Slashdot Mirror
Croal vs. Totilo - The Manhunt 2 Letters
N'Gai Croal (of Newsweek) and Stephen Totilo (of MTV) once again match wits in a textual format, this time over the Manhunt 2 controversy. In Round One, the two reporters discuss the process of playing the game for the first time, and wonder what the experience must have been like for the ESRB raters. Round Two sees them take things up a notch, discussing what exactly it is about the game that's so violent. Round Three ... has them questioning the nature of gaming itself. As always, these are two smart guys with some interesting insights into the medium. Well worth your time. From N'Gai's final letter: "It's difficult to 'read' or derive much meaning from a game. That's why in our three Vs. Modes, we ultimately don't spend very much time talking about or analyzing the experience of playing a game, because it's hard to do so without turning our emails into "I went here. I did this. I picked that up." Which is, after all, what games are. So if the essence of a game is located in what we do, is a walkthrough--go here, do this, pick up that--the most truthful way to write about the experience of playing a game? I hope not. But it's something we should consider. Once again, if the essence of any game is located in its action, reaction, interaction, and the rules which circumscribe those three elements, what does the narrative do?"
Once again, if the essence of any game is located in its action, reaction, interaction, and the rules which circumscribe those three elements, what does the narrative do?
Here's an example of a writer trying to sound smart by taking something obvious and "deconstructing" it to make it look not obvious. ("Deconstructing" is in quotes because that's not actually what deconstruction is, but it's how some writers define it if they don't know any better.)
The answer is the narrative guides your action, reaction and interaction, and it describes the rules which circumscribe those three elements.
There - happy? It really is that simple. The narrative exists for the purposes of guiding you to various places to do various things, and to tell you what you are and aren't allowed to do in those places and with those things with which you can interact.
Which is just a fancy way of saying what we've all known narratives do since time began. Questioning it now doesn't make it any less true.
(You can question anything - is the sun hot? Is ice cold? Does gravity = 9.8? But those questions don't in themselves form indictments or arguments against tradition or fact, which means they really have no point.)
They allow wit on MTV? o_O
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I don't believe that the ESRB plays the games that they rate at all. They are sent video footage by the developer of what is the most objectionable content in-game and base their opinions on that. Furthermore, their opinion is probably entirely politically motivated in this case, as Manhunt 2 has already been made out as a poster child of video games that influence mass murders.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
From what I've heard before, you are correct about them not playing the game. It is up to the developer to give them a sample of the game (in video format) that they could expect the user to see. The rating is based on that.
As for the 'political' motivation... What political motivation is needed to rate a game? They didn't sit down and say 'Well, we hate them, and AO will basically ban their game, so let's do that.' They watched the video, it was beyond M rating, and they rated it appropriately.
Without seeing what they saw, or at least playing the game, none of us could possibly argue that they rating it improperly. We don't -know- what's in the game and how it compares to other games in existance.
What we -do- now is that the first game was extremely violent, and that second games usually try to out-do the first one. Why is it so hard to believe that this is more violent than the first?
As for the AO rating itself: What point is there in having that rating exist if they aren't allowed to use it when warranted? I seriously doubt they are flippant with their ratings. They don't just watch video while eating popcorn and say 'Oh, hmm.... AO.' and go for a beer at the pub.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
AO does NOT mean that the game cannot be released. It means that most retailers will not sell it in the store. This kills the profit of the game if it can only be sold in porn shops and mom and pop's who wish to seel it. Also, and I may not be 100% correct here but, I think that I read that neither Sony nor Nintendo will allow an AO game on their platform.
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
You've answered your own question. AO is the kiss of death. That's what it's for.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Actually, Sony Nintendo and Microsoft have stated that they will not allow Ao games to be licensed for their consoles. So if you get an Ao rating in essence you are banned from all the major consoles.
" In Round One, the two reporters discuss the process of playing the game for the first time, and wonder what the experience must have been like for the ESRB raters." Actually, the ESRB rarely, if ever, actually plays the games it rates. They look at footage sent to them by the publisher.
Out of curioisty where did you come across this information?
Wrong. AO is for essentially the NC-17 of the video game ratings board; extreme violence or nudity are what will get you this rating. It's also worth noting that an AO rating is only the "kiss of death" for CONSOLES. There's nothing to prevent you from releasing a game on the PC with an AO rating, and in fact there are quite a few games that are rated AO released for the PC; most of which are porn games, mind you, but some of which are simply too violent for a mere Mature rating. If you ask me, Rockstar should just release Manhunt 2 as-is on the PC, and be free of the console's clamp down.
its fairly common knowledge. do a bit of research on the ESRB ratings system, you'll find it. this is how things like Oblivion got re-rated after release: the video may not have shown the rotting zombies with the bones and meat sticking out of them, but rather, just the basic up-fronts of the combat system.
Yeah after doing my research I found that you are correct. Which really disturbs me. Because although the game may be gory and violent, how are a group of video game raters supposed to come to a conclusion of whether or not it is acceptable amount or not if they don't even see the true context of what they are rating.
If the people rating games decide to give a game a rating of AO there needs to be some sort of appeal process that forces the raters to actually play the game and work through the levels, rather than basing their opinion on "videotaped footage of the game's most graphic and extreme content." [wikipedia.org]
These letters were a surprisingly broad look at the issues surrounding video games. What I thought was especially nice was some discussion of implications on the gamer who chooses to play the game, which is rare since most of the time these are just defense or attack pieces. It's funny because this sort of discussion is what actually makes me interested in the game. When the previews came out it always centered on action and mechanics which were quite frankly droll in the first game. In Manhunt the killing is just mechanical. You creep around and want to see all the animations, but after that the execution scene could just be a bop on the head rendering them unconscious and it would have the same visceral effect on the goal oriented player. But when we look at the similarities between the Director, the game designer, and our selves sitting there guiding Cash to and then passively watching the gruesome offings, that makes me genuinely interested in Manhunt 2.
The only thing I thought was missing was a better comparison between manhunt 1 and 2. They talk about some things like the tone and and narrative structure which doubtlessly had the largest impact on the ratings board, but I'm still unsure whether 2 plays the same pretty much (ignoring the Wii) with the same structure. This seems like a strange omission considering all the talk of repetition in gaming and how that makes up the core. I would like to have known how Manhunt's core compared to Manhunt 2's.
I believe ANY nudity at all will automatically bump it up to AO... If you recall the nipple textures found on the Oblivion disc got it bumped up to AO temporarily after it was release...
Collector's Edition
Word has it that they didn't play Manhunt 2 but just watched the video trailers. That's usually how it works, right? They try to shoehorn video games into the same ratings mechanic as movies just because they have graphics and then boost the rating 2 or 3 levels because it must be worse because you're "interacting" with it.
You know, I'd do a better job than the ESRB just by looking at the cover art and back of the box. Sure there'd be a few titles rated AO just so they wouldn't get released (like if they're stupid enough to put out another Tenchu) but over all the quality of the ratings would be a lot more consistent and would serve as a better guide for parents.
The Farewell Tour II
I haven't gotten that far in the game yet and so cannot speak from direct experience, but several reports online have it that the sex scene was removed from the North American version to get the M rating. European censors are more tolerant of sex in entertainment.
And as counter argument I give you God of War 1 and 2, both of which have naked breasts at multiple points. And both have "sex games" to earn experience.
Let's face it video game ratings are just done using a bag of popcorn a 10 sided die factoring in the phase of the moon, just Film ratings.
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
"Unless they have good reason to believe that this game is an imminent threat to the public order, or that it will in and of itself incite adults to violence, their decision seems to me to be based on taste, and I will never believe in substituting anyone else's tastes for my own."
As far as I know, there is no true scientific evidence that videogames are indeed the cause of violence. Unless it's proven that a game like Manhunt 2 will in fact make you act out violently against another person, it seems to me that the best we have is speculation. Any evidence that such a game is the cause of detrimental behaviour would be empirical at best. I actually have yet to hear of any evidence that proves entertainment like movies and games is the root of evil. I've heard opinions and unfounded claims only. Indeed, I have heard such arguments on Slashdot that kids played GTA and then went out and stole cars, thus GTA is the cause of felonies. Hardly scientific.
"In the U.S., where many retailers would likely refuse to stock an AO-rated title, the game hasn't been banned. But that doesn't mean that gamers will ever be able to play it in the form that you and I are experiencing. Here, it's ultimately Nintendo and Sony's whose judgment is being substituted for ours, because they, along with Microsoft, don't allow AO-rated games to be published on their systems."
I don't believe a game should be banned, or, in the case of the U.S., effectively banned based on speculation. Does the game deserve it's rating, is it really necessary for Sony and Nintendo to ban AO games, etc. etc. none of that really matters because the bottom line is that the game has been banned in its current form in the U.S. and a couple European countries. I'm well aware of the technicalities about how ESRB doesn't ban games they just rate them yadda yadda, the game is still banned, in its current form. I don't want someone else telling me what is in poor taste. I know what I can handle. Personally I don't think Manhunt 2 would phase me; I could be wrong since I've not played it but the point is I don't want someone else telling me it's too offensive so we won't allow the game to be released unless it's been censored.
I'm not an authority I'm just a dude who doesn't need his hand held. If something shocks and offends me, I'll steer clear of it.
"...As for the AO rating itself: What point is there in having that rating exist if they aren't allowed to use it when warranted? I seriously doubt they are flippant with their ratings. They don't just watch video while eating popcorn and say 'Oh, hmm.... AO.' and go for a beer at the pub."
They don't go for a beer at the pub? Really? How do you know that? Wonderful speculation, the point being that we don't really know if there were any motivations to rate the game beyond just content. This is America after all, where corruption, personal and political favors, and the good ol' boy system simply don't exist. Moral of the story, to assume makes an ass out of u and me.
"Without seeing what they saw, or at least playing the game, none of us could possibly argue that they rating it improperly. We don't -know-..."
Now there I'm in agreeance with you. But we can't know that they're rating the game properly either. Let's not be naive. How many games get an AO rating that aren't porn games. None? I don't really know but the only exception I know of is the hot coffee incident. All I'm really saying is I would bet a few dollars that if Manhunt 2 just got an M rating no one would be begging for an AO rating. I mean it's too late now, there's already controversy, but if there hadn't been this "scandal" I bet Manhunt 2 would have been just another game. But hey, I could be wrong.
I applaud your post sir. Indeed, your point about you playing the good guy vs the obvious bad guys means it's ok, but it's wrong the other way around is indeed a load of crap because, when is it ever ok to carry out vigilante justice? Even if you're the "good guy" in a first person shooter, you're still killing hundreds of people. I cannot agree more when you ask, rhetorically, who can decide what's moral. Freedom to think, to decide, to choose, and to act, these are what make America great. What may me moral for you may not be moral for me. I will never force my beliefs on you, and you shouldn't force yours on me. It's really as simple as that. People will argue till they are blue in the face about Sony and Nintendo have the right to forbid AO games on their systems (they do) and the ESRB has the authority to rate games as they see fit (they do) and it's not really censorship because the ESRB isn't directly tied to the government (to the best of my knowledge) but somehow, in between the middlemen, companies wanting to maintain a friendly public image, people sitting on boards evaluating the content of games, we've come up with a system that allows games to be censored or even banned. Somehow, admist all the confusing mess of who's right it is to do what, freedom of speech is being infringed upon. The point is that there is no one person to point a finger at, but that everyone has done some wrong. I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't play, I don't want Nintendo telling me what I can or can't play, and I don't want slashdot users telling me what I can or can't play, we should all be allowed to play what we want to play and not catch hell for it.