ESRB Refuses To Detail Manhunt 2 Re-Rating Logic

Next Generation reports that the ESRB is flatly refusing Leland Yee's request to further outline their logic behind Manhunt 2's re-rating. Says organization president Patrica Vance, "It is simply not our place to reveal specific details about the content we have reviewed, particularly when it involves a product yet to be released. What can be said is that the changes that were made to the game, including the depictions themselves and the context in which those depictions were presented, were sufficient to warrant the assignment of an M (Mature 17+) rating by our raters."

Comments

What's the issue?

[steveo777]

Seems cut and dry. The ESRB isn't a news source and probably has in its guidelines that it can't release any game info anyway. Come to think of it, HAS anyone ever leaked info at the ESRB? That would be news indeed.

Next story.

Re:What's the issue?

[Sinistar2k]

What is also cut and dry is that the ESRB said that content that garnered the AO rating was changed or removed to bring it back into M territory. This is no different than films initially rated R cutting content in order to achieve a PG-13 and yet no politicians demand to see detailed change lists for every movie re-rating.

Re:What's the issue?

[Babbster]

Yes, but movies don't turn children into homicidal maniacs. Don't tell me you can't understand the difference!

Re:What's the issue?

[Khaed]

Actually, a better comparison is NC-17 to R, not R to PG-13. Most movie theater chains won't show NC-17 movies -- it's a kiss of death from the MPAA. Since most retailers won't sell AO games, that's a good way to compare.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a pretty decent documentary on the MPAA ratings and board. There are a few times when I feel like they go overboard, but the general information about the ratings process and history was interesting.

I'd be interested to know how the ESRB comes to ratings conclusions. I mean I know "Violence" or "Sexual Situations" but I'd like to know how they judge them.

Re:What's the issue?

[ravenshrike]

They take an Excel spreadsheet and put up 5 columns. G is weighted at one, PG 2, PG-13 3, R 4, and NC-17 5. Then they put the events in the movie/game under each category. Then they make a pie chart of the results, put it on a dartboard, and throw 7 times. Whichever rating area gets the most is the rating of the movie.

Re:What's the issue?

[EtoilePB]

I'd be interested to know how the ESRB comes to ratings conclusions. I mean I know "Violence" or "Sexual Situations" but I'd like to know how they judge them.

By consensus. At least, they used to. They're hiring more full-time raters -- and have been since the job position was slashdotted at the beginning of the year -- and that's changing how they work.

Raters watch the footage provided by the publisher (and there are all kinds of contracts and legal documents about what the developer / publisher MUST put in the video footage), as well as play some games. They work together, in groups, to determine what they've seen and discuss it. If you've ever been in a seminar class where footage is routinely watched and discussed at length (I went to grad school for film, so that was two solid years of my life) it's like that.

Re:What's the issue?

[Zalbik]

As well, they never detailed what content caused it receive the AO rating in the first place, so why should they now have to justify changing their decision?!?

Only politicians could be so boldly hypocritical....

Re:What's the issue?

[I'll Provide The War]

They use a 100 point scale with 0==EC and 100==AO.

Since this is the US every shotgun blast to the face is penalized 0.1 points while a nipple equates to 75 points.

Re:What's the issue?

[Khaed]

A female nipple. No one seems to object to hairy-dude-nipple. Which, of the two, is the more offensive to ME...

So does that make a game with two tits "AO and a half"?

Re:What's the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are kidding right?

Re:What's the issue?

[Babbster]

Click the link under my handle, watch that video and then ask that again. =P

Re:What's the issue?

[steveo777]

So, "This movie has not been rated" or "unrated" would be for the guys who, like me, suck at darts and can't even hit the board?

Makes sense

[ZakuSage]

Would you want the MPAA raters to give away any bloody and tragic climax found in a movie? Of course not.

Re:Makes sense

[eln]

No, but I sure would like to know which of the movies they rate have particularly graphic sex scenes so I can be sure and watch^H^H^H^H^Havoid watching them when they come out.

Translated:

[spocksbrain]

"We do not want people to scrutinize the way we arbitrarily make willy-vanilly decisions on the way we rate video games."

Re:Translated:

[IthnkImParanoid]

Or perhaps: "Congress is so far up our ass that we're not going to say a damn thing we don't have to."

Re:Translated:

[jythie]

Better translation: We don't want to get our asses sued off for releasing other company's confidential information.

Re:Translated:

[spocksbrain]

An excellant point. However, I do believe there are still ways to definine specific situations that would warrent an "M" rating as opposed to an "AO" rating - without giving away details of Manhunt specifically. If you are going to regulate a product, the public has every right to know the specifics of the how and the why.

Re:Translated:

[Kelbear]

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB

Plenty of information, at least as much as the MPAA.

"MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language."

I would say that a parent can make a pretty reasonable judgement if this is suitable for their children based off this. Intense violence such as death-by-shiv-through-the-eye, or death-by-gunshot-to-the-head, it's all intense violence. They've got blood n' gore, is that bloodtype A+ or B-? Is that a human liver or a human lung that just flew by?

I suppose there could be a distinction in the description between "Graphic references to and/or depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity " to say "Sexual themes and suggestions" and to seperate out "There is nudity" As for language, some may desire specific tiers, like fuckshitcockcuntbitch in one tier, and crapjerkdamnidiotdumb. These are certainly possible to clarify, and as the ESRB's only responsibility rests on these definitions, they might as well do a good job defining them if they're going to do it at all.

But both the MPAA and the ESRB are not federally funded public institutions, but stem from the industry itself. It's in the industry's interests to choose how much service they'll provide to the public via elucidation of the ratings system, but there really aren't any rights at stake. You only have the "right" to what you can make happen. The public does this through dollars.

If they don't like the ESRB's ratings, they should enforce the criticism by not buying these luxury goods. If they're willing to buy either way, then there's really no leverage here. This issue is handled pretty well as it is. This is much ado about nothing from thinkofthechildren fearmongers. There are plenty of other systems that need more openness.

For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICO_score

I would think that the obfuscation there is FAR FAR more important than the ESRB scores.

Re:Translated:

[Anonymous Coward]

How about, "We don't have the rights to the material, and even if we did, it's none of your fucking business anyway"?

or alternately, "Congress shall make no law..."

Oversight

[orclevegam]

I don't see any problem at all with requiring that the ESRB give details about what it objects to in games to those that request it. Likewise a think the MPAA should also be required to specify how and why it rates movies a particular way. For anyone interested in the MPAA rating process and exactly how shifty it appears to be, check out This Movie is Not Yet Rated which follows a movie as it makes its way through the MPAA and attempts to determine who rates it, and how they come up with the ratings.

Re:Oversight

[CrashPoint]

I don't see any problem at all with requiring that the ESRB give details about what it objects to in games to those that request it. Likewise a think the MPAA should also be required to specify how and why it rates movies a particular way.

I see a problem with it. They're private organizations, and their ratings are by nature a matter of opinion. There's no reason anyone should be legally required to justify an opinion. That's a road we don't need to go down.

Re:Oversight

[0xdeadbeef]

That's a road we don't need to go down.

And why not? The nanny-staters' next question will be how do we rein in this violent, smut-loving private organization accountable to no one. If the ratings are mere opinion, then Yee's opinion on the game is equally valid.

Re:Oversight

[grumbel]

### I don't see any problem at all with requiring that the ESRB give details about what it objects to in games to those that request it.

I don't see one either, but this should be limited to *after* the game is being released, not before.

Re:Oversight

[sholden]

I don't see any problem at all with requiring that the ESRB give details about what it objects to in games to those that request it.

Seems a bizarre requirement designed to increase the ESRB workload and allow Jack Thomspon to bury them under a mountain of requests.

They should give details *to the submitter* of the game as to what it objects to, etc, etc. Otherwise how do you know what to change to get a different rating, and whether they are being fair or if you should go public with why they are giving it the rating they are if it seems unfair/political/etc.

Re:Oversight

[orclevegam]

I see a problem with it. They're private organizations, and their ratings are by nature a matter of opinion.

That's an excellent point and kind of goes to the heart of the problem. Even though they are a private organization, they serve a role similar to a state agency by restricting the distribution of a game by some arbitrary rating. Admittedly there's no law that says anything rated AO can't be distributed, but it won't be carried in most stores, and if it became common place to distribute AO rated games I'd bet there would be a bunch of laws passed to regulate them. As it is there's already laws in a few places (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that can fine stores for selling M rated games to anyone under 17. The fact that this private organization is assigning a rating to something that carries with it a legal burden on the distributer kind of muddies the water as to its required level of transparency.

Re:Oversight

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are just "opinions" then how come there are laws on what can be sold to a minor based on those "opinions". Should my 12-year old brother be able to walk up to the counter to purchase an AO rated game and, when they explain that they are not allowed to sell the game to him, say "Oh, that's okay. The AO rating is just an opinion and I don't agree with it. You can still sell me the game."? I'm sure Bush would love your argument: "Now look here, Congress. It's just my opinion that a surge in Iraq will solve all the problems and route out terrorism completely. I'm not required to justify an opinion."

I think your post is crap and don't bother asking me to explain it, because it's just my opinion!

Re:Oversight

[CrashPoint]

As it is there's already laws in a few places (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that can fine stores for selling M rated games to anyone under 17. The fact that this private organization is assigning a rating to something that carries with it a legal burden on the distributer kind of muddies the water as to its required level of transparency.

No, there are no such laws. Several states have tried passing them but they've all been struck down or enjoined from enforcement. Also, they weren't tied to the game's ESRB rating , but to independant standards of violence and sexuality. So the legal burden imposed by an ESRB rating is zero, and any law providing it with such legal weight would not survive a Constitutional challenge anyway.

Re:Oversight

[CrashPoint]

If they are just "opinions" then how come there are laws on what can be sold to a minor based on those "opinions".

There aren't. Try to keep up here, would you?

Re:Oversight

[orclevegam]

They should give details *to the submitter* of the game as to what it objects to, etc, etc. Otherwise how do you know what to change to get a different rating, and whether they are being fair or if you should go public with why they are giving it the rating they are if it seems unfair/political/etc.

That's fair, just so long as there is some level of transparency in the whole operation. I don't personally know how the ESRB works, but if it works like the MPAA does then they don't release any details at all to anyone outside the ESRB other than the final rating. If they provide the submitter with more details, then I'd say it's mostly a moot point, although I would still be interested to know as a consumer exactly what the criteria are for a particular rating, and also to have some way to verify that it's those same criteria they use to arrive at the final rating for a product.

As for the whole Jack Thompson thing, it shouldn't be a matter of much paperwork in theory. Just have a form letter or something and if he sends in 1000 requests (make them SASE if you really want to make him work for it), just mail him 1000 copies of the exact same letter. Or better yet, have a website you could go to to get the the info. Sure you could use it to look up spoilers for things, but lets face it, this is the internet age, you can find spoilers if your looking for them for just about anything.

Re:Oversight

[CrashPoint]

And why not? The nanny-staters' next question will be how do we rein in this violent, smut-loving private organization accountable to no one.

To which the answer is, "We don't".

If the ratings are mere opinion, then Yee's opinion on the game is equally valid.

In the sense that it has the same legal weight (none at all), sure.

Re:Oversight

[orclevegam]

No, there are no such laws. Several states have tried passing them but they've all been struck down or enjoined from enforcement.

Hmm, so maybe this is a case of a popular urban legend perpetuated by managers for places like Target to keep register drones in line with the company line? I know I've heard managers at a few retail outlets telling sales people that they need to ID for M rated games or the store can be fined.

Re:Oversight

[CrashPoint]

Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of register-monkeys and store managers who are mistakenly under the impression that they're legally obligated to follow the ESRB ratings. Also probably quite a few know that they aren't, but lie about it to more easily placate customers who are irate about store policy. "It's the law" goes down more easily than "Corporate said so". The same applies at movie theatres.

As for fines, they may well happen, they just won't come from the government. An individual store might get fined by the parent company, or maybe by the distributor or some other trade organization that's involved in the process. Regardless, the fining power comes from a corporate charter or private contract, not from the law.

Re:Oversight

[jythie]

That would probably be the proper way to handle it, though it would not satisfy the critics since they tend to loose interest in any particular title after it has been released. They live and breath in the ambiguity of unreleased games.

Another solution would be to give certain requesters access to the information under NDA (and non-compete requirements), and thus place legal liability on their heads should they leak information for their own benefit.

Lee, Thompson, CFCC, would probably be reluctant to put their necks on the line like that when they could potentially face massive lawsuits for contract violation if they drum up fear over games with confidential information.

Re:Oversight

[provigilman]

What exactly are you expecting to hear from them? The MPAA and ESRB both rate, to a large extent, on tone and context. A movie/game where you play a cop that shoots bad guys is not viewed as harshly as a movie/game where you play a bad guy shooting cops.

The tone and context of the imagery in a game/movie is something that is hard to express. The Shawshank Redemption is a movie that follows a bunch of convicts, for example, but the tone is one of respect that lets you know that while they made mistakes, many of them are still good people. That's hard to understand without seeing the movie, which is why they rate the final product, not the scripts.

To start openly saying "this was removed, that was removed, etc.." invites criticism and armchair rating. Suppose they say that a particular scene was cut from the AO version of Manhunt 2, but a similar scene shows up in another title that's rated M? People will start demanding to know why this title is rated M, whereas Manhunt 2 had the AO rating until it was removed, among other things.

Such questions won't take into account the fact that the M game might be something like GRAW or Rainbox Six, where you're playing a military character, and that this was one instance out of a game that stays well below the M threshold. Such questions also won't take into account the fact that in Manhunt 2 you're playing a lunatic killer that apparently kills for no reason, and that this scene might be the culmination of a brutal torture sequence. Once those sorts of questions get raised people will push even harder for laws governing it, so that there is the percpetion of a more rigid standard. This would be bad.

Re:Oversight

[0xdeadbeef]

Right, because ignoring the whiny Senator will make him go away. The money spent drafting more ridiculous game rating and censoring legislation and then challenging its Constitutionality will be money well spent.

This isn't Jack Thompson. Don't pretend the grief he can cause won't be permanent.

Re:Oversight

[CrashPoint]

Don't pretend that given an inch, the nanny-staters will hesitate to take a mile.

Re:Oversight

[Stefanwulf]

They're private organizations, and their ratings are by nature a matter of opinion. There's no reason anyone should be legally required to justify an opinion.

Someone please mod this parent up. I don't think I could have said it better or more succinctly.

Don't worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Rockstar would be willing to discuss what part of their art they had to sacrifice to get the lower rating.

If not, then they're hypocrites.

That is, if they don't qualify already.

Re:Don't worry...

[Outthere057]

mabe they want tp save it for when they release it to the computer. So they can say it has new content. I don't belive computer games get rated so it can be changed back. unless of course a bit bribe was payed and no changes were really made.

Re:Don't worry...

[randyest]

I don't belive computer games get rated so it can be changed back.

Of course PC games are rated, just the same as console games, and by the same organization. Have you ever bought a PC game? Notice the C/E/E10+/T/M/Ao logo in the corner of the cover? Yeah. That's the rating. If you doubt it, click here and select "Windows PC" in the "Platform" dropdown. They even rate Linux games (all 7 of them,) and PalmOS games, and WebTV games (WTF?,) and Zodic games, and ...

It probably is a smart thing to do

[joeflies]

It probably is because that anytime there is a line drawn in the sand with something as arbitrary as a social standard, then you end up having to explain away yourself why some things fall above and below the line.

What happens if they say that "the game was rated AO because of graphic decapitation", and then the lawyers end up twisting that rule so that they can press the ESRB how come Baraka's fatality isn't an AO

It's a way that they can do ratings with an "I know it if I see it" type methodology without having to be held accountable why some things are AO and some are mature. They're an industry board, not a government agency, so I'm fine with that. I have no problems with the way the games are being rated now, and I'm ok with manhunt being sold as mature too.

Why is this surprising?

[Minwee]

Games are submitted to the ESRB with the understanding of confidentiality. All that the ESRB releases is a final rating, they don't leak the whole content of the game.

Doing anything different would be like the MPAA releasing movie ratings of "This film is rated PG for sci-fi action violence, with some mature content like that scene near the end where Darth Vader reveals that he is Luke's father" or "Rated PG-13 for intense thematic material, violent images and Malcolm Crowe really being dead all along but not realizing it".

If Dr. Linn or Senator Yee want to know what changes have been made to Manhunt 2 then they should be asking Rockstar about it. You know, the people who wrote it, made changes to it, and are in a position to release that kind of information. Hounding the ESRB for details is like calling someone's family doctor to demand details about their health.

Gamepolitics

[Hemogoblin]

For the last week, the website Gamepolitics.com has been covering the Manhunt controversy and related stories. Gamepolitics is one of the few high quality journalistic websites that covers gaming news. Check it out.

Heres a couple choice stories:
Yee: What is ESRB Trying to Hide?
Californias Leland Yee: Let Consoles Play Adults Only Games
Consumer & Game Industry Reps Weigh In On Dreaded AO Rating

Doesn't matter.

[Duffy13]

Well, even if the ESRB released their process information and it indicated that nothing was in fact changed, it would not really matter one bit legally. They are a voluntary organization, their is no legal enforcement behind their decisions. They can do whatever the hell they want. Would it possibly damage their image and put the whole self-rating system into a new light? Probably. Would it be good or bad in the long run? Tough call.

I love it how...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the ESRB wouldn't tell us exactly why Manhunt 2 was rated AO when infinitely more violent films aren't the anti-video game croud were all for it, but when they wont release why it's been re-rated to M it's suddenly a bad thing to them that the ESRB doesn't dish out that kind of info.

The double standards of the anti-gaming muppets just go to show how utterly idiotic they actually are.

Obligatory

[Ecuador]

What? Darth is Luke's father???
Damn you poster! I wanted to watch that movie!!!

At least I don't recognise "Malcom Crowe" so whatever that movie is I'm spared.

Anyway, since Star Wars is spoiled for me I guess I'll have to rent another flick. I guess I'll try that Bruce Willis thriller everyone was talking about a few years ago but I never got to see. Hmm... what was it's name...

yapping Yee...

[captain_cthulhu]

Why IS Yee mad about this? a rated-M game is restricted to 17/18 years or older so young kids are still not 'allowed' to play it. Obviously he's not mad that 18 year old kids are now allowed to play it.

Yee is mad because he feels like he got pwned when that unconstitutional law was rolled back that he put in place in California. it's a grudge match and it's as petty as his laws.

The ESRB should stand strong.

[Devir]

the ESRB is a body of people organized to self govern the Game industry. Their ratings are pretty damn clear to people with basic english reading skills"

"M 17+, Realistic Violence, blood, sexual content"
"13+, cartoon violence"

Blah blah.

Games are the 2000AD version of the Witch hunts that went on in the 1400 to 1600's. It's a distraction against real political issues that no one really seems to care about, like:
"The war on terror, we gonna catch and kill Osama or not?"
"Budget over runs and useless pet projects, like $10 million slipped into the war budget for research why breasts are getting bigger"
"reviewing our current and past laws to see which ones are outdated and should be repealed and rewritten instead of just writing MORE laws to enforce and obfuscate."

These days people care is a 62 year old senator is having sex in rest rooms, how people choose to waste their time and how long some famous hottie is jailed for.

With the ESRB holding their ground and telling these senators to get jacked, we're sending a message that we're done with being pushed around. Now we need to get the government to focus on important topics like Highway speed laws (raise the limits), Fair use copyright, catering to the consumer instead of big business, win the war on terror, stop wasting money on stupid projects and government funding and lower taxes, and review and rewrite foreign polic.

There are tons of things far more important than sex in M rated video games and graphic violence. THere is serious real world violence that needs to be quelled, jobless and homelss, corporations running amok setting repressive laws, making us buy the same item 4 times to use it in a slightly different way and so on. We need better education and understanding, not just kicking the "trouble" child out of class and watching their grades go down. We need to raise the bar on education, not lower it because more kids are failing. I know it's easier to lower standards than to fix the problem, but this is the future of our world here. Any one who watched the movie "Idiocracy" can see that is our future.

In such a "Free" country, I'm not feeling the love here. I'm not feeling the freedom to drive my car down an empty highway at 90. I'm not feeling the freedom of making a mix CD for the lady I am courting, without the fear of defending myself in court. As kids we used to share the newest computer game and install them on the school computers. Others would love that game and go buy a copy for themselves...

I feel myself straying off topic. But I'm passionate about our freedoms and how fast we're loosing them. It extends far beyond the ESRB and Manhunt, and Hot Coffee, and Bioshock. It stretches into how soft we've really become and how the innovative spirit the country was founded on is now lost in Patent lawsuits and mega corporate infighting.

Re:The ESRB should stand strong.

[ClamIAm]

I'm not feeling the freedom to drive my car down an empty highway at 90.

Why do you have the right to do this? Roads were not built to be driven on at that speed. Neither were the cars that are legal to drive on them. And unless you live in an ecological wasteland, there are things like deer that one must watch out for.

Further, driving at twice the standard highway speed decreases reaction time. Do you have training and experience in racing? Even if you do, the issues above make it idiotic to drive at such a speed on public roads. Also, highways don't exist in a vacuum, meaning they don't stay empty.

In conclusion, stay the hell off public roads. I don't want to get into an accident because some idiot like yourself has such a warped, childish definition of "freedom".

Re:The ESRB should stand strong.

[Anonymous Coward]

As kids we used to share the newest computer game and install them on the school computers.

Don't copy that floppy.

Re:The ESRB should stand strong.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be one of the guys that I get stuck behind who does a steady 40 where ever he goes.

Re:The ESRB should stand strong.

[Devir]

If it's 3am the roads are generally empty even near cities. Highway's and unmodified street legal cars for the vast majority can handle 80MPH on out highways without breaking a sweat. I've never had pro race training but I can tell you my (unmodified) car and I can handle sustained speeds of 150MPH. I've been driving for well over 10 years and should be a "statistic". I've had only 3 accidents since I first obtained a license. ALL 3 were under 10MPH. One I cut a left turn into a gas station too sharp and cliped the tail of a Utility Vehicle. Another I was fiddling with my tape deck at a stop light while inching forward and tapped a pickup. The final I was trying to see my watch at night using street light glare and rear ended someone (junk car no working clock). These were all when I was under 21 btw.

When I'm not driving on public roads I'll play Gran Tourismo and Forza to stay sharp and focused.

The biggest danger on a modern day highway are not the people going 80-90, it's the people in the left lane doing EXACTLY the speed limit and refusing to move over when someone is coming up from behind them. THis forces the faster driver to either "Break and twiddle thumbs" or pass on the right. The Left lane is for passing, meaning drive faster or move over.

According to you ClamIAm, I should have been dead years ago after skidding off the highway that were not designed for speeds greater than 65mph. You probably should get out more and realize that car technology has greatly changed since Nixon was president, who created the 55mph law. IT wasn't even for safety, it was gas conservation. These days its for "saefty" because police units have been raking in massive cash on speed tickets. If it weren't such a lucrative business it would mean everyone agrees with the speed limits...

Re:The ESRB should stand strong.

[Stanistani]

*Psst!*

Listing your puerile accidents isn't increasing your credibility, or making us feel more secure about allowing you the 'freedom' to drive at 90 MPH on the freeway.

I have a suggestion. Follow the damn speed limit.

Express your freedom by protesting, advocating whatever you want, freely assembling, pursuing happiness. Move where you want. Work at what you want to. Associate with whoever you want to.

Oh, and I hope you pay better attention now while you're driving, or your license will likely acquire unwanted 'rating points' from your insurer.

Nah, it works by the Golden Rule

[Nymz]

Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

My favorite example is about those 2 SouthPark guys. When they made Orgazmo for an independant studio that couldn't afford to pay the MPAA, they had to accept the NC-17 rating. But when they made Bigger, Longer, & Uncut and revcieved another NC-17 rating they accepted it, but Paramount wouldn't and had the MPAA to give it a R rating without a single edit to the film, zip.

Hardly arbitrary or 'willy-nilly', the MPAA knows who pays the bills. The MPAA (and the RIAA for that matter) are paid to protect the big guys from competition from the upcoming smaller guys. If the big guys have less competition, then they can produce crap, and you'll pay anyway because it's all that's available. Thank you MPAA & RIAA.

Re:Nah, it works by the Golden Rule

[Walpurgiss]

On the DVD commentary, Matt Stone and Trey Parker said that when their scenes came back with notes to tone down, they'd make it worse and send it back to them, rinse, repeat until they accepted the original or near to it. However, there is an edit to the film that they mention on the commentary somewhere, the cock saddam pulls out. Initially one of the pair wanted it to be their own, but were told no and used one probably cut from a porno or stock or something. Pretty damn close to no edits though, and an admirable method of getting their ideas into the film without the MPAA filter.

Games aren't so cut and dried

[Pearson]

Unlike a film, where the particular acts are completely scripted, a violent incident in a game may come in several different situations, and via various means. This makes it harder to have hard and fast rules.

Using a chainsaw to kill a single zombie may be graphic, but killing 10 or 20 at the same time is a lot more graphic. So it isn't just a case of saying "tone down the zombie/chainsaw death"; a more nuanced approach is required. As such, the ESRB needs a more flexible approach, which is the opposite of what the politicians would like them to have.

Leland Yee

[Anonymous Coward]

Leland, if you want to know, join the fucking ESRB. They are a private organization, not a government branch, and their workings are not subject to the inspection of Joe Citizen. Idiot.

Re:Leland Yee

[Lord Kano]

Leland, if you want to know, join the fucking ESRB. They are a private organization, not a government branch, and their workings are not subject to the inspection of Joe Citizen. Idiot.

Their "decisions" have an effect on Joe Citizen, it's not unreasonable to ask how they make them.

LK