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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
There are only 23 games with an AO rating. They can be seen here
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...
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'.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
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
I hate to defend sarcasm, but I was directly referring to the Hollywood Blacklist. This was NOT imposed by the government, but the entertainment industry because of a select few in power. I agree that it's an abhorrent game and children (and adults) should not emulate it in any way. But even if I disagree with what people say, I defend their right to say it. They wanted to ban the game; AO gives them a backdoor to do so without the bad press of the outright ban. Just like how they did not want people to speak propaganda for communism so they got rid of the alleged supporters.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
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.
The no licenses for AO games from the big 3 console makers seems quite two-faced to me. That is definitely a case of selling an "adult product" and then intentionally blocking products designed just for adults. I guess I don't understand why it would matter for content you view in the privacy of your own home.... What about all of those "unrated" DVDs that sell so damn well.
When it comes down to it the difference between an M and an AO rating is one freekin year... 17 or 18 years old... you can't tell me that SO much of their market rides on customers between those ages that they have to outright ban the deny the content on their platform...
You can guarantee that with all this press once the game does get toned down to an M rating it will sell like hotcakes... people love their barely legal.
Personally I have no interest in an AO game, but I would buy one if one were made available that interested me.... I would also go to see an NC-17 movie if I saw advertisements for one that interested me. While I can understand the reasoning behind extreme violence getting that kind of rating I find it quite troubling that so much as a single pixelated nipple is capable of breaking that point.... I mean it's not like it's something no one has ever seen before.
Collector's Edition
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
The bible says that owning slaves is OK, it is OK to stone people to death for eating shellfish or working on the sabbath. God told the Jews to commited genocide of the people of Jericho. Look into the old testimat, and you can find all kinds of crazy stuff.
Should we give the Bible an "Adults Only" rating?