Slashdot Mirror
US Senators Take On The ESRB Over Manhunt 2
eldavojohn writes "Some US Senate members sent a letter to the ESRB asking for 'your consideration of whether it is time to review the robustness, reliability and repeatability of your ratings process, particularly for this genre of 'ultraviolent' video games and the advances in game controllers,' the senators wrote. 'We have consistently urged parents to pay attention to the ESRB rating system. We must ensure that parents can rely on the consistency and accuracy of those ratings.' The group of lawmakers were concerned that Manhunt 2 was only given an 'M' rating and instead feel that it should have the 'AO' rating — a rating that only 23 other games have been given and a rating that would cause Sony & Nintendo to restrict it from being released on their consoles."
What are the chances that they actually played it and looked at the objectionable content before making these complaints?
Why should Sony and Nintendo stop it being released on their consoles?
There are people making the games, there are people that want to play the games, why not just let the rating system rate them and let people choose to play them or not?
Then there wouldn't be so much pressure to get a game in under the M rating, the ESRB wouldn't be under so much pressure not to give out AO ratings (which are an effective ban at present), and parents would have a fairer idea of what is suitable for little Jimmy and what really is not.
Sony and Nintendo are the problem in this scenario.
i know people like to whine about government screwing up, but when it comes to videogames, despite all the efforts of jack thompson, there are no stupid moralistic limits on the law books. the subject matter is actually a success story. some of you need to lose your permanent grumpiness on the us government, and celebrate a small record of victory:
Most Laws Attempting Limits of Violent Videogames Fail
i'm not saying stop being vigilant. i'm saying, stop being grumpy. this is a ray of light here
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Don't they have better things to do than to nitpick about video game ratings? Or would doing those things require the intestinal fortitude to look at a real problem and come up with a real solution, which is far beyond what they're capable of?
"osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
Is anyone surprised? I hope Take Two gets fined... for releasing such a horrible game.
I have no comment other than to say that it's funny how the linked photo is of Japanese people holding Xbox 360 controllers in Tokyo and the story is about American senators complaining a PS2/PSP/Wii game in Washington D.C.
Schnapple
Funny how some in Congress are so outraged about the violence in video games, but when it comes to 'Shock & Awe' and bombing countries back to the stone age, they have absolutely no compunction about it.
Maybe if they could just use it as a recruiting tool for the military, they would be on to something....wait, um nevermind.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Forget this "nanny state" nonsense. Why does the federal government need to get involved in video games now? This is not the purpose of government. Parents should supervise their children.
Is this what our elected leaders think we need?
This is the biggest waste of time in the world. Let me do the freakin' parenting of my own children, and you figure out how to quit sending them off to die.
Seriously, it's not like buying a pack of cigarettes. The kid has to a.) buy the thing, only the older ones have money anyways, b.) has to play the thing, it's not like they can hide a TV and a 360 or PS3 in their pockets...
If my child is playing Manhunt 2, well, I probably know about it. If I wasn't having to bust my ass 24/7 to finance a trillion dollar war and a trillion dollar welfare system, maybe once in a blue moon I could, ya know, sit down with the children, and be aware of what they're doing and how it's effecting them.
Jesus. I've never hated politicians more than I do this very second. What a waste of time and money and resources, all the expense of so much other awful things going on in the world...
Gays have next to no rights, healthcare is fucked, but the real problem is that seventeen isn't old enough to see animated gore. You should be eighteen. Man, I sure feel bad for you Yanks.
-Matthew Riley "TofuMatt" MacPherson
I have a website
Rockstar should get into the underwear business. If they starting could develop panties that resisted bunching, they could crush their compeditors.
What are these congressmen bent out of shape over? You already have to be 17 to buy the game and provide proof of age and identification at the checkout.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Stop mentioning this stupid game. Please. All this supposed controversy does is feed idiot developers who make games without redeeming content. Have we learned nothing about how trying to restrict something causes controversy that inevitably brings that something into more popularity than it would have ever garnered had it been allowed to slip into well deserved obscurity?
Note to Senators: Ignore this piece of crap and it will go away, mention it as a reason to censor/restrict games and you will a) Encourage more states to pass game censorship legislation that will be struck down in a lawsuit that will be costly to taxpayers and b) bring free publicity to this game and c) annoy anybody who games, because unlike US Senators, the vast majority of gamers are capable of telling the difference between truth and fiction.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Even stranger is the fact that an 18 rating from the BBFC in the UK means that the game can only be purchased by those aged 18 or over. They're given out to mainstream games (GTA for instance) that the console makers are perfectly happy to see on their machines - why do the same companies think differently about the issue in the US?
Because they want to appeal to lazy american parents who believe that companies should do their job for them? Yeah, I know the real reason iz they're run by out of touch old men who think that, "AO" means it's pornographic, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Either way, Sony and Nintendo are still the problem though.
Please do something useful with your time. I know, you're so out of the habit of doing so that it's going to be tough to get back on track. But please, try, very hard.
-beavis88
P.S. Get bent.
For that matter, why are our Senators wasting time with video games when we have a war going on, torture and violation of civil rights, the dollar's value is dropping faster than a rock, AND THIS IS THE CRAP THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT!
All Nude Cyber
All Nude Glamour
All Nude Nikki
Body Language
Crystal Fantasy
Critical Point
Cyber Photographer
Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy: Director's Cut
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut and Uncensored
Lula 3D
Peak Entertainment Casinos
Playboy the Mansion: Private Party
Playboy Screensaver: The Women of Playboy
Riana Rouge
Singles
Snow Drop
The Joy Of Sex
Thrill Kill
Tokimeki Checkin!
Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber
WET: The Sexy Empire
X-Change
All but three made the cut explicitly for sexual content. I think we can assume GTA:SA and Fahrenheit made the list for the 'violence' as well, but that's a weak stretch at best... if they're there, why isn't Duke Nukem 3D?
So, if a video game depicts acts of horrific violence, It should be rated AO (The equivalent of MPAA NC-17). But a motion picture (Hostel, Hostel II, SAW 1-3, etc) should only get rated R (Equivalent of ESRB MA) for "brutal scenes of torture and violence, strong sexual content, language and drug use."
This makes sense how?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system#Ratings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board#Ratings
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
I already knew that three of four were going to be involved in stupid shit like this even before I RTFA.
For anyone not familiar to this game, it was already given an AO rating. Rockstar was set to release it in early August when it received the AO and Nintendo and Sony refused to let it be released on their consoles. Rockstar then reworked the game to remove the most objectionable content until it was able to get the M rating. (Link)
I have played this game on the Wii and it is definitely not for kids. Some of the killings actually made me squirm uncomfortably. However, the worst killings have been blurred out (a "rage-like" red fills the screen and everything gets noisy). Overall, it is what the rating says it is: a game for Mature adults... not for kids.
Sony and Nintendo are not *prohibited* from selling them, it is their policy. I guess they don't want to be associated with adult video games. That is their right.
Playing this game when you're 17 will warp your fragile mind, but playing it when you're 18 is A-OK? Bleah. This is nothing more than the latest attempt by some populist politicians to stir up public support over a matter so freaking trivial that it makes the Sparta Teapot Museum look positively profound. The only thing that's worse than politicians pandering to hot-button issues is the people who keep voting them in. No wonder disillusion with democracy is running rampant.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
From Nixon Girl to Watergate: The Making of Hillary Clinton
The Seeds of Corruption: Hillary Clinton in Arkansas
Secrecy, Intransigence and War: The Vices of Hillary Clinton
Basically, she's a pro-war, corporate, conservative Democrat who has managed to hijack her party's nomination. It looks like another voting day is coming out where I can just sit home and relax.
After all, it's hard to vote for the lesser of two evils when you have two equally evil candidates.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
... campaign contributions from Nintendo, Sony, etc.
considering that another election is due in a year, they are probably wondering why gaming companies are NOT paying any protection money.
Senators REALLY concerned about their citizens are almost as rare as Bush acknowledging that he was treating the constitution as toilet paper and resign.
Suddenly you would see a spike in their campaign contributions from these gaming companies...
Once done, this matter would be referred to a procedural committee just like cheney's impeachment.
Mod me down if you want, but you will see a spike in their contributions same time next year.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Frank Zappa had it right on when he told Tipper Gore (you remember Tipper, don't you?):
"I would say that a buzz saw blade between the guy's legs on the album cover is good indication that it's not for little Johnny."
With a title like "Manhunt 2", perhaps the game isn't for little Jimmy.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Don't forget the retailers as well. They won't carry an AO game. If they did, then Rockstar wouldn't mind carrying an AO rating on Manhunt 2, as long as the fans can pick it up at Wal-Mart.
Can I bum a sig?
Game makers would be fine with AO ratings except for the fact that they are a kiss of death. For some reason, in everyone's mind, the highest rating = porno. So Walmart and others will sell R rated movies and M rated games, but if you get an NC-17 or AO hung on it all of a sudden nobody wants to distribute it.
I mean have a look at unrated movies. American Pie received an R rating in the theatrical version. However the theatrical version was not the cut the director originally wanted. So that was released later, but just not submitted for rating. Ok please, let's not be morons here, it's rating would be NC-17. The only reason they go back and make cuts like that is if they couldn't get the rating they wanted with the original. In the case of an R movie, that mean an NC-17 was what was going to be hung on the original cut.
Well they can't release it with that rating, nobody will carry it, so instead they just release it "unrated".
Same shit with videogames. For whatever reason, AO is assumed to mean a horrible porno and thus nobody will touch it. You get that hung on your game, you have to change it if you ever want widespread sales. Otherwise no console license, no distribution in almost every major retailer and so on. It's an additional problem with games because you essentially can't release unrated, stores just refuse to carry games that don't feature a rating. Doesn't necessarily have to be ESRB, some games rate with PEGI instead (Civ 4) but if it isn't rated, expect nobody to stock it.
The problem isn't Nintendo and Sony, the problem is this overall cultural idea that the highest rating = something really bad. The problem is that people need to understand that just because something has the highest rating doesn't mean it should be shunned from the light, it just means it is something not for kids. However currently that just does not seem to be the case. If you game can't make an M rating, people think it is too evil to be distributed.
Doing crap like this is Congress' equivalent of reading slashdot at work, really.
They even have trolls and all, and sometimes I wonder if Cynthia McKinney is a closet member of the GNAA...
Well mate, th' game's got plenty 'a droogs, but none o' th 'ol in-out, in-out...
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
like bring the troops home, and call out the President on overspending and the state of the economy and such. People are losing their houses/mortgages here. If they really care about what kind of video games little Tommy or Suzy get for Christmas, then maybe the should consider making sure that Tommy and Suzy's parents have money for the damn tree let alone what's under the tree.
The senators enjoy wasting their time on this because it is a "feel good" "look at the monkey" tactic. It doesn't make sense for a 7' tall Wookie to be on a planet with a bunch of 3' tall Ewoks, but there he is, and it doesn't make sense. So our senators must discuss game ratings instead of good solutions to difficult questions.
Because they remember Fredric Wertham. And they figure the PR will be better, and the censorship milder, if they can keep under their control, which can only happen as long as Congress feels they're doing a minimally acceptable job of it.
Chris Mattern
1) We always have a war going on... this is not new.
2) torture? civil rights? This has always been going on. I argue that It's gotten BETTER because now with the internet, you actually hear about it.
3) Dollar's value is dropping, but not by all that much. The housing market will bounce back in about 2 years, and the small recession will be over. chart
Yes, some people believe the games corrupt children, so it's an important topic for them. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it can't be discussed. Get over it.
Because the customers are not the same, and their companies are marketing their family-friendly image as much as anything else (moreso Nintendo than Sorny).
Face it: The average American consumer is a frothy-mouthed puritan.
Senators,
Get your lazy asses back in to those seats. Stop listening to corporations. Start listening to your constituents. And GET SOME DAMN SHIT DONE!
The standard needs to be neutral and immune to market pressure, or it isn't much use to anyone.
This reeks of someone at the ESRB being bought to me. The games content certainly feels like adult material. I wouldn't like to think of my kid-brother, at 16, playing it. He's nowhere near mature enough. The 'AO' standard really is a better fit for this particular title, unless they have made some changes that I'm not aware of...
As far as I can see, the ONLY reason that it got released as an 'M' title is that the market for 'M' far exceeds that of 'AO'. The content didn't have much of anything to do with the determination.
In that light, those Senators are correct in expressing concern.
Frankly, I'll urge the ESRB to not bend under corporate pressure when the congressmen stop bending under corporate pressure.
Was that a reply to me?
I didn't say "prohibited", It's the games companies doing it, not the government.
Most voters don't want to think about war, don't want to think about rendition, civil rights, the economy, etc. It's easier to vote based on the gut feeling that "so-and-so's values coincide with mine".
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
True...
But some retailers (especially online) would still carry it. It's the console manufacturers that knock it stone dead.
Where we banned the game entirely. Brilliant.
I'd take console manufacturer censorship over government censorship any day.
Frankly, I don't see the purpose of the "AO" rating at all. As far as I understand it, the "M" rating means it has mature content, and parents are basically being advised not to let their kids play those games. If the ESRB's purpose is to make consumers aware of the game's content, then "M" should be a sufficient rating to let people know it's an adult game.
So why have the AO rating at all? AFAICT the purpose is twofold. First, it's an attempt to give an excuse for the fact that children are playing rated "M" games. Parents and retailers can say, "Well if it were really bad, it would be rated AO." Second, it's a way for the ESRB to effectively ban games without saying they're banning the game. They can just say it's "mature to the point of being evil," and then no one will distribute it.
Personally, I'd prefer to just be honest about whatever it is. If the ESRB has the right/ability to ban games, then let's just change "AO" to "banned". Second, let's change "M" to "your kids shouldn't be playing this, but our industry relies on bad parents buying adult games for their kids."
Let the kids play a real video game.
It's called life, and your mommy and daddy made it for you.
If you feel your kids can't handle life then teach them
Don't just put them in front of a video game.
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
My work's place should come with a warning of 'AO'.
That's me in the white after my boss wanted "a word"
http://www.forumpix.co.uk/uploads/1195575535.jpg
Ok...lets all scream and cry foul. Its the popular thing to do. In fact. I think we should go ahead and make the government allow us to play snuff films on daytime television. Do I think violent games/movies/music make kids violent...no. Do I think parents should do their damned job...yes. Do I believe like damn near every other psychological study has said that it indoctrinates them to violence...uh yeah. You people will cry about the Army using video games to indoctrinate into killing, and then in the same breath say that it doesn't make kids ok with killing. I swear to God you people are almost as bad as the Republicans who vote anti-gay and then get busted in these great butt fucking scandals.
Now, at the same time, if any one of you wackjob assholes trot out that "watch your damned kids" argument without having kids you can kindly STFU. Am I supposed to sit behind my kids and watch everything they watch as they are watching it instead of getting dinner ready or something just incase they decide to play hardcore porn and snuff films or something equally deranged? Am I supposed to follow them everywhere they go and police everything they do?
Our culture is such a puritan wackjob messup that we clamor for ultraviolent movies and games, yet scream bloody murder when a bare nipple gets broadcast across the nation. Bloody, beaten, shot, hanged, or otherwise mutilated and murdered people are FAR more damaging to a child than watching someone naked, even naked pretending to have sex, and quite frankly I think in many cases naked and actually having sex. And before you all scream how stupid this is. Lets try a Bullshit test for you all. Which is more damaging...your child walking in as your stab your wife to death...or your child walking in on naked time with the wife...
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Because they remember Fredric Wertham
And Jack Thompson.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Anyone would think there's some sort of election or something on the horizon.
is you can fill it with the likes of senator santorum (since voted out) and they can't do that much damage
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Whatever the average age of gamers is (and there seems to be some dispute), it's no longer just the realm of children. The tech is shiny and expensive and th 18-30 segment are the folks with a lot of disposable income and a love of shiny toys.
This reeks of someone at the ESRB being bought to me. The games content certainly feels like adult material. I wouldn't like to think of my kid-brother, at 16, playing it. He's nowhere near mature enough.
Huh? Yet he'll be just fine at 18? Maybe if he was expected to act mature, and handle things maturely earlier in his life, he'd actually BE more mature now.
People will change to fit your expectations.
As someone who has been a part of MANY ESRB submissions, let me tell you: Their system for rating is flawed. Sure, I don't like it any more than you do when a senator tries to tell me what to play on my own console, but the fact of the matter is that the ESRB is a load of crap. 1) The ESRB pays people off the street to rate your games! They try to get people that can spare an hour and have some sort of relations with children either as a parent or a teacher, etc. Then, they sit them down for an hour and make them watch a video of gameplay! No one ever plays the game before it is rated!!! 2) A typical ESRB rating costs $2500! This means that taking the game back in and trimming parts out to get a lower rating will cost $2500 per attempt!!! Don't like the fact that "soccer mom" doesn't like the "gore" or "blood" found in a game and now it's rated higher than anticipated? Tell the ESRB. 3) There are a number of things that the ESRB doesn't take into account. For instance, Morality. The ESRB is not concerned with lying, cheating, right or wrong or just about anything else that has moral or questionable implications. Instead, they focus 100% of their efforts on graphics and sound. They care more about whether or not one of the songs on the soundtrack uses the f-word than whether or not the only gameplay option is to lie to people. 4) The ESRB does not care what your game is about! They care about the content of said game. You could make a game that is all about killing people, slicing them up, eating them, etc. but do it off-screen, do it with green blood or with a loveable main character and suddenly the game is E for Everyone. The fact of the matter is that we have created the ESRB to police our video games for us but the whole system is run along the premise of the movies, "What you see is what you get." The really sad thing is that the ESRB rating isn't even mandatory! The only reason that developers and publishers put up with the flawed system is because NOT having a rating is market suicide because Wal-Mart and other retailers won't touch your game without it. Sadly, we've dug this hole for ourselves. I'm in the wrong business... I should rate games at $2500 a pop. Hell, you don't even have to play the game. Just sit down and watch a "No longer than 45 minute" video and read the 8 pages of accompanying paperwork then cash the check.
I've been playing the game on the Wii.
Let me wipe the blood from my glasses...
Ok then, while I am duly impressed at how my skills at killing people with a plastic bag have improved thanks to Manhunt 2 on the Wii (as opposed to how the theory was merely exposed while playing Manhunt), I just haven't had much success in finding mask wearing gangsters or corrupt police to use them.
Sure, the homeless problem could be easily cured by hordes of Wii Manhunt2 players slowly creeping up behind them at intersections with bats, but honestly I don't see that taking much more than 1-3 years and then we'll have all these well trained, experienced, murderers.
I think Manhunt 2 lost out by not including a way to train the would be murderer how to sneak. Where do we put our feet? How do we step? These things are taken care of by the game itself and I predict there will be many would-be murderers who get thwarted by a poor choice of steps.
Not to mention all the poorly outfitted 360 and PS3 players who have no idea how to kill someone with a bat properly.
Finally, the Wii shows its hardcore in a most awesome way.
Maybe Rockstar should have set the game in Iraq and had the player be a Blackwater agent (still insane) and then things would be just fine.
My guess is that, as children, these very senators have been exposed to violence in movies and have become quite insensitive. This caused them to vote for the bombing of several third world countries, condone torture on Guantanamo prisoners or support cruel punishments like the death penalty.
In their great wisdom, they now recognize how their perturbated childhood has misguided them to take very wrong decision as senators. They want to prevent the future leaders of this country to become the bloodthirsty warmongers they are now.
We can only applause.
Were I the game's publisher I would take this as a high compliment. They're saying that they've developed something with such potent imagery and with such a powerful message that it wholly overwhelms the intellect and sensibility of the people who play it. Can you really aspire to anything more as an artist/developer?
To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer
And therein lies the problem. Everyone wants to see their morals codified into law. Happened with the prohibition. Once saw an old news reel of a old woman saying something to the tune of "I don't want to drink alcohol because I think it's wrong, so I don't think anyone else should either". That kind of stuff chaffs me raw. Personally, I would love to see my religious morals codified into law, but they're a lot simpler "Do what thou wilt, but harm no one". Seems pretty simple to me. Nanny state crap like this is wasting time, wasting money, but you're right, they want to get re-elected, and no one seems to want to think about the important issues. In retrospect, I really should have just modded you insightful.
I got nuthin
If an AO rating is equivalent to a sales ban, why does it exist? You can sell hardcore pornography to adults but you can't sell them a violent video game because sony/nintendo won't license it for the console? WTF?
stuff |
When they call off the REAL violence in Iraq.
I sig, therefore I am.
These boneheads in Washington stop wasting my money and yours on idiotic crap like this that doesn't matter at all except to show their constituents that "they care"...so they can get their votes.
It's like their investigation into steroids in baseball. Who gives a crap? It's fricken baseball!
Stop wasting my money and time and get back to work!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Translation: "Your system doesn't work the way I want, so it must be broken."
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Because of the inversion of pronography and violence being the hot-button issues in Europe and America. In America, the highest ratings imply pornography (which Nintendo and Sony don't want to be associated with... cue Betamax). In Europe (generalizing becuase I have never been to England), typically nudity is more acceptable than violence.
So, to answer your question, Sony and Nintendo are fine being associated with violence (Nintendo typically cartoon), but not pornography. So, to make up for the fact that people rarely learn why the ratings are the way they are, anything with a pornographic sounding rating is a no-no.
Really, blame the American consumer or ESRB for not having a Violence/Sexuality/Language/Choose a few more categories complex rating and not a simple categorization.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Not in the least. An 18 year-old is NOT mature enough yet either. BEWARE - Tangent ahead!!
For the record, I feel the minimum age of adulthood really should be something like 21, especially since college has evolved into 'High School Second Edition'. That means no voting, no joining the military, no getting married, no ZERO CREDIT CREDIT CARDS, etc. If you're not old enough to maturely handle alcohol consumption, I don't want you choosing which targets are friendly nor choosing what kind of political issues you think are 'cool'.
Back to the point, in our current society 18 is when you get to start getting your feet wet. You begin to make those costly adult mistakes and your parents will still bail you out. Your parent's expectations have just gone up and you are just starting to get enough rope to hang yourself with...
If you're delving into porn and sadistic material, you're expected to be self-regulating at this point.
It is exactly like you said, you really do change to fit the expectations of others. In that light, which is easier, restrict the games to match that expectation or change the expectations of everyone in society for the benefit of a sub-genre of video games??
Again, this isn't about the entire video game industry. This is about the RATING SYSTEM, and whether or not it can be used as it is currently and have any success at all. The logic all points to 'not in the least'.
Seriously, why is this even an issue? What am I missing here, besides the desire to emancipate the down-trodden teenagers of America?
The funny thing is that somehow between the ages of 17 ("M") and 18 ("AO") the kids are supposed to have grown up and be able to handle it.
E pluribus unum
to say that there is reason for optimism on the subject matter
if you are going to insist on being a pessimist, i can't help you, and frankly, i would call you stupid for not celebrating when the cause to celebrate is clearly before you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
ManHunt 2 was originally given the kiss of death of an AO rating by the ESRB. After modifying game play and "cinema" to meet the request of the ESRB they were then certified with an M rating. The last point... It is a video game people... you know, not real life.
For the record, I feel the minimum age of adulthood really should be something like 21, especially since college has evolved into 'High School Second Edition'. That means no voting, no joining the military, no getting married, no ZERO CREDIT CREDIT CARDS, etc. If you're not old enough to maturely handle alcohol consumption, I don't want you choosing which targets are friendly nor choosing what kind of political issues you think are 'cool'.
What the hell, why not just make it 30? 35? How about 40? You seem to forget that people have rights, no matter what age they are.
It is exactly like you said, you really do change to fit the expectations of others. In that light, which is easier, restrict the games to match that expectation or change the expectations of everyone in society for the benefit of a sub-genre of video games??
Because the easy answer leads to to a nanny police state, where we are property of a governing few? Because the longer you push off making kids grow up, the less likely they'll ever be able to handle anything adult? Do you not see how many 35 year olds are making shit choices? Ever think that's because the current crop was babied so much growing up? Yes, society needs major changes. I don't advocate forcing it to change though, but I WILL for my rights and the rights of my family and friends to be respected.
Seriously, why is this even an issue? What am I missing here, besides the desire to emancipate the down-trodden teenagers of America?
I think you're missed out on the whole civil liberties thing this country was founded upon.
Damn it, I want to see some hardcore AO games. I mean, I haven't been into gaming for literally years but give me a hardcore AO with full frontal nudity, sex, oral sex, sodomy, bloody violence, drugs... how about making Fritz the Cat, the only feature length animated film ever to recieve an "X" rating from the MPAA, into a game?
Speaking of Fritz, a few years ago when I was on Paxil, Springfield was full of of cartoons and I met the skinny crow woman from Fritz the Cat (her name's Ginger). Twice!
I lost both levels, never did get laid back then (note the title of the second link).
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I agree. So the next thing to think about is how this is going to get fixed. While I would rather see our Senators spending time on more important matters, they do have a point: ratings should be consistent. And there should be games rated AO out there. The ESRB should rate lots of games AO, and game developers should take a stand and stick with it. Eventually Sony and Nintendo, as well as Walmart and the like, will come around and see that there is a market for adult entertainment (and not just the sexy kind). Then everyone wins.
Just release it to PC, over the internet, with no rating, and let gamers who know and fiends like us /.ers pick it up uber cheap because you didn't have to print a CD/DVD. Give Sony, Nintendo, The Senate, MPAA, and ESRB a big standing "Fuck You". I'm tired of this nazi country we live in and the only way we're going to get out from under the IndoRepubliDemofascists is to ignore them and do what we want(especially if it doesn't break any laws). Is it can be anarchy tiem now plees?
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
What do Senators have to do with the value of the dollar? Should the pass a law stating the dollar is now worth more than other currencies?
Sadly, that bill sounds about as well thought out as 99% of the shit they pass.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
For the record, I feel the minimum age of adulthood really should be something like 21, especially since college has evolved into 'High School Second Edition'. That means no voting, no joining the military, no getting married, no ZERO CREDIT CREDIT CARDS, etc. If you're not old enough to maturely handle alcohol consumption, I don't want you choosing which targets are friendly nor choosing what kind of political issues you think are 'cool'.
And in 20 years, someone will be advocating the "minimum age of adulthood" be raised to 25.
THe problem is not that there is a hard limit that is too low. The problem is that we're trying to set a hard limit on something that you cannot set a hard limit on. I know 30 year that are completely immature, and I've known people who were rock-solid responsible at 15.
What the hell do ratings have to do with advances in game controllers? Are they just trying to make some kind of a statement about the shape of the Wiimote?
The obvious solution is to create a rating that is "teh horrible pr0n" so the rating board can point to is and say "see? NC-17 and AO isn't porn. We have a rating for that stuff right there." Nobody says the ESRB has to actually assign the PRoN rating to anything. It just needs to exist to artificially raise the upper limit to one-more than desirable. Spinal Tap would be so proud.
More importantly, let's give props to Microsoft (yes, I know its /.) for doing something right and letting the gamer decide what to play on their console! Sun even shines on a dog's ---ESRB LABELED POST AO, Slashdot has truncated---
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
The problem is the big box stores won't care an AO game. Never mind the fact I bought the unrated version of Requiem For A Dream there. /sigh Sometimes I wonder if we can ever win, or if we ever have? Perhaps this is the way it's always been, and always shall. With the good and wise a mere flicker against a background of darkness and ignorance.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
See subject.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Your tax dollars hard at work. Sad isn't it?
The same senators who voted yes in their majority to authorize all these issues?
They are NOT some liberal activist group,they're
"professional politicians" doing their job(or pretending to do it).
Why can't game makers have AO only patches that you must add by your self after buying the game and it is not forced on to your like a few older 3d realms games had.
The console makers are a bit odd in that they want to be family oriented yet provide adult (17+) games. Why an 18+ game makes them less family oriented than a non family friendly 17+ title I don't know. I wish they would cut the crap and allow AO games. However, the real issue is the bias the senators have against games versus movies and music. Does Manhunt deserve an Adult rating? I haven't played it yet so that's tough to say, but to be perfectly honest, there isn't much that does warrant such a rating.
The goal of the senators isn't to get an adult rating so parents know it's an adult game. A mature rating already accomplishes that. The goal of forcing an adult rating is to prevent the release of a product to the wider, adult market. The object to the material out of hand and could care less about the children.
Content in many games that receive a mature rating would barely hit PG-13 for the movies the equivalent TV rating. To be perfectly honest, I treat all of these ratings as PG. That's Parental Guidance folks. As a parent, a Mature rating lets me know that a game may not be suitable for my kid. I can check out the game and decide if it is or not. The rating system worked. As an adult, if something hits that AO rating because of some senator, then I know what they did was out of their personal morals and no real desire to help my kid. And to be perfectly honest it's not their job. As another poster said, these senators need to get to work going something useful.
This is simply politics as usual. All the more reason to impose mandatory two-term limits for all elected officials.
Get your lazy asses back in to those seats. Stop listening to corporations. Start listening to your constituents. And GET SOME DAMN SHIT DONE!
Seeing as no corporations are pushing this issue, who do you think they're representing? Duh!
Congress is 0-23 in attempts to do anything at all about Iraq. Good thing they're spending their attention on this subject of vital national interest.
"What do Senators have to do with the value of the dollar?"
They pass legislation on government spending that adds trillions of dollars to our national debt, and ratify "Free Trade" agreements that practically guarantee enormous deficits.
Not a hell of a lot worse than other games, but it gave you the same sort of tension and jumpiness asa really good horror movie. Well the first one did, not sure about the second, haven't played it yet myself.
AO? Well, if GTA deserved an M rating (dubious, IMHO), then yes, Manhunt's a step up from there. it was farking great though. MH2 has a lot of detractors, maybe it's not so good.
In the UK the ratings are law. Doesn't seem so bad to me most of the time. Until they pull a stunt like refusing to rate something. We still have censorship in this country it seems. Fuckt them, really, for making the decision for us adults.
I bet, I just bet, that at some point in the meeting when it was decided that old chesnut came up -
"But children will get their hands on it"
Bugger the children.
Wow! Looks like you don't see things in black and white at all, and have a full understanding and appreciation for the nuance and complexity of issues!
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Articles/M3_Money_supply.asp
So in other words, they don't track the largest chunk of inflationary data. The banks, and the rich. All these sub-prime housing loans are getting funded somehow. You don't think that the M3 rate could be through the roof (to get people to buy into housing) and they decided to hide it from the general public? Sure, M1 and M2 looks fine, but with M3 the American Dollar is slipping on the global market to pay for it. I don't know if that chart lists the M3 rates, but my guess is that it doesn't.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
"Because the customers are not the same, and their companies are marketing their family-friendly image as much as anything else (moreso Nintendo than Sorny).
Face it: The average American consumer is a frothy-mouthed puritan."
Except that Manhunt2 is baned in the UK... And not just rated AO. Also in the US the games ratings don't carry the force of law like they do in the UK.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06/19/manhunt_2_banned/
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Well if a game actually fit the requirements for AO (This one doesn't..well in my opinion anyways) it would be bad enough that I can see them not allowing it. I wouldn't. It's their right to draw the line somewhere for what they consider to be decent or indecent and thus not allow on their console.. Especially Nintendo, which has traditionally catered more to the children/young teen age groups. However, I wonder why they don't just decide to draw that line on a game by game basis instead of trusting the rating system, which well, isn't trustworthy.
But I can perfectly understand not wanting certain games to be playable on their system, if they feel they cross the line.
You're just a contrarian. ;-)
Happened with the prohibition. Once saw an old news reel of a old woman saying something to the tune of "I don't want to drink alcohol because I think it's wrong, so I don't think anyone else should either". That kind of stuff chaffs me raw.
What these people fail to realise is that the consequences of banning whatever it is may well be worst than any problem (real or imagined) associated with whatever it is they wanted banned in the first place.
With prohibition (of any drug) the consequences include creation of a black market operated by gangsters, adulteration and comtamination, an increase in "binge usage", etc.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/11/02
I think that sums up the whole thing rather well.
Having said that, the government needs to keep it's noses out of how parents raise their kids. Would I let a 5 year old play Manhunt 2? Hell no. But it isn't up to the government to make that decision for me.
We have boobs just under the front page of our top selling daily newspaper, though not in our advertising and not usually on tv before 9pm. We've also kinda got some of the good ol' fashioned US desensitisation to violence going on.
Hardcore porn may or may not be illegal, nobody's really sure. Probably not.
We're a nation of slightly prudish people who don't really want it rubbed in their faces, so to speak, but enjoy a bit of titillation and a giggle in private.
In Soviet Russia, the children think of you.
I never thought the day would come where I would actually side with the ESRB on something... but here it is.
They couldn't make a profit off it if it doesn't end up in stores like Wallmart.
So much money goes in to games that they NEED to sell millions of copies to even break even.
Manhunt 2 was started in 2004 at a studio employing roughly 100 people, and they attempted to release it in 2007. According to Wikipedia several other Rockstar studios were involved, but I'll leave them out for now due to lack of numbers.
A rough calculation based on this (average salary pulled firmly out of rear end):
3 years x 100 people x $50,000/person/year = $15,000,000
$15 million just on salaries. Not including studio rent, pcs, dev kits, certification costs, software licenses, printing services, advertising, or drinks.
If they got $50 from every sale (and it's nowhere near this, the store owners and console makers take a fair chunk), they'd need to sell 300,000 copies just to cover the developers' salaries.
Factoring everything in, they probably break-even at 2 million sales.
If Manhunt is rated AO Then the series of Saw movies should be rated NC-17.
No I am not!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Actually, I think the problem with western societies is that people should be taking full responsibility for themselves by 18, but they aren't allowed to (or aren't forced to, however you prefer to see it. Sure, you're an "adult" at 18 in the USA, unless you want to drink (21), rent a car (businesses are allowed to refuse those under 25), view pornography (inconsistent; some places seem to require 21, some 18), or own a handgun (21 in some states). If progressives are interested in civil rights, how about attacking ageism?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The games content certainly feels like adult material. I wouldn't like to think of my kid-brother, at 16, playing it. He's nowhere near mature enough. The 'AO' standard really is a better fit for this particular title
Recall that the age limit for AO is 18, whereas M is 17. I do not think there is such a huge gap in maturity between a 17 and an 18 year old. Definitely not a gap large enough to make this big of a fuss about.
:(){
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
n/t
What the hell, why not just make it 30? 35? How about 40? You seem to forget that people have rights, no matter what age they are.
Effectivly the age of majority in the US probably is 21 now, because of the high (in comparison with other "Western" countries) minimum drinking age. Let alone having it much higher then the minimum driving age and often requiring driving documents a a prefered "proof of age" appears almost insane.
Because the easy answer leads to to a nanny police state, where we are property of a governing few? Because the longer you push off making kids grow up, the less likely they'll ever be able to handle anything adult?
It's quite easy for this "Nanny State by Age" idea to create a positive feedback loop. Especially if "ages of maturity" are so badly thought out in the first place that a sizable proportion of people won't get things straight until several years after the highest one. Use of recreational drugs appears to fall into this catagory, so it might not be too smart of make any of these the highest age. Indeed it probably makes more sense to make the likes of voting, joining the military, driving on public roads, etc amongst the highest. Especially if this allows a few years for people to learn responsible use of recreational drugs (N.B. demanding that people don't do this, along with demanding that people don't have sex, is stupidly going against human nature) before they can use highly dangerous machines.
Sure, yes, I'm just thinking that right _now_ it wouldn't be the big stores, that onloine ones would be the place to get these games.
Until they started to sell and Wally World realised they were missing out on revenue.
It's all about trying to break the stigma of AO, piece by piece.
Not that rockstar or any other game house is going to want to be the pioneer in this.
Why do you think that would screw up your brother?
I watched german bukkake films, hardcore porn and violence from I was 14+, haven't had any negative effect on me.
Anyway now im off to find me some poor hooker, cut her head off, ejaculate down her throat and feed the remains
to pidgeons, while im whistling the duke nukem soundtrack.
Even the Wii (as well as children in that case), why in the world would they restrict adult games for an adult product?
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
And in 20 years, someone will be advocating the "minimum age of adulthood" be raised to 25.
THe problem is not that there is a hard limit that is too low. The problem is that we're trying to set a hard limit on something that you cannot set a hard limit on. I know 30 year that are completely immature, and I've known people who were rock-solid responsible at 15.
It may even be the case that in some case the problem is that the "hard" limit is actually too low. As well as there should be more of a "soft" limit, a combination of "hard and soft" elements or even something along the lines of "there is an age limit, but if you manage to produce a false proof of age which works then from then on you have all the rights and responsibilities of that age". The latter may well lead to someone losing the right to any "child" concessions. Thus leading to a teenager having to make the choice of if being able to drink, drive, smoke, vote, etc is worth having to pay more to ride on a bus/train, pay more to watch a movie, fill out paperwork related to income tax, be called to serve on a jury, etc. It appears to help the stability of a society if rights go with responsibilities.
In that light, I hesitate to follow you down this path, but it could be pointed out that no child IN ANY CULTURE has complete freedom. Arguing in favor of allowing 'anyone of any age' to do whatever they want is lunacy. It is so far removed from my own world-view that I don't feel I can benefit you in any way by sharing my point of view. My train of thought is firmly grounded in the concept of limits for children. The younger, the stricter the controls. You should introduce them to responsibility slowly, guiding them each step of the way. Total freedom is never, ever an option for a child. That is strictly adult territory, and even then if a child of mine wants my input, I'd expect them to at least weigh my opinion. Because the easy answer leads to to a nanny police state, where we are property of a governing few? Whether or not Manhunt 2 receives an 'AO' rating from the ESRB is a 'nanny state' issue? Are you sure?
I'd reserve that argument for things like warrant-less wiretapping, email snooping, purchase tracking, and the like. Again, this isn't a story about the Feds running a background check on everyone who purchases a copy of this game. Not by a long shot. Save that argument for THAT day, because it is likely coming, and in the meantime you're wearing it out... I think you're missed out on the whole civil liberties thing this country was founded upon. I think somewhere along the line you mistook civil liberties for age-equality. There is nothing, whatsoever, in our body of law that suggests that all age groups should be treated equally. There are VOLUMES of law to the contrary. Even the very Constitution itself has age-based distinctions. Go back and read it again...
Not that any of that matters, in the least, because again, we're NOT TALKING ABOUT A BAN.
I don't think that the 'M' rating gets used in this manner, but you do make an excellent point.
for not understanding the concept of freedom of speech and free expression.
I dont care if its a game with raping babies in clown costumes...the government has absolutely no legal right to get involved. It's entertainment. Just like movies. This same idiot senators probably hold the film the Godfather or Saving Private Ryan in high regard... and yet games where you see similar levels of violence are deemed bad. Go figure.
Stop pandering to the stupid mothers and their children. Get to fixing this shit hole dieing country.
We're a nation run by photo ops and sound bites.
At age 18 you have choice of hardcore porn, cigarettes, marriage, parenthood, or even dying in a war. What is so detrimental about Manhunt 2 that it warrents 5 more years of maturity?
And you think an AO rating is going to stop him from getting that game one way or another? Remember when you were a teenager? How old were you when you watched your first porn flick? You can bet that a week after release at the very most, your brother has downloaded this game, installed it, and probably finished it.
Age based content rating (which is what the ESRB system is) is a terrible concept to start with. A content based rating is far more likely to be effective. Nudity, horror, violence, profanity, ... Make those the categories on which to classify a game, and define clear boundaries when your game crosses from one category "level" to another. Then define what category "level" a game becomes adult only.
That way, the ratings cannot be bent to appease the marketability and doubted afterwards, parents know what their kids want (them) to buy, and politicians can stop whining about the subject. Content creators will have no choice but to follow the guidelines and stay under that well-defined line if they want stores/consoles to have their game.
Perhaps I'm a bit naive in assuming that it's easy to classify various things in "levels", but to me it seems really straight forward to make the difference between "contains nudity", "contains implied sex" and "contains breeding like rabbits", or "player shoots monsters", "player shoots realistic looking human beings" and "player must flay living human beings and sacrifice intestines to Zorgal, God of the Underworld, using a spoon".
Tell me this same distribution of parents today are buying copies of Manhunt 2 via special order. Go on, try it...
To put it into context, however, assume that Manhunt 2 got rated 'monsters' when it clearly should have been somewhere between 'humans' and 'zorgal'. Ergo the letter from Congress.
The real reason that Nintendo, Sony, and MS do not allow AO rated games is actually quite simple. All one has to do is examine history to find out why the console makers do not allow AO rated games:
It all boils down to one word, "Mystique".
"Mystique was the name of a company that produced a number of pornographic video games for the Atari 2600, such as Beat 'Em and Eat 'Em, Bachelor Party and the below mentioned Custer's Revenge."
"The games caused the 2600's image to suffer. Atari sued Mystique over such games, but lost the suit in court."
-----
If I were a console maker I would definitely be fearful of having something as notorious as "Custer's revenge" coming out on my console!
-----
p.s. I won't even go into depth about all the *horrible* ( horrible gameplay ) religious games that came out on atari and later SNES.
p.p.s. I won't even go into depth about how they portrayed the religions that these games were trying to teach you about. Oh dear lord...
"More to the point, what on earth does it being carried or not carried have to do with what the game is rated? Either it meets the standard for 'M', without exceeding it and going beyond into 'AO', or it does not."
I think you've inadvertantly hit on the fundamental flaw with the rating system.
In the rating system, "Adults Only" means that it may only be sold to adults - 18 and over. "Mature" is given to content that is only for those people, children included, who are "mature" enough to handle it - rought guide, 17 and over. Now, in teh vernacular, "mature" MEANS "adult".
So why is there 2 different ratings that have basically the same meaning? It's the difference between sex and violence. Regardless of what is written in the ratings descriptions, the intent of "M" is to denote violence, and "AO" is to denote sex. This was to address the American dichotomy between how we treat sex and violence in the media, and Congress bought into it. And at the time, it was no big deal - the violence was "cartoony" anyway, so it could be safely ignored.
Fast forward via Moore's Law, and now videogame violence can be made to seem VERY realistic. So now, when Jerry dropd teh anvil on Tom's head, we see the brains splatter in all their polygonally rendered and physics engine derived glory, and folks are going "WTF - this wasn't the violence I agreed to!"
Congress has a long history of doing this shit, from Jack Valenti to Tipper Gore. Is anyone here surprised at this, or at how our schizophrenic views of sex and violence are ultimately irreconcileable?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Are you drunk or just very, very young? No one, and I mean no one, is discussing anything having to do with 'rights' here. The rating system has zero impact on the 'right' to do anything. It isn't even a First Amendment issue, as these companies could simply opt out of using this rating system and release their product anyway. If we were debating some kind of a ban or something, you'd have a point. But we're not, and in the context of the topic, you really don't
Perhaps you need to read up the thread a bit more; the OP was talking about not letting
someone play a game based on age. He said "not mature enough" and then went to say we should reclassify "adulthood" age, so that minors can be kept from harming themselves.
In that light, I hesitate to follow you down this path, but it could be pointed out that no child IN ANY CULTURE has complete freedom. Arguing in favor of allowing 'anyone of any age' to do whatever they want is lunacy. It is so far removed from my own world-view that I don't feel I can benefit you in any way by sharing my point of view. My train of thought is firmly grounded in the concept of limits for children. The younger, the stricter the controls. You should introduce them to responsibility slowly, guiding them each step of the way. Total freedom is never, ever an option for a child. That is strictly adult territory, and even then if a child of mine wants my input, I'd expect them to at least weigh my opinion.
I never said either that we should let children have complete freedom; on the other hand, I don't think we should be pushing "childhood" out beyond its traditional meaning. That is what I am arguing against (although I think we should be pushing the other direction). That's beside the point though, because as I said the OP was advocating re-defining adulthood to pervent people from doing some action.
Whether or not Manhunt 2 receives an 'AO' rating from the ESRB is a 'nanny state' issue? Are you sure?
When an AO rating would effectively ban the game, and when we have Senators trying to push the rating back to AO, yes, that's a nanny state issue. The government should have zero say in content created by one party and consumed by another. This is an issue for parents. Lets be real here, I grew up when video games first came under fire. We only have the ESRB as a result of government threatening to censor, much like it did with movies and music. So to me, yes, it is a rights issue.
I'd reserve that argument for things like warrant-less wiretapping, email snooping, purchase tracking, and the like. Again, this isn't a story about the Feds running a background check on everyone who purchases a copy of this game. Not by a long shot. Save that argument for THAT day, because it is likely coming, and in the meantime you're wearing it out...
That's far beyond a nanny state; that's a fascist state. Those are different rights being infringed, but it doesn't mean that censorship is less important because these other issues exist. Logical arguments don't "wear out" as you say though. They aren't any less valid simply because people close their ears or minds because they've heard them alot.
I think somewhere along the line you mistook civil liberties for age-equality. There is nothing, whatsoever, in our body of law that suggests that all age groups should be treated equally. There are VOLUMES of law to the contrary. Even the very Constitution itself has age-based distinctions. Go back and read it again...
Yes, that wasn't my point when discussing age. The OP wanted to push "adulthood" back because he didn't think 18 was approprate to do anything. Even our founders said 18 was old enough, and if you read their writings, you can see coming up with that age was not something they did lightly.
Not that any of that matters, in the least, because again, we're NOT TALKING ABOUT A BAN.
Questioning the ESRB
Depends on the Wal*Mart. At the one near me in Seattle, they carry stuff that doesn't exactly fit with their puritanical ideals. I wouldn't be surprised at all for them to carry an AO game. Not to mention, if Gears of War and Assassin's Creed aren't AO, then a game would pretty much have to be America's Army: Guantanamo Vacation - A Torture Simulator to qualify. Not like it would matter. Where the fuck does a little kid get $60 for Gears of War which they play at 1am on a weeknight? Why not consider legislation to repeal child tax credits and impose more punative damages on parents abdicating their responsability to their children.
I have a question: why are your Senators talking about this?
Also, Billy took little Johnny's lunch money at school today. When will the US Senate begin hearings on that?
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Sence you manedged to get a GNAA post to +5, you are now an offishul membur of the GNAA.
New memburs are requered to bring the loob at the next meating.
Agen, congradulashuns Entropius (188861) -- your now the membur with the lowist slashdot UID.
Lets put an AO on cable news. The other day I saw a real live soldier with a 9" knife in his head. As well as a whole slew of war soldiers - and tales of homosexual and adulterous senators and politicians.
Have you even taken the time to look at the current ESRB Rating (I have enclosed it below for you just in case)? Your are correct, little 16 year old Johnny is not MATURE enough to play this game, since the age limit for mature is 17!
Little Johnny can't go see a rated R movie, so hey also can not buy a rated M video game.
Please do some research before hitting reply, it will keep you from looking like the idiot that you are.
In Closing, Parents need to suck it up and be responsible for what their child are doing (Kudos to the very well informed parent above, I do agree with you 100%). And Senators need to focus on getting the country back on track not playing parent, which is not what they were elected to do.
EARLY CHILDHOOD
Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
EVERYONE
Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
EVERYONE 10+
Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
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.
ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
The only one that was given an AO rating solely for violence or gore was Thrill Kill on the PS1. (Peak Entertainment Casinos was dinged for "gambling" and all the rest include "strong sexual content" as at least part of the reason for the rating.
There are people making the games, there are people that want to play the games, why not just let the rating system rate them and let people choose to play them or not?
Sony and Nintendo are the problem in this scenario. Sony and Nintendo, like all businesses, are anethical... They don't do good, they don't do evil, they do whatever makes them money, regardless of morality. The closest they come is when they figure they can make money by selling the impression of ethics.
So, accepting that they would happily sell "Over 95, with written consent of both parents, this'll make you a serial killer, no really!-Only" games if it meant they'd make money, the question is: What makes them think they wouldn't make money overall?
The answer to that one is depressingly simple: Puritan America.
Even if the game comes with a million warnings about being for adults only, thousands of parents will give it to their kids anyway. Then, in time honored fashion, one of those kids will go on an unrelated shooting spree and a lawyer seeking to make a reputation will sue the game makers and the game system makers.
The system maker will likely defeat the case. But defeating the case is still a loss. Just to show up in court costs them hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.
Walmart, crazy as it sounds, sells far more games than anyone else. They'll never permit an Ao title. BestBuy, CircuitCity? They won't either. So you get a game that manages meager sales, regardless of its quality. 50,000 sales at $10 each to the platform maker? That's maybe half a million dollars. Far more than that would go out to defending it.
Even a court victory more than wipes out any profits they made from allowing the game to be released on their system. And that's before you factor in negative advertising, let alone the freak case they actually manage to lose.
So, existing in a world purely without ethics, simply about money, the system makers have a simple question to answer: Is it profitable to allow the game's release? With puritan America, its values and the cost of even being in the right in its legal system, it's not.
It's easy to judge Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo for their refusal. At the end of the day, they're businesses. And we're the society that created a place where it doesn't make good business sense to allow Ao titles on consoles.
They are listening to their constituents. Scared yet?
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
... "Senator Hunt 2". Your weapon is a big fat briefcase of cash.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
First of all, kids should not be playing "M" rated games, if you're a parent and you allow this you are a bad parent.
Secondly, I see no difference between M and AO, it's only one freaking year of difference, it's not like there's a big difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old.
The console makers need to get their heads out of their asses too, there's no reason that the system should refuse to play AO rated games. There's obviously a market demand for AO content and it's up to me to decide what to play on my system.
Thankfully we still have PC gaming which has no restrictions at all.
This reeks of someone at the ESRB being bought to me. The games content certainly feels like adult material. I wouldn't like to think of my kid-brother, at 16, playing it. He's nowhere near mature enough. The 'AO' standard really is a better fit for this particular title, unless they have made some changes that I'm not aware of...
Seems to me that this is where the problem lies. People just don't know what the ratings mean. According to the ESRB website, only T games and below are suitable for your kid brother. The description for M rating sounds pretty damn close to a Manhunt game to me. Since most of Manhunt is about sneaking around AVOIDING conflict I'd hardly think there would be "prolonged scenes of intense violence" in any frequency.
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.
ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
While I could be kind to the "critics", the reality is that most of them are busybody opportunists that see a complete non-issue they can exploit to get brownie points for "helping the children". They really don't care about the issue one way or another, they're looking for handouts from the computer games industry. Make no mistake, people like Jack Thompson want the video game industry to give them cash to GO AWAY. These same people used to make a lot of noise about comic books before they were bought by the big media companies that pay the "critics" salaries.
Just like comic books, video games are easy to attack because they're perceived as a "kid's media". Cartoons used to receive the same sort of criticism (in the early years South Park was attacked the same way) but big media money killed that.
Basically, the video games industry just needs more lobbyists and flacks to promote their position. It really doesn't matter what they say, it's the handouts that matter.
It's not an argument?
I bought the game on PSP.
I enjoyed it quite a bit, it's very similar to the original Manhunt.
The game is way less violent than the original Manhunt.
There was less disturbing imagery, no graphic eviscerations, and much less blood.
I think all this bullshit is overblown, Gears of War is far and away more violent than Manhunt 2.
I wish our civic leaders took more time to fight corruption, and less time pandering to the corruptors.
By far, the biggest waste of time was "Freedom Fries". Even if the genius that came up with that only took 5 seconds, it was still the biggest waste of time ever. The instant I heard about it, I gave up my last ounce of faith in the system. America as we knew it is over. Maybe the next super-power will have a better run.
Isn't manhunt a snuff video game?
It's not just like, it's an action movie and people die...
You're trying to construct cinematic murders...
Snuff film gets rated X doesn't it? Doesn't rating a snuff game as M (or even R if that's the equivalent) strike you as incorrect?
I will quote two description of two games made for the Atari 2600... Before Nintendo, Sony, and MS started to require their permission before a game is released on their console. A short description of Custer's Revenge:
"well you are both completely naked. What's happening... well there are spears dropping from out of the sky. And you gotta avoid them. So the goal of the game is to get over there and rape her. That's terrible I can't believe I'm playing this! Ya fuck her fuck her! That's how you score in this game.'
Ya that's funny right? Well its funny for about two minutes. Then it gets boring.
All you do is. Bang the chick. Dodge the spears. Bang the chick. Dodge the spears.
You know... you gotta give this guy credit. He's under attack and he still has the nerve to go over and screw this woman against a cactus. "
A short description of Beat 'em and eat 'em:
"Beat em... and eat em... oh dear what have I gotten myself into. All you do is move these two sluts back and forth to catch this... *stuff* this guy shoots down... *licking of mouth action happens onscreen* oh... yummy. "
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/23884.html . Quotations and descriptions are courtesy of "the angry video game nerd. =P
I love it; Kubrik's Eyes Wide Shut is sent back to the editing room for a penis and a vagina, and yet movies like Saw 1 through 4 are perfectly acceptable mass media.
And somehow, Manhunt 2 is a lightning rod for debate.
Thats fucked up, in my opinion.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Fredric Wertham was more successful at it. And, amazing as it is to say, less nuts.
Chris Mattern
This is such crap. Why doesn't the MPAA get a stern talking to over their crappy rating system?
Hostel 2 received an R rating, the same rating The Matrix received.
You can't tell me the levels of violence in those two movies are even close.
I'm tired of the members of Congress using video games to try to make parents believe they give a rats ass about their kids. If they did they need to be doing this crap on all industries, movies, music, books, etc... Stop doing this shit just to get press and do your damn jobs. Don't you have soldiers to get out of Iraq or SOMETHING better to do with your time?
...is to some (usually large) degree based on morality. Fraud is illegal, because, well - people believe it is wrong. And so on.
The trouble with "free speech" is that everyone seems to want it for the wrong reasons. People should be using free speech to criticise their government, but instead they're using it to produce puerile violent games and vulgar films. There's nothing wrong with using free speech for those things, but aren't there better things it could be used for? Perhaps that's all part of some elaborate government ploy... get you all so up in arms over some trivial game that they can do what they like without fear of criticism.
Tangentially, I'm inclined to say that the same goes for guns... It'd be nice if they were used for rebelling against a tyrannical government, but instead they're used for crimes and the cute idea of defending yourselves from criminals.
All that being said, I'm in the UK, and we're going to hell in a handcart as well.
Exactly!
:(
Why did my mod points expire yesterday
Just because they are your kids doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like to them. In a lot of countries the goverment and health service have legal responsibilities to stop you "harming" your kids.
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
Personally, I'd like to see the Senators take on the ESRB. Something tells me the result would be much different. Not to mention the dental bills.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
ESRB does have sub categories that it uses to modify ratings.
For instance: 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. ADULTS ONLY Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity. Both M or AO can imply "sex". Meanwhile there exist the following modifier tags:These can be used to modify and signify whether an AO rating is primarily due to sex. Compare this to the movie industry's rating system and you just don't have the same amount of information.
Nintendo and Sony (can't find a link at the moment) have said using blanket statements that they will not have Adult only games on their consoles regardless of what you might imply.
Valid !== useful.
Ron Paul would probably sever any governmental ties to the ESRB. No where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to regulate communications, books, games, the press, or anything of that sort.
Libertas in infinitum
With a post like that I sure hope you are supporting and voting for Ron Paul.
Libertas in infinitum