Slashdot Mirror
Manhunt 2 Ready For Release, Politicians Angered
After much hemming and hawing, Take-Two appears to have secured an 'M' rating for Manhunt 2 from the ESRB. The title is now due in stores around Halloween. The reversal of fortunes for the much-maligned title has prompted a number of conspiracy theories and outright outrage from groups 'fighting' videogame violence. Well-known commentator on the subject and California State Senator Leland Yee is demanding more transparency from the ESRB as a result of this decision. From GamePolitics' coverage: "Parents can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating. The ESRB and Rockstar should end this game of secrecy by immediately unveiling what content has been changed to grant the new rating and what correspondence occurred between the ESRB and Rockstar to come to this conclusion. Unfortunately, history shows that we must be quite skeptical of these two entities."
Maybe if they start throwing money at national and state Senators like Hollywood does, they won't have these problems. Or maybe I missed the release when Leland was disgusted at the level of violence in movies.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Do parents "trust" the G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, NR ratings for movies? And what is there to "trust" about an "M" rated game? That it won't be violent? *yawn* Just politicians trying to win some votes by barking louder than their bite.
Cheers,
Fozzy
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
From Wikipedia:
Its just like the movies your great backwards state likes to put out Mr Senator. They constantly take crap out to enable them to get a lower rating too. Why is it so hard for you people to get it through your skull that NOT ALL GAMES ARE FOR KIDS! Hell why are you even bitching about it as if a parent is going to buy this? ITS STILL RATED M.... ITS STILL NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 17 AND IF YOU BUY IT FOR THEM YOUR A BAD PARENTAs for transparicy... last I looked the Motion Picture Rating Board was not transparent either.
god these people make me so bitterly angry at their stupidity.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
While I'm glad that Rockstar has found a way to get the game released, I think it's ridiculous that they had to jump through so many hoops just to protect the supposedly fragile minds of 17-year-olds (the only people affected by an M rating vs. an AO rating).
Sony and Nintendo should be ashamed of themselves for their prudish prohibition of AO-rated titles on their consoles, and Rockstar should have the last laugh by releasing Manhunt 2: Uncut for the PC at some point down the road.
MPAA views each film it rates.
ESRB doesn't play every game, it relies on information given to it by the publishers.
Hence, there is an element of trust that the publishers detail everything accurately.
What do they REALLY expect when they give a single entity complete control over something? I'm sure the ESRB says 'we won't tell you why' because they don't want to get into arguments about specific content and they don't want the constant 'well, is this okay then?' that they'll get if they start that.
But I've always felt that was a bit uppity of them. They decide what is right and moral for all of America and nobody has any say-so, or any idea what they are even saying.
At the very least, I think the system should be overhauled to rate each thing seperately. Violence, nudity, language... Everyone feels differently about each of these. While I would put nudity down at Pre-Teen level, I would keep outright sex at Adult level. Shooting a weapon would be Adult, for any reason and any enemy. 'Bad' language would be Teen. And I'd add a concept, though I don't know what I'd call it: Concepts, Politics, Ideas... The overall concept of the game, and the message it brings, should be rated. Games about raising a horse for fun would be for Everyone. Games about raising a horse to be a war-steed would be Teen.
I can already hear people screaming about how I'd rate things. Don't bother to respond, that's exactly my point. Nobody agrees with me exactly! The rating system should explain WHAT is bad about that aspect of the game, instead of just giving it an overall rating.
I'm making this up, because I have no idea what Manhunt 2 entails, but I imagine the ratings should read like:
Violence: Firearms, killing humans.
Nudity: Full nudity, deviant sex
Language: Full range of taboo words, constant usage
Concept: Killing for pleasure, little consequence for actions
And then a parent that thinks killing people is fine, but showing skin is absolutely taboo can properly understand what they are handing to their child.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Because it was never about HIS children. It was about controlling everyone else's children. He's perfectly capable of teaching his own to stay away from violence, but he has no control over everyone else's unless he gets laws passed.
The 1 year difference between M and AO means absolutely nothing. They don't magically mature enough during that year to handle 'graphic sexual content' or 'prolonged scenes of intense violence' unless they are already being exposed to them. (That's actually problem with the whole system... They can't learn to handle them if they aren't exposed to them. That's another discussion, though.)
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
You don't understand politicians, do you?
He in all probability knows what you just posted about but he has to stay in his position as a fighter against violence in games and gain political support no matter how bullshit his arguments are. Politicians rarely speak about what they believe in, it's just a big power game with sources you exploit for votes and support.
Sounds like the critics are the same for video games as the ones for the MPAA... Then again, no games should be banned.
;-)
http://www.ifc.com/films?aId=18019
Do we need a movie like this for the ESRB?
I don't think the problem lies with the ESRB not being transparent.
The problem is that most retailers won't even sell A-O games. I don't know what changes rockstar made to get Manhunt to be M, but the point of the game is still the same. The ESRB was perfectly right to give it a A-O rating. It really is the big stores that prevented them to do their work properly this time around.
Seriously now, does Wal-Mart think that killing perverts in a game is more acceptable now that there is an M on the box instead of a A-O? If they do, they really have fucked up values.
Think about this: Axe and Dove are actually the same company. Vincent L.B.
"Parents can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating. The MPAA and should end this game of secrecy by immediately unveiling what content has been changed to grant the new rating and what correspondence occurred between the MPAA and to come to this conclusion. Unfortunately, history shows that we must be quite skeptical of these two entities."
Disclaimer: I am not a US citizen, and don't know how MPAA or its rating system works.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
well I just read his webpage. Seems he is a crusader against all violence so obviously this is a easy target for him. Funny though I doubt he would say anything about the crapload of violence his own states major economic draw puts out. But then they pay him money and grant him voters, those evil video games dont.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Just for the record, Microsoft has the same stance with the 360. Every one of the big 3 requires the game be rated before it appears on their system, and no one allows AO games.
The real kicker is they could "technically" leave in Wii-Mote support. It is BlueTooth after all. (although there are probably development agreements to prevent this.)
An 'AO' versus an 'M' rating guarantees loss of retail space, less spaces for advertising and subsequent loss of sales. The ratings category may be nearly identical as far as stated intent (suitable for 18+ rather than 17+) but the morality police want to make sure that "filth sellers" are punished financially in order to stop such games from finding a publisher in the future.
If I, as a parent, evaluate a game (let's say it's hypothetically rated "M") and its content, then evaluate my children and their probable response to that content, and decide to get it for them anyway, am I still "A BAD PARENT"?
M -- Mature: Contains content that is considered suitable for ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
AO -- Adults Only: Contains content that is considered suitable only for ages 18 and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
The man is obviously right, I mean how dare they make a game available like this available for our poor innocent 17 year olds rather than just our tough minded 18 year olds... disgraceful!
Parents can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating.
Parents are irrelevant to all games that are rated M. Unless you are still breast feeding your 17 year old and telling them that babies come from storks, I think they are old enough to choose what they play. It blows my mind how stupid politicians are these days. I am hoping that this is just something he has to pretend to do to stay in office....even so, I have a lot more respect for people who can hold office without pandering to the morons in their voting base.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
If it's for your mature 16 year old, it MIGHT be ok, depending on the content. If it's for your 12 year old, then yes you're a bad parent.
Oh the horror. Parents have to actually parent their spawn rather than count on a society of strangers and an army of entertainment devices to do it for them.
FFS people, it's not up to the government or the industry to make sure your freaking kids are safe from all possible bad influences. It's your damn job as a parent to actually pay attention to what your little dorklings soak up with their sponge brains, and getting a rating on a box to make that easier should be considered a gift. I'm in favor of restrictions to prevent underage kids from purchasing adult material, but that's it. Senatorial involvement is nothing more than pan-handling for votes, and it's pathetic.
A parent needs to pay attention to their brats, pay attention to what they buy and what they watch/play/listen to. It's not up to the rest of the world to compensate for parental irresponsibility.
As a parent, if you're so unsure of whether the game is appropriate, here's a simple fucking solution: DON'T BUY IT.
Or, DO buy it, and... shocking insight coming up next... PLAY IT YOURSELF FOR A WHILE to see what it's like. If it turns out to be a poor choice, don't let little Johnny play it.
"Oh, but now I'm out $60," you whine. Shove a sock in it and suck it up, loser. This is the way it goes: different people have different tastes. There is a rating system which tries to codify this. It ain't going to be perfect for everyone. You might buy a "teen" game and find out it's too risque for your tastes. Tough shit. Try to return it. Company won't take it back? Cry me a river why don't you.
There's a simple solution to all your suffering. Take the game machine and chuck it out the window until little Johnny turns 18. Then kindly place a tennis ball in your mouth and shut the fuck up.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
So the problem is that innocent babes will be subjected to scenes of wild depravity and bloodletting, possibly drug use, etc. The game's rated M for Mature. Where's the issue here? Besides, last I checked Fox News has no rating, nor does the NFL or Friday Night Fights.
I wonder what politicians will do for cheap votes once the video game industry starts paying them off as much as the media does?
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
didn't 2 Live Crew teach politicians anything!? Now every kid in America is going to buy this game. My only thory is that this politician got paid big bucks by Rockstar to start this campaign against them. There were games far worse than this that, unless killing someone with a chainsaw and pissing on their dead corpse wasn't far enough in Postal 2?
Woah, woah, woah.. If I buy my 14, 15, or 16 year-old a game with fictional violence, when I'm around to put it in context, I'm a bad parent? But if they go off to college, they're suddenly prepared for scenes of intense violence and prolonged/graphic sexual content? Sorry, but the only change from 17 to 18 is a number. A birthday doesn't magically make someone more prepared for the world, and they're going to have to deal with a lot more than a hot coffee mod. I'm fine with ratings to ensure parents are involved in the decision, and to help those parents who want to put people into the world who are unable to deal with the world around them, but the idea that someone is a bad parent for letting their teen play GTA is absurd. People who let an arbitrary panel of strangers make decisions as to what is and is not appropriate for their kids are bad parents because they're clearly putting the least effort possible into parenting.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I said this on Gamepolitics, but it bears repeating. This reaction belies something very scary about our culture. Supposedly, we are a Free Speech society, and when we're not busy disagreeing with what other people say, we're defending to the death their right to say it. But I didn't see anyone demanding greater transparency in the ratings system when this game was rated AO and effectively censored. The message here is, we're cool with censorship, but having access to once-censored materials makes us uncomfortable. In a real Free Speech society, it should be the other way around. Because censorship is a frightening and very radical act, even when its being done in a boardroom rather than a chamber of Congress.
But think of the children!!!
Who through the CARA (Classification and Rating Administration) issue ratings without disclosing how they do it.
Hmm... sounds like people who are just complaining because they're not getting it their way. It's widely known that the film rating system is horribly broken to the side of allowing kids to see Stallone kill 300 people, but not see Mel Gibson's butt-cheek. Seems like the ESRB is just the same.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
I played the original "Manhunt" just because of the Rockstar name to it, and while confronting and horrific (yay, a murder simulator), it wasn't actually that much fun to play. Like GTA without the cars and replace slapstick with gruesome.
Sad but true, all this publicity is about the only thing that is going to get Manhunt 2 to sell, and it's probably still only going to get mediocre sales.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Here's hoping that the BBFC here in the UK will change their mind (they banned the game here recently). Sadly I doubt the game will see a release here unless it is cut back or censored in some way. Still, at least the savvy importer such as myself can obtain a copy from over the water :-)
"Everlasting peace will come to Earth when the last man kills the last but one." - Adolf Hitler