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

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]

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]

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.

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

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.