Slashdot Log In
AO Rating Basically Bans Manhunt 2 From Release
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jun 21, 2007 08:37 AM
from the catch-22 dept.
from the catch-22 dept.
Yesterday we discussed Manhunt 2's AO rating, and what it meant for the game's retail outlook. Gamespot points out that effectively an AO rating means that the game will never be released in the first place. "Both [Nintendo and Sony] forbid licensed third-party publishers from releasing games rated AO for Adults Only on their various hardware platforms. Though Manhunt 2 isn't slated for any of Microsoft's systems, the company has also confirmed that it does not allow AO-rated titles on the Xbox or Xbox 360. The sole exception to this rule was in 2005 when the already released Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was retroactively rated AO, at which point retailers pulled it from shelves and Take-Two suspended production of the game."
Related Stories
[+]
Games: Manhunt 2 Ban Fallout, Game Rated AO By ESRB 384 comments
In the wake of yesterday's announcement of a UK ban on Manhunt 2 , Rockstar has registered its disappointment at the BBFC's decision. The company simply stated that they 'respect those who have different opinions about the horror genre and videogames as a whole, but we hope they will also consider the opinions of the adult gamers for whom this product is intended.' Meanwhile, here in the US, the ESRB has given the game the dreaded AO rating, for adults only. If you're unfamiliar with this seldom-seen designation, it's essentially the 'kiss of death' for a title at retail; a number of popular videogame outlets refuse to carry titles with that rating. MTV's Stephen Totilo has a lengthy and considered discussion of these proceedings. "For 'Manhunt 2,' signs pointed to the title being both less and more extreme than the first. Gone from press previews were mentions of snuff films and Directors. Instead, a more traditionally violent video game premise: one man's struggle to stay alive in an insane asylum gone mad."
[+]
Politics: Take Two Shelves Manhunt 2 350 comments
If you've been following this story so far, it shouldn't come as a shock that Take-Two has shelved Manhunt 2 for the moment, while they decide what to do next. The company is considering its options, and still fully supports the game as a 'work of art'. "Take-Two Interactive Software has temporarily suspended plans to distribute Manhunt 2 for the Wii or PlayStation platforms while it reviews its options with regard to the recent decisions made by the British Board of Film Classification and Entertainment Software Rating Board ... We continue to stand behind this extraordinary game. We believe in freedom of creative expression, as well as responsible marketing, both of which are essential to our business of making great entertainment." Analysts have already started weighing in, with some seeing this as unfairly targeting the GTA-maker for previous 'sins'.
[+]
Games: Take Two Vows To Publish Manhunt 2 116 comments
Despite Manhunt 2's bad reception in both UK and US, Take Two has publicly announced that it will publish the game at some point. Backing the title as art, once again, the company vowed to see the game released in some capacity or another. "The chairman added that Take-Two subsidiary Rockstar Games, which publishes Manhunt and the Grand Theft Auto series, sees itself as a producer of games rated M for Mature. However, Zelman did say Take-Two would stand by its game, even if it bore the dreaded AO for Adults Only rating. 'We don't see ourselves in the Adults Only business,' he told analysts listening to the call. 'Having said that, if we find ourselves in the Adults Only business, it would be because we have a title that we consider art and entertainment, that we consider if appropriately labeled AO, and that we would like to bring to market.'"
[+]
Games: Manhunt 2 Ready For Release, Politicians Angered 66 comments
After much hemming and hawing, Take-Two appears to have secured an 'M' rating for Manhunt 2 from the ESRB. The title is now due in stores around Halloween. The reversal of fortunes for the much-maligned title has prompted a number of conspiracy theories and outright outrage from groups 'fighting' videogame violence. Well-known commentator on the subject and California State Senator Leland Yee is demanding more transparency from the ESRB as a result of this decision. From GamePolitics' coverage: "Parents can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating. The ESRB and Rockstar should end this game of secrecy by immediately unveiling what content has been changed to grant the new rating and what correspondence occurred between the ESRB and Rockstar to come to this conclusion. Unfortunately, history shows that we must be quite skeptical of these two entities."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chalk up another one for PC gaming.
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
What, only at weekends?
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting that you bring that up. MK caused such an uproar that Nintendo reversed that policy for MKII. The SNES ended up with the best version of it.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Like it or not, a lot of parents factor in whether content is appropriate when deciding what to buy their kids. And if one console says they won't allow AO content, then a lot of parents will choose that console. This is especially relevant since kids are able to download content for the 360.
The simple fact is that a significant portion of the US market responds well to actions like this. If you don't like it, then your options are to not buy that console, or to change the viewpoint of the market.
My point is that you shouldn't get annoyed with MS for this; you should be annoyed with the segment of the US population who factor it into their purchase decisions.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's exactly what's going to happen. Consoles ain't kid's toys. Yes, Gameboys and DSs are. PSPs may be. But a PS3 for 600 bucks with games costing in the 60 bucks range? If that's targeted at kids, how much allowance do they have today, and could I get adopted please?
The average console freak ain't the 14 or 16 geeky, light-shunning hermit anymore, I'd rather think I'll find him in the 20-30 year old crowd. No kids, expendable income, party person. The success of "party console games" like SSBM or Mario Party (or whatever the name was) suggest that, if nothing else. I know a fair lot of very dedicated console players, none of them having kids but they usually have the dough to buy about 2-3 games a month on average. And they do. And they do enjoy "mature" games.
I'd rather see this move as one that might alienate the core buyer population. I don't really think the majority of games sold these days are bought by parents. Most are bought by the ones that want to play them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, beause kids just love Brain Training and Yoga Lectures.
"Mature" games like Manhunt aren't targeted at adults. They are targeted at teenagers.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure it is, and I'm glad. If you haven't noticed, Nintendo has been very candid about how they feel videogames should play a role in our lives. Miyamoto, whose philosophical ideals make him about the equivalent, for video games, as Frank Zappa was for music, is basically at the heart of their message. They don't send him out to talk about his philosophy for nothing.
I have to dissagree. Maybe Sony and Microsoft have little ethical mission, but you can bet your ass Nintendo does. I happen to agree with them 100%, so I'm just going to cheer them on (I'm glad to see a company really have an overall "vision" the way they do), but I can understand that others might be pissed.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Believe it or not, this is a huge improvement over the way things were back in the day of the NES. It used to be far worse. Nintendo wouldn't even publish NES games containing the word "Kill".
More here:
http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/maniac.html [crockford.com]
Parent
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm 28, and I own a PS2, Wii and a 360. I have no children. It's just myself and the fiancee. We have a lot more expendable income on average than our friends with children, and we buy a lot more games because of it. Out of all the people I know buying games, most are buying for themselves and not children (including our friends with little ones.) Most of the kids old enough to play games just have some form of GameBoy, while the consoles are for the adults.
On a side note, the new Paper Mario for the Wii is great. It's not quite as hard as I'd like platform wise, but it's still been grabbing most of my game attention lately. A lot of the humor in the game children wouldn't get, and for a Mario game the story is pretty grim and complex.
Parent
Company rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Company rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
People are merely expressing their outrage - as is THEIR right - at the censorship.
They have every right to do things that make people angry, that's just not normally good business policy. The only message this sends to me, for example, is "don't buy a Wii or PS3 because we might just decide you're not allowed to play games you like because we personally find them too 'offensive'".
Hey, whatever. More power to you if you think you can maintain a "kiddy system" by eliminating adult games from it, but I'm the adult holding the purse strings here, and this doesn't make me want to open them up.
Parent
A standard...? (Score:4, Interesting)
Rockstar can chalk up the loss of a Wii sale.
The real problem here is will this set a standard for the future of ratings on the Wii. If a game like Manhunt can't appear on the Wii because of the way that you swing the controller to kill your pray is AO, then why wasn't Zelda? Because you're not killing humans? Okay, fine. Why not Medal of Honor? Red Steel? Personally I have no interest in playing any of the Manhunt series of games, but I believe the ESRB knows what they're doing.... I just hope this isn't the new precedence for rating Wii games. I don't want to play Manhunt, but I would love a Tenchu game or similar.
Parent
Perfect Time to change the model? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they tried this model I would more then likely buy the game to support it.
Re:Perfect Time to change the model? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't this seem wrong though? I mean I can see needing a license to say that a game is an official Nintendo Wii game with the logos and all that shit. But what is to stop them from selling me a disk that happens to work with the wii and then with me actually putting it in the wii and playing it?
This would be like saying certain music cant be released on CD because its offensive to the group that holds the CD trademark.
I'm sure it has something to do with the licensing on the SDK or something like that,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This is because you'd need to sign your disks without having legitimate signatures from Nintendo. You aren't allowed to circumvent an encryption system. It's not a problem with regular DVDs because all DVD players will play unencrypted DVDs, as far as I know. For a Nintendo, it's bypassing a content control system, which
Re:Perfect Time to change the model? (Score:4, Interesting)
Rob
Parent
Re:Perfect Time to change the model? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, they can't sue you to stop you from releasing it. But they don't need to, because it won't work anyway. And if you manage to break the cryptographic signature and release it in a manner that actually works, well, that's where the DMCA comes into play. Nintendo/Sony/et al. have all their bases covered.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Won't somebody please think of the adults! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Die for your country" vs "society chooses"... (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, in the US you can die for your country but you can't drink a beer - service personnel don't have to be at least 21 years old to enlist, but you do have to be 21 to drink legally. And the same is true in the UK and most other countries. And it's not just buying a beer, it's stuff like being able to smoke, being able to drive, being able to vote, being able to stand for election, being able to marry without
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stick BBFC in Google and what do you get? "British Board of Film Classification" x1000
I "arrogantly assumed" people would know what it stood for because there was a
This whole thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop whining about Sony, Nintendo and MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the government are dictating the rules I see no reason why companies should play any part in the situation. If the government wants to make bans certain things it should be forced to come out and do it. The companies that either refuse to se
If this is on p2p networks (Score:2)
It's a shame, twice over. (Score:2)
It's in the hands of the console companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Denying them the ability to release for the console is silly, though obviously within their rights. I wish they would reconsider, because that's a kick in the balls after so much money, time, and effort has been sunk by developers to create this.
I expect the developer to leverage the power of their other games to convince these companies to relax this AO-ban on their consoles in order for them to at least recoup some of the costs of making Manhunt II.
That said, Manhunt was a terrible game. I'm a gamer, not a violencer. I'm entertained by the gameplay not the violence. It was a severely dumbed down Splintercell, but instead of grabbing and incapacitating guards, it tried to sell itself by incapacitating them with snuff-film kills. Whoop-de-freaking-doo, it adds up to the same thing. The violence doesn't excite me, nor does it repulse me. It -nothings- me, and since that was the main draw of this game, it is filled with mainly nothing. I'm still open to the idea that Manhunt II could improve on this formula, but its predecessor leaves me with little confidence. I'd be more upset about this game not getting released if the first wasn't so boring.
Maybe this is why PC gaming should be more popular (Score:4, Interesting)
As an argument against the ESRB's practises, however, look at other art and entertainment. Books aren't rated, yet they can be as grotesque (if not more) than Manhunt. Movies more grotesque and violent than Manhunt get away with an R rating (MPAA != ESRB, though). Not only that, but movies can be released as "unrated and uncut" (i.e., all extras haven't been MPAA-rated), yet the stores will still sell them. Hell, the news can be more grotesque on a regular basis than Manhunt, yet that doesn't get rated as TV-MA or anything like that!
If anyone has examples of other arts that have been effectively self-censored due to its rating system (e.g., a movie that was originally rated as NC-17 that had to tone it down to get R for a theatre release), please provide them. This is quite a hypocritical situation going on in the videogame world, but perhaps it used to be like this in another art and I'm just too young to have experienced that.
Let the market decide (Score:4, Insightful)
The ratings board just rates games.
Honestly, I have nothing wrong with this whole scenario.
I say Rockstar should release the game on the PC and sell it on the cheap, say $35-$40. Let people download it through Steam since most major retailers probably won't carry it.
Between people buying it through online retailers, and Steam, if the game still manages to sell, it will be an object lesson to those who won't carry AO titles.
More adults game than children. As a parent, I want to keep content like this from my kid's hands.
But I'd like the opportunity to play it myself.
I don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
Rockstar knew it would get an AO rating.
Rockstar knew no console maker would allow an AO rated game.
So basically; where's the news?
Ridiculous. (Score:3, Insightful)
The US MPAA film rating system is setup with R and NC-17. R means that people under 17 need someone to be there (an escort), while NC-17 is supposed to stop anyone under 17 from being in the theatre (which is a joke and useless, since you can just watch it on DVD in the comfort of your own home within 6-8 months). An NC-17 rating no longer allows a movie to be an adult movie for adults; it means you can't be shown on a number of screens, and you won't be allowed to advertise to your potential audience. It's a kiss of death done by the MPAA board to censor what the US people see.
The ESRB M and AO ratings are both like R because any adult can purchase the game for people under 17 and 18, respectively, and be well within the law. Yet here we have console makers saying that while they allow people to have games on their consoles, they don't allow AO games on their consoles. This is outright ludicrous. Microsoft and Nintendo both had some fairly explicit nudity on the Xbox and Gamecube with BMX XXX (the Sony PS2 version was censored and did not have the stripper videos uncensored like the other two versions). There has also been plenty of explicit violence (Manhunt is a good example; you sneak up and brutally murder people!).
To say that they won't carry AO is just a way to start enforcing other people's views on the views of people who are actually interested in purchasing the games mentioned.
A further thought: is it really wise to control so much what children see and do? In the UK, it's very legal for a 16-year-old to drink. France as well. A normal, moderate consumption with a meal is not looked down on. Their percentage of binge drinking of young adults is nothing compared to the US. It seems that by keeping these things unaccessible for a longer period, people don't build up the understanding needed to deal with these situations when they are old enough to be in them. Imagine if the first time you were allowed to play Doom or Duke Nukem 3D was when you were 18 or 19 -- how would that change your outlook on those games?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
That rhetoric is old and bullshit. You now have a fresh generation of adults who grew up on consoles and arcades during the '70s and '80s. You have people who are now in the 18-34 demographic (one of the largest targets for advertisers, especially the male side) that are not only buying consoles for themselves but buying video games to play for themselves. Video games are a new form of entertainment which are gaining a widespread appeal, in large part because consoles like the Wii have made games more enjoyable and are not focusing on the hardcore gaming crowd that MS and the X-Box line have been accused of going after.
You see, the problem with your whole argument is that the console makers have decided they do not want these AO games on their consoles; probably for one of two reasons: 1) the stigma around AO has always been sex, sort of like NC-17 to the movies and/or 2) they do not want their consoles directly attached to these rated games because of the crap they have to put up with from the zealots (and we do not need to name them).
This is slashdot, so let us use an analogy (and one that hopefully isn't too bad). There are many 'R' rated movies that I would not want my children to see (assuming I had any) until they were probably 18 or older. Some of them are movies that I myself cannot even stomach to watch (the Saw series and Hostel come to mind). While other movies are far more acceptable in my eyes because their violence content is much lower and the worst thing some of them have is foul language (Lethal Weapon series comes to mind). Look at another 'R' rated movie, "The Passion of The Christ". People took their kids to this movie (some rather young), despite it being considered somewhat graphic by people. I doubt these same people would be quick to let their children watch other 'R' rated movies. If we are to agree that 'M' most closely related to an 'R' movie rating, then how can a game whose violence level has been compared Saw and Hostel be given a rating that denotes anything worse? In the end, ratings should be only a guide for parents and other consumers in the purchase of a game, whether it be rated 'E', 'T', 'M', or 'AO'.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My sentiments exactly. In part I can understand why Rockstar might not want an AO rating. There are a number of store that refuse to carry it such as Walmart, Best Buy, etc. and if you're product isn't available for sale it makes it a whole lot harder to sell.
The no licenses for AO games from the big 3 console makers seems quite two-faced to me. That is definitely a
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because Sony of America and Nintendo of America don't need to rate their games.
2. McCartyism made sure that you'll never work again, while this at worst means not publishing a game. For extra points: a game they should have had a good idea from the start that it'll get an AO rating. I'm sorry but there's a freakin' massive difference between the two.
You're right, all the development effort put into the game is worth nothing after all. Also, when you release a game that's actually tamer than the first version (and much tamer than many R rated movies), you expect to get an AO rating.
And incidentally: no, you don't have a sacred right to make a profit at all cost. There's a difference between freedom of speech, which is what the McCarthy era was infringing on, and the right to make a profit by selling ultra-violent games to kids. I mean, what next? The right to open a cocaine stand in a school?
Ahh, I'm glad we have you to decide what is an infringment of free speech and what is not. Who said this game was marketed at kids? The previous version was rated MA, which is also not for children. Take your 'think of the children' argument and shove it up your ass. Its the parents job to keep inappropriate things from thier kids, not society's. Finally, there's no proof that kids playing violent games has any real effect on them. I imagine there are millions of kids that grew up playing things like Mortal Kombat, and turned out just fine.
3. Sorry to dawn some reality upon your self-righteous parrade, but the ESRB is the gaming industry's own organizations. It's not like that AO rating came from some oppressive congressional comission. It's the gaming industry's own organization, and it uses people who are unaffiliated with either the government or the devs to judge a game's suitability for kids. So basically it's some people like you and me who judged that, nope, a game where extreme violence is the _whole_ game is unsuitable to kids.
You need to research why the ESRB came to be. If the industry didn't build the orginaization, there would have been laws passed banning or putting restrictions on the games. You don't seem to remember Congress debating Mortal Kombat in the 90s do you? MA also indicates a game isn't sutible for kids as well, but stores don't have policies against those ratings.
And let me say that again: I'm a gamer too, but I _don't_ think it sounds like a game I'd buy for my kids.
Fine, then don't. But don't pretend that you aren't supporting this to prevent adults from buying the game too.
And finally, lemme say another thing: I'm sick and tired of the whole retarded hypocrisy. Whenever someone complains about kids and violent games, what's the standard retort? "Yeah, but it wasn't for kids, most gamers are adults, adults have a right to buy a violent game if they want to, blah, blah, blah." Then the game gets an Adults Only rating, and what happens? "Auugh, censorship! McCarthyism! The government is trying to stop me from selling the game at WalMart! We'll be ruined without them selling our game!"
Its not just Walmart that won't sell AO games. You realize its possible for citizens to attempt to censor each other right, and that its just as wrong. Unfortunately our consitution doesn't provide for protection against that, probably because our founders never imagined that we as a country would be trying to strip others rights..
Well, the industry should freakin' make up its mind already. Either A or B, not both. Either you're genuinely making games for adults, in which case freakin' learn to live with a rating that says just that: "Adults Only." Or you want to sell those games to kid
Parent
You still don't seem to get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Talks about how "they" wanted to ban it, "they" found a back door, etc, are good and fine until you realize who "they" are. _Again_, it's not some government organization that gave that AO rating: the ESRB is the gaming industry's own voluntary asociation. It answers to noone else.
So who are "they"? You're trying to tell me that the rest of the game producers were conspiring against Take Two? Or what?
Religion has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh. Trust me, religion for a change has nothing to do with it. It makes for some popular bullshit rhetoric in some circles to blame everything on religion, but it's rarely that simple.
Let me say it loud and clear: fear of violence has _nothing_ to do with religion, and wanting to protect your kids has _nothing_ to do with religion. If you think society fears murder and murderers only because of some arbitrary commandment in the bible, then, sad to say, you may be a psychopath. No, seriously, medically speaking. Ditto if you think that it's only some arbitrary religious commandment that makes people try to protect their kids.
Now whether censoring games actually helps with either, that's not clear indeed. But a religious thing it isn't.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
The ESRB has effectively made it so the marketplace CANNOT embrace or reject it. It IS censorship, as much as the full ban on the game in the UK is.
I have no taste for these sorts of games, I'd be happier if they got released and failed. But Sony and Nintendo are shielding themselves from lawsuits from BAD PARENTS, who will try to sue them when they buy Little Johnny "Evisceration 4", and try to blame the companies for their own lax attitude and lack of involvement. These people expect the products to take care of their kids for them, figuring "video games = for children", which is why Nintendo and Sony have taken the policy of "No AO games". The parents+kids demographic is much larger than the AO one.
The policy that needs to change is Nintendo's and Sony's, to allow an AO market to happen, whether it's horror, vulgar, pornographic or whatever content. They won't shift until they have evidence that they will be protected from lawsuits from idiot parents, that is, until when the courts determine that parents are responsible for their own decisions in bringing up their children, and that they can't blame the government or product creators for not protecting their kids. Until then, we'll all be treated like 10 year olds, incapable of making our own decisions or deciding for ourselves what we want.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Poor analogy. This is much more akin to Sony or whoever (I don't know who, don't beat me up about it) forbidding the creation of scat porn DVDs because they hold a monopoly on DVD players... or whatever. More to the point, is censorship not censorship if it's not done by the government? Corporations scare me much more than (supposed) democratic bodie
Re:Give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)
If by "movie theaters" you mean private screening rooms and home theaters where people can view content that they have purchased without anyone else seeing it then yes.
A much better analogy would be should DVD players refuse to play NC-17 or X rated movies, or any other content that the hardware maker doesn't approve of. Why should I need corporate permission to, in the privacy of my own home, use a piece of hardware I've purchased (video game console, DVD player, VCR, etc) to access content I've purchased (game, movie, music, etc). If a individual store wants to refuse to stock it that's there right but a hardware manufacturer shouldn't be able to dictate what content you can watch (or do you want to have to buy a Sony licensed DVD player that plays only Sony movies, a Fox licensed DVD player for Fox movies, etc)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Snuff simulator? It's a game. I suppose Doom 2 was a combat simulator that helped train Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold and that music drives kids to shoot up their school? This isn't something like Microsoft Flight Simulator for killing people. Rating this AO has everything to do with Bibles (and every other religious prude who thinks everyone should think the same way they do) and the busy-bodies in this country and others who love to play moral police whenever given a chance like this. The distinction be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The bible says that owning slaves is OK, it is OK to stone people to death for eating shellfish or working on the sabbath. God told the Jews to commited genocide of the people of Jericho. Look into the old testimat, and you can find all kinds of crazy stuff.
Should we give the Bible an "Adults Only" rating?