance like this. The distinction between an M and an AO rating, given the relevant context, seems to be decided arbitrarily (seems to be how they're all decided though).

M: Contains content that may be suitable for ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

AO: Contains content that is suitable only for adults. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

Anyone who says there's a real, easily distinguishable line between "intense violence" and "prolonged scenes of intense violence" is fooling themselves into thinking there's something inherently worse in prolonging the scene and that it's worth defining a prolonged scene of violence. Seeing a bunch of pixels comprising a fictional character brutally murdered in the blink of an eye is no different to any reasonable adult than seeing those same pixels brutally murdered in a "prolonged scene". They're also fooling themselves into thinking that there was some great leap in maturity between the age of 17 and 18 that will suddenly help shield you from the bogeyman of violent video games.

Does Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have the right to restrict sale of AO titles on their systems? I'd say yes, it's their loss if they want to be hardasses about that and it's perfectly fine. The problem I see isn't that, the problem I see is that the ESRB killed this game in its current form before it even arrived, unless the developer decides to move it to the PC platform, appeal the rating (Good luck on that in the USA at least, maybe the UK will be more cooperative) or water down the content to appease the raters. The ESRB had no good reason to do this, Manhunt is rated M and unless Manhunt 2 was loaded up with a few free pornos on disc, I really don't think that there could have been much of a change to the dynamics of the game to qualify the sequel getting an AO. This is bad politics, bad for the economy (Stifling something that need not be stifled) and ultimately bad for gaming in general if a precedent is set. I can easily see the USA adopting the strict attitude Germany has towards this kind of stuff, and that won't bode well at all for creative and innovative game concepts seeing the light of day.

Anyway, if you are not a minor then nothing is 'on' your game anyway.

The important thing to remember about this particular situation is that it's not about preventing minors from getting ahold of the game, an M rating is sufficient for that. This is about preventing the game from seeing wide distribution in the first place whether you're a minor or an adult, and that's just plain wrong.