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.
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...
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!
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.
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.
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.
If you fight for gay rights (something sorely missing in America) you are attacked by the "Christian Conservatives", most of whom are as anti-christian as you can be.
If you fight for universal healthcare (yet another important thing), you are attacked by the powerful insurance lobby, and "fiscal conservatives", who are fine spending billions, but only if it goes into the pockets of their cronies.
If you attack video games, however, who attacks you? No (politically) powerful or influential group takes up the mantle. So while the intelligent may see it as a waste of time, and slashdotters may see it for what it is (a problem that could easily be solved if parents simply monitored their children), their is really no downside for the politician.
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.
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."
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.
To each their own. I subscribe to the "if you like it then it's a good game for you" philosophy. I think it's junk but your mileage may vary.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
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
When they call off the REAL violence in Iraq.
I sig, therefore I am.
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!
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.
This is simply politics as usual. All the more reason to impose mandatory two-term limits for all elected officials.
"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.
If Manhunt is rated AO Then the series of Saw movies should be rated NC-17.
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.