AO Rating Basically Bans Manhunt 2 From Release

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."

What?

Wait...So console makers do the whole "morality police" thing regarding what games are released on their consoles? WTF? So much for catering to the only demographic that actually has the money to buy one of their consoles. I've got about as much desire to play Manhunt 2 as I do to attach electrodes to my nuts, but it still pisses me off that they would pull crap like this.

Chalk up another one for PC gaming.

Re:What?

I've got about as much desire to play Manhunt 2 as I do to attach electrodes to my nuts

What, only at weekends?

Re:What?

Was thinking pretty much the same. Electrodes ain't just for breakfast anymore!

Re:What?

Electrodes ain't just for breakfast anymore!

Well slap my capacitor and call me crispy!

Re:What?

"You apparently don't remember the time back in the early '90s when Nintendo wouldn't allow the release of Mortal Kombat on the SNES. And then it was finally released without blood or the gruesome fatalities. Back then, no one played Mortal Kombat for the fighting aspect: we wanted to see Sub-Zero rip someone's head off with the spine still attached!"

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.

Re:What?

Wait...So console makers do the whole "morality police" thing regarding what games are released on their consoles? WTF?

No. Console makers do the whole "sales protection" thing regarding what games are released. Their motivation is not to police morality, but to ensure they don't alienate a large portion of the market.

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.

Re:What?

Console makers do the whole "sales protection" thing regarding what games are released. Their motivation is not to police morality, but to ensure they don't alienate a large portion of the market.

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.

Re:What?

No. Console makers do the whole "sales protection" thing regarding what games are released. Their motivation is not to police morality...

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.

Re:What?

Wait...So console makers do the whole "morality police" thing regarding what games are released on their consoles? WTF?

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]

Re:What?

They are catering to the demographic with the money to buy the console- from what I've seen, far more adults buy game systems for their children than buy the system to play themselves.

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.

We won't ban you

We'll just make it so you'll never work in this town again. Wow! Someone call McCarthy [wikipedia.org]!

Re:Bullshit

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?

The problem is, if the game is effectively banned because Nintendo won't allow an AO rated game, it isn't the kids I would be upset about, but the adults who wanted to play the game. While this doesn't amount to government censorship, it is effectively banning a game from a platform. No one ever said they were marketing this game to kids, and I am sick and tired of everyone saying "only kids play consoles."

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).

Because the distinct impression I'm left with, is that they want to both make a "duh, it was for adults game" _and_ then sell it to kids anyway.

Please explain to me how you came to this conclusion? The game would have gotten an 'M' rating otherwise, which for those keeping score, stands for Mature and mentions for 17+. AO increases that required age by one year to the whopping age of 18+, so what difference does this one year make? If they were ranking it 'T', I could see more anger because that would carry a much lower age. However, it should also be noted that not all 'M' rated games are created equal.

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'.

Religion has nothing to do with it

Parents want to protect their children (based on religious imposed morality).

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.

Re:Bullshit

1. During the McCarthy era the government actually sent letters to businesses and otherwise bullied them into toeing the party line. In this case I don't think it's the ESRB who's telling Nintendo and Sony to not publish AO games. You know, what with both being Japanese companies and all.

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

Company rights?

What about the rights of the company? Why do they have an obligation to let any particular company develop against or game be released for their platform?

Re:Company rights?

Nobody said they had any obligation, of course, so the strawman aside...

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.

A standard...?

Can't really hold Nintendo responsible for Rockstar's entanglement with the ESRB. Rockstar will always be under more thorough scrutiny because of the GTA:SA ordeal. Neither Nintendo or Microsoft allow the AO rating games to sell on their systems and Rockstar and all the other publishers ought to know this.

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.

Ok....

I can see Nintendo with the kid friendly Wii not wanting AO games but the PS3 and the 360? what about Dead or alive volley ball or BMX-XXX I for one have a Wii and would love to play this game on it, but I guess big brothers "Nintendo, Sony, and MS" know whats best for me.

Perfect Time to change the model?

Could this be the time to change the console video game distribution model? Let the customers buy directly from them. The game cases can be very simply [one slip of paper in the from stating the game name], manual could be downloaded form their website in PDF format, etc. If they save all this money of the case/printing manual/cutting out the middle man could they sell the game for 30 or 40 bucks and still profit?

If they tried this model I would more then likely buy the game to support it.

Re:Perfect Time to change the model?

The consoles make all their money from licensing. So, in order to develop for a console you have to get a license to do so (and then split your profits with the console maker). They can refuse to license anything they want to, so there is effectively no legal way to release content for a console that the manufacturer doesn't want released.

Re:Perfect Time to change the model?

The DMCA has nothing to do with why there were plenty of unlicensed games on the NES but only one on the SNES. This [wikipedia.org] is the answer that the GP is looking for. Lock-out chips basically have gotten a lot better since the 10NES; now-a-days the big reason why no one will commercially release an unlicensed game for an active console is because the methods required to get around the DRM (usually involving a modchip) aren't practical for most consumers. Obviously the DMCA makes circumventing a lock-out illegal to begin with, but that's not even necessary to keep unlicensed games off of the shelves anymore.

Rob

Re:Perfect Time to change the model?

Legally they can't stop you. You're welcome to release your game. The trick is, it will only run on modded hardware, same as any other homebrew game. They're not preventing you from *releasing* it, it just won't run on most hardware without the magical cryptographic signature that licensed games get.

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.

Won't somebody please think of the adults!

So first we've got the BBFC and now Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo who have decided that adults aren't capable of deciding if they can play a game. That's gotta be the most patronising thing I've come across in quite a while. "Oh sure you can go out and die for your country, but we've decided this game isn't suitable for you. We think this is for the best". Thank God we've got NGOs and multi-national corporations to protect us from this immoral world of mature themes.

This whole thing

...is just a masterful marketing campaign. Rockstar has always been brilliant with finding ways to piss people off to generate all kinds of press for their games.

Stop whining about Sony, Nintendo and MS

They're not allowing a release of any AO titles simply because they won't make any money off them - The major retailers (Walmart, Target, Best Buy) and game stores (Gamestop/EB/etc) have their own company policies of not stocking AO titles. What sense does it make for the three console manufacturers to allow a game to be released on their system if it won't sell? It'd only make *their* system look bad, and none of them (especially Sony) can afford that right now.

If this is on p2p networks

they better not say that this is why the game is not selling.

It's a shame, twice over.

On, one hand, I would love to see more serious AO-rated games. On the other, I think if that would happen, 95% of them would be silly exploitation games like Manhunt 2.

How big is the problem?

Just how many AO titles are produced each year? And is there anywhere that lists all the AO games?

It's in the hands of the console companies

The AO rating is appropriate.

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

With PC games, since you don't need Microsoft's, Apple's, NVidia's, ATI/AMD's, or Intel's blessing (dev kits and graphics hardware) to release games, ratings can actually be relevant (or irrelevant) since there are far more methods of distribution for the games (e.g., Steam, selling it online in general whether it be a downloadable or from a site like Amazon). With PC games, you don't need to self-censor yourself in order to publish the game (e.g., JFK Reloaded, all H-Anime games). Hell, you don't even need to get it rated by the ESRB! Just look at all the mods for games (e.g., Half-Life/2, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Unreal Tournament, The Sims) and games themselves (mainly indie games) that people play or buy that aren't rated.

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.

::wretch::

I cannot stand big brother.

Give me a break

This story is already tagged "censorship." It's filed under Your Rights Online. There are already a bunch of posts about how adults should be able to decide for themselves what they want to play, so Nintendo and Sony have no right to refuse to carry it.

To all this I say Give Me an F'ing Break. I suppose by this logic movie theatres should run gruesome scat-fetish porn because, hey, otherwise they're denying you your right to see what you want! Please. How about this: maybe Rockstar should try making a game that isn't so horrifyingly gory, brutal, and cruel that it can't be justified for sale into a market heavily populated by 15-year-olds? I mean, really, there are a lot of games that get the M rating that have gibs and spurting blood all over the place. You have go out of your way to make something exceptionally vicious and sadistic in order to get an AO.

Now, should people be allowed to make gruesome scat-porn if they want? Well, I guess so. Should people be allowed to make video games that are outrageously brutal? Sure, why not. But by the same turn, Rockstar has no right to expect that the marketplace will greet them with open arms. They made the decision to go for console licensing, and then they intentionally put content into the game that they knew would be too offensive to be widely released. That's their fault.

There's no censorship or foul play of any kind here. Just Rockstar making dumb decisions.

Re:Give me a break

Now, should people be allowed to make gruesome scat-porn if they want? Well, I guess so. Should people be allowed to make video games that are outrageously brutal? Sure, why not. But by the same turn, Rockstar has no right to expect that the marketplace will greet them with open arms.

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.

Re:Give me a break

"I suppose by this logic movie theatres should run gruesome scat-fetish porn because, hey, otherwise they're denying you your right to see what you want!"

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)

why bother with consoles anymore

I gave away my Wii and was gonna buy another one when more games came out for it. This was one I was really looking forward to on the Wii. I love the original, and it would have been great with the Wiimote. One less reason to get another Wii. One less reason to get a PS3. One more reason to stick to upgrading my PC. One less reason to give a fuck about this generation of consoles. More expensive, less reliable, and now more censored. Consoles are losing their relevance much like arcades before them. Most are just trying to be PCs anyway, why even mess with them at all. Have fun playing Madden '20 and The Sims Paris Goes to Jail Edition. I think the platform has lost its appeal.

Let the market decide

Personally, Sony has the right to decide what is on the hardware, as does Nintendo and Microsoft.

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

The game is worthy of an AO rating, nobody has any doubt this game deserves an AO rating.
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?

Leverage GTA IV?

I don't see why Rockstar doesn't try to leverage GTA IV in order to get this sucker released. Just got to Sony or Microsoft and tell them which ever one lets Manhunt play on their console gets something exclusive in regards to GTA IV. These big companies treat rockstar like they have the bird flu for every other game, but when it comes to the GTA series, they are bending over backwards to accomodate them.

Ridiculous.

This smacks of the stuff they talked about "This Film Is Not Yet Rated [imdb.com]" in relation to Hollywood. Self-censorship that ends up growing and becoming a lot worse.

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?

Hypocrites

Yet the 'major retailers' that are cited as being extremely important to game sales(Walmart, Target, etc), will happily sell you Hostel and other such gory shit that is much more realistic than any game will ever be. Way to be a hypocrite you fuckers. The horror game genre is just as much of a niche as horror movies. "But they are interactive", is nothing but a bullshit fantasy that means nothing at all.

Manhunt 2 Petition

http://www.petitiononline.com/4manhunt/petition.ht ml [petitiononline.com]
I have created the following petition after being wholly unsatisfied with the current state of game ratings affecting console licensing, Manhunt's AO rating being the most recent example. I have sent an email to Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Wired.Com, the ECA, Rockstar Games, Take-Two, and await response. If you support the petition, please sign it and pass it along to others. Thank you.
L. Ray Porter

Wii on the BBC

When they did an article about it being banned on the BBC breakfast news a lot was made of the fact that it was on the Wii and that the Wii's controller actually made it more imersive. As though the player was actually performing the act. A piece aimed at a casual non-tech audience saying that the Wii version of the game was the most disturbing. You could easily see it having a negative impact on the Wii's kid/casual gamer friendly image.

I was surprised it was coming out on the Wii, considering the audience they are targeting with their ads, the original hit the news here for all the wrong reasons as well (implicated in a murder it had nothing to do with).

Don't blame the console makers

It was well known the console makers would not sell a game with that rating... so don't blame them when a game comes out with an AO rating and they announce they won't sell it.

I'm sure some of you will say that rule is dumb to begin with.. but hey, you aren't the ones running the company. Put it to a shareholder vote, and the rule would probably remain.

Rockstar needs to work with the rating agency to see if there is anything they can do to get it downgraded to a Mature rating without modifying too much. I'm not familiar with the game, so I'm unsure if it's even possible.

Corporate Censorship

These ratings might as well not exist. Sure, feel free to make an NC-17 movie - just don't expect anyone to see it in theaters, be able to rent it, or even purchase it from retailers for fear of an imminent lawsuit, or worse, a moral-majority boycott.

Corporate censorship is alive and well.

The power of names

I wonder what would have happened if they'd called the game pretty much anything other than 'Manhunt 2.' Say, 'Asylum' or 'Blackout.'

What is their target demographic anyway ?

Now I may be an idiot, but there is one thing I am not, sir, and that, sir, is an idiot.

This is just as lame as movie ratings. Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, and any other big name stores and rental clubs refuse to carry "NC-17" films for reasons that are deeply entrenched in the cosanguine roots of America. Now game retailers refuse to carry "AO" games. What was the point of rating it in the first place ? Seems to me that from a business perspective, if I were running the shop, I'd sell whatever the customers want. If there's a market for Manhunt 2, then I'll happily sell it for profit! I'll even put in the extra effort to ask for ID if a ten year old tries to rent it. The fact is that the huge retail chains hire the dumbest of the dumb, who lack the cerebral activity to stop kids from buying games and films with explicit and gratuitous violence/nudity. Rather than solve the staffing problem, they'd rather punish the creators and "protect our youth" by not showing them what mentally and morally inferior people end up doing for money in the real world.

It would be nice if they could just print the rating on the box, like they already do, then let the consumer make an educated decision based on that information. God forbid someone would actually have to think before buying some shiny crap for their prepubescent child.

Unfortunately for now, the only solution to this fountain of stupid is to get your "obscene" goods from Europe or Asia, where civilization comes from!

Hey Rockstar

Put it on PC. I will buy 2

This is great for the company.

Assuming they can get it out on the PC sometime soon.

 

Censorship?! Fuck Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo!

Fuck them all if they are going to dictate what games get released. FUCK THEM ALL RIGHT IN THE ASS.

Here's a fucking Idea. Release it for the PC and never have to pay Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo a fucking dam thing.

Oh and btw.. People are Jacking off and flopping their dicks around all over Xbox360 live, in games like Uno and private chat. Some 14 year old flashed her fucking cunt the other day. Some 30 year old guy whipped out his ball bag and played with it, then took his camera and controller to the toilet and pissed in it while on mic and cam. So....

Where's the moral high ground? PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS.. LET THEM BE ANIMALS. Fuck microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. Sony was the company that put an end to the years of Nintendo censorship. Sega had the balls to push content beyond where Nintendo would. Although i remember importing Street Fighter 2 from Japan for the SNES because i was an insane SF2 player... and then when i saw the US release for SNES.. they took out the blood and puke.

Fuck them. What world are they fucking living in? Who gave them high horse to tell people what to do with their lives? FUCK THEM. BURN THEM TO THE GROUND.

censorship

does it bother anyone else besides me that any company can say that they won't allow games to be made for their system if the rating exceeds X? what is the point, and how is this not illegal censorship. If the game companies won't allow such a rating, then why have a rating system in the first place.
I also love how THEY can make them, just not third parties. Decision on whether to buy a game based on its ratings should be left to the buyers, much like movies. If walmart doesn't want to carry it, fine. I'll buy it somewhere else.

here's a better idea, instead of targeting the game platforms and industry, target the people who are respobnsible for the games reaching underage kids (as deemed by their sometimes appropriate, often moronic parents) the STORES.

you don't fine budweiser when jonnny teenager gets busted for drinking underage, you bust him and possibly his provider if you catch them. Go bust the stores who sell games to underage kids ignoring the ratings, and the moron parents who ignore the ratings and by games rated inappropriate for their 7 year old kid. If they can't read the box then they probably shouldn't be either a. buying anything or b. be parents.

this might just cause me to buy a 360, not because i want this game, or because i want an AO game, but because the dev's should have the freedom to produce whatever game they think will sell. If i like it i'll buy it. leave your morality for your family please, I am intelligent enough to have my own set of ethics and morals.

Exactly what Rockstar wanted

Its amusing the way some people are jumping on this like it's a censorship issue. Check

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AO_rated_prod ucts [wikipedia.org]

As long as there have been ratings there have not been games released on any major console that have been rated AO. The closest would be GTA San Andreas which was rated M, changed to AO after the Hot Coffee incident and edited to be re-released at M again. Its been that way since the begining of video games, back in the Atari day's they were highly pissed off but had no control over unauthorized games such as custers revenge today there is better control over content. The anger directed at the ESRB is ill founded, if anything it shows that the ESRB is working and should be left alone. Would people really rather see government intervention (which would most likely result in what would essentially be a ban on M rated games as well, think black plastic wrappers like they use in the adult magazine industry) than a standalone ratings system?

I wonder how many people would be up in arms over this if the game was Woman Hunter and the point of the game was to rape as many women as possible? I would imagine the outcry would be fairly minimal in fact I would guess that the voices of those wanting the publishers to die in a fire would be more visible than supporters. What makes one more socially acceptable over the other. From what I have seen from rockstar itself, this really is the "Murder Simulator" Jack Thompson has tried to turn every other game into. At least GTA had a point other than banging hookers and killing people. For me the test is can the game stand on its own without murder, GTA could, nothig I have seen indicates that Manhunt2 can.

Rockstar took a rather poorly recieved game made a sequel as over the top as possible and submitted to the ratings board to get avertising the cheap and easy way. Now everyone is talking about manhunt 2 and I'm sure sales will go through the roof for the no doubt intended M version soon to follow. All the teenage crowd will see it as the cool game to get cuz its so "edgy" in the meantime gameplay will be crap the violence gratuitous and the actual entertainment value will be next to nill...but hey at least we get to see heads explode.

Crazy situation, but very interesting as well..

I've been following this very closely. I find the "double standard" presented here amazing and disturbing. As I said in an earlier slashdot comment [slashdot.org] where I was feeling rather pissed off, it bothers me greatly that this game can be effectively banned from even being published because of a rating, while other extremely psychologically disturbing games (Silent Hill for example) are sold and available everywhere, undoubtedly being sold to people under the age of 17 or 18.

Personally I have a huge interest in these games that push the boundaries of what is socially/morally "acceptable". Going onto a bit of a tangent here but when I was 13, I bought the game Postal [mobygames.com], which my parents totally amazingly allowed. I was of course happy as hell since I had played the beta and was STOKED about the extreme violence and harshness in this game! I was going through really rough times at school and had a really hard time handling it - until high school I was really socially accepted and quite popular, but that changed and became quite the opposite, which I had never dealt with before... Anyway so I pretty much took out my anger in games like Postal and Quake all the time. For me (and probably many others over the years), it was about the only option to deal with anger and stuff - either that or I'd end up kicking the shit out of people at school who picked on me. I'm pretty sure playing some violent video games (and hugely improving my hand-eye coordination and stuff) was a pretty good alternative to getting expelled or having some assault charges on my record, because I can guarantee some serious shit would've happened had I not had some non-harmful way to cope with how I was feeling.

OK, so my whole point is that these kind of "barely acceptable" games really gave me a chance to live out my anger in a harmless manner. It probably wasn't the most efficient way to deal with things but honestly being able to go into a virtual world and blow people away was a very satisfying experience. This stuff kept me from having anger build up to the point where I'd just resort to violence and end up snapping on some asshole fellow student one day. Yeah yeah, I can hear you saying "you just have anger issues" but considering I am doing totally fine now, it's pretty safe to say the school environment is what the root problem was here. ;)

So, I'm not trying to say that games like Manhunt are going to keep kids from committing violent acts, but the point is that some people really value these types of games. Of course not everyone is going to value such a game the way I did back then (some will just find it entertaining in a less serious way), but...:

How are developers expected to push the boundaries of creativity and come up with games that challenge ideas and push the envelope, when they're just going to be told "oh, no platform in the world is going to release your game because some ratings board gave it the Adults Only rating"? Are we just going to be kept in a closed shell of only being provided with confirmist politically-correct entertianment for our entire lives, even as fully grown self-aware and responsible adults? Is it really acceptable that, despite the creative goals of some software developers (and huge $$ expenditure), we're not even being given the chance to experience or observe the creations of these people even if we have full interest in them?

It seems small enough of an issue when it's just some random guy on Slashdot saying it, but when you really take a minute to think about this, the implications regarding the video game & entertainment industry are quite serious...

Am I The Only One...

Who yearns for the days of old when the ESRB did not exist?

Back in the day, I got an Atari 2600 for Christmas. I was five. When the Nintendo NES came out I bought that, then the Sega Genesis, etc. There was no ESRB and we liked it!

Why do we need an ESRB now? To prevent the government from stepping in and censoring games? If the government did it, we'd at least be able to sue them for violating citizens' civil rights. What's the problem with a retailer carrying Adult Only rated titles? If that's what the people want to buy, then sell it to them!

Also, what's with this crap about the console makers dictating which games they will and will not allow console owners to play? The VCR and DVD manufacturers don't get to tell you which videos you can and cannot view on their devices. Why should Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have the privilege?

I imagine it's unlikely, but I really wish Take2 would simply sell the game directly to consumers. With all of the controversy surrounding it, I'm sure it would sell like mad. Hell, I own the first Manhunt and found the gameplay boring, but would buy two copies of this game out of protest.

There will be an M version

Take Two confirmed to at least one retailer that the title will ship with an M rating, even if that means changing it and resubmitting to the ESRB. It might delay the game another month, but I suspect this AO rating was just a way to get ridiculous amounts of free publicity.

I may have dreamed this

as i cant seem to find a link at the moment, but im sure i read a release from rockstar a while ago that said they had done the deal with nintendo to release manhunt 2 and a (cut down) GTA 4ish for the wii. As for nintendo they stated that they would publish adult games (if not in mass quantities) as part of there gaming is for everyone stance. Oh and slightly off topic im extremely vexed to see the uk papers running the "manhunt killed my son" story AGAIN.

How does this affect the UK

In the UK we dont have an adult only rating, over here they get a (legally binding) BBFC 18 cert. im just interested how this self policing works here as i have plenty of 18 games hell i even got a couple of gamecube games that are rated 18, and an 18 cert here basically makes them Adult Only.

Microsoft?

Now, my understanding is that both Sony and Nintendo have decided that Manhunt 2 won't be released on their systems in the AO form. While I didn't really think the first Manhunt was a great game, I think Microsoft could score a major coup if they swooped in, told Rockstar to port Manhunt 2 to the 360 as is, and sold the game through the Xbox Live website or some other retail channel.

It's not going to help MS move away from the adult male demographic that they are stuck with but I think it would move systems. No one likes being treated like a child. The rating tells me what is in the game. Nintendo and Sony should let me decide whether I want to buy that or not.

Come on Bill - step up to the plate, the world needs some torture porn.

ESRB's Purpose?

Why even have the ESRB if console makers are going to police what we play? Console makers are simply looking to avoid the next suit because some parent blames there child's actions on a video game that was clearly rated for them not to play and the parent bought it anyways. How often do you see triple x rated movies next to sponge bob square pants? (wow thats a setup for a flame) never. The corner store has that little room in the back covered with beads, and we have whole stores dedicated to adult material. The reality of the matter is if the console makers are going to say what we can and cannot play, ESRB ratings really don't matter and the console maker might as well slap whatever they want as a rating on the game. The purpose of the ESRB is so we the consumer can make decision on if this game is appropriate for us. If a store does not wish to carry such material so be it, fully within there rights. Personally this game looks like crap to me, and the idea of a snuff film as a game sounds wrong, but that's my opinion and my choice. It's a game, disturbing as the content may be to some people no laws we're broken during the making of it, and no person we're harmed... well we hope not. Console makers need to get there act together the ESRB is the rating system let it do it's job.

Do a 'Kill Bill'

"kill bill" got by without getting a tougher rating by turning its bloodiest scene into black and white. Manhunt should do the same at bloody times if parental control is on, or something like that. If I remember correctly, Mortal Kombat for the arcade had a setting where the blood could be green or red too. The Wii has a global parental control on it, so as long as parents take control, just like cable, then there isn't a problem. I don't blame Sony or Nintendo for saying no, it is too much of a hassle getting sued. People like Clinton are trying to get these laws passed so Sony or the game makers can not get sued, and for some reason people hate her for it. Too many double standards right now.

Re:Outrageous

Well, it's more like not allowing an XXX rated flick on any channel. And, even further, it's more like not allowing XXX rated flicks to really exist, because it's like saying "We wont allow your XXX rated flick to exist on VHS, HD/DVD, or Blu-ray. Maybe try betamax?". And it's not that XXX rated flicks are illegal. Adults are allowed to watch them. Developers are just being barred at the door from getting them out there. If they arent allowed to produce the game on any Sony, Microsoft, of Nintendo console... they're almost without option.

Now, there might still be the option of making it a PC game. But once the game has already been developed, I dont know how practical that is or isnt, without some initial console sales to recoup their development losses.

Re:Game Morality

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 between an M and an AO rating, given the relevant context, seems to be decided arbitrarily (seems to be how they're all decided though).

M: Contains content that may be suitable for ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

AO: Contains content that is suitable only for adults. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

Anyone who says there's a real, easily distinguishable line between "intense violence" and "prolonged scenes of intense violence" is fooling themselves into thinking there's something inherently worse in prolonging the scene and that it's worth defining a prolonged scene of violence. Seeing a bunch of pixels comprising a fictional character brutally murdered in the blink of an eye is no different to any reasonable adult than seeing those same pixels brutally murdered in a "prolonged scene". They're also fooling themselves into thinking that there was some great leap in maturity between the age of 17 and 18 that will suddenly help shield you from the bogeyman of violent video games.

Does Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have the right to restrict sale of AO titles on their systems? I'd say yes, it's their loss if they want to be hardasses about that and it's perfectly fine. The problem I see isn't that, the problem I see is that the ESRB killed this game in its current form before it even arrived, unless the developer decides to move it to the PC platform, appeal the rating (Good luck on that in the USA at least, maybe the UK will be more cooperative) or water down the content to appease the raters. The ESRB had no good reason to do this, Manhunt is rated M and unless Manhunt 2 was loaded up with a few free pornos on disc, I really don't think that there could have been much of a change to the dynamics of the game to qualify the sequel getting an AO. This is bad politics, bad for the economy (Stifling something that need not be stifled) and ultimately bad for gaming in general if a precedent is set. I can easily see the USA adopting the strict attitude Germany has towards this kind of stuff, and that won't bode well at all for creative and innovative game concepts seeing the light of day.

Anyway, if you are not a minor then nothing is 'on' your game anyway.

The important thing to remember about this particular situation is that it's not about preventing minors from getting ahold of the game, an M rating is sufficient for that. This is about preventing the game from seeing wide distribution in the first place whether you're a minor or an adult, and that's just plain wrong.

Re:Game Morality

Rating a snuff simulator Adults Only has nothing to do with Bibles.

Well, the Bible is full of murder, genocide, underage sex, slavery, etc.

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?

Re:There's always....

The PC is becoming the last battle ground for freedom and you can see how hell bent they are at ending ALL freedoms relating to PC use. Even Microsoft is trying to turn the PC into a console and a TV device.

These companies dont even want you to be able to invent on your PC anymore, unless you invent what they are willing to allow you to invent.

Re:Same Old Crap

Maybe Rockstar should just say "Well fuck all of you" and take GTA to the PC ONLY, and take Manhunt 2 to the PC as well.

Beleive me, the fucking masses will follow GTA wherever it goes. Thats why MS just paid 50 million for episodic GTA content on the 360.

Just fuck Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft in their wallets. Take GTA to PC only, and those companies might just realize how much of a bad idea it is to fuck with the will of the people.

Re:Missing the point??!!!?!?!

Kill all of the fucking children and burn all of the churches. Its that simple.