Manhunt 2 'temporarily suspended' says Take-Two

by Alexander Sliwinski { Jun 21st 2007 at 8:40PM }

Following our report yesterday that neither Nintendo or Sony would allow Manhunt 2 on their consoles with an AO rating, Take-Two says the game will not make its July ship date and is being "temporarily suspended." A Take-Two representative says, "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."

Well, if they stand behind it, expect the editing option to be Take-Two's approach in getting Manhunt 2 out to the public with an M rating. The M rating might not stop some other forms of controversy, but it'll allow the title to be available for rent and sold in stores. For now, the saga seems to be over.

[Via WiiFanboy]

Tags: bbfc, esa, manhunt, manhunt2, rockstar, taketwo

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Wii60 @ Jun 21st 2007 8:49PM

You know what the worst part of this is? Jack Thompson won. Before now he was a wacky loon that no one listened to. Now he has a win under his belt. I don't know whether or not he actually did anything to influence this decision, but I'm sure we'll hear about how he did. He was talking about it after all.

That guy is a disgrace to conservatives everywhere, and now he has credibility.

Boscorooty @ Jun 21st 2007 8:50PM

Yaaay! Let's here it for prior restraint! The first amendment is hobbled once again. That IS reason for celebration isn't it?

Boscorooty @ Jun 21st 2007 8:52PM

By the way, Jack Thompson is no conservative. Repulican, maybe, I'm not sure. But true conservatives...Jeffersonian Repblicans, Libertarians, etc...hate this kind of crapola.

BIGGEN @ Jun 21st 2007 8:54PM

they should make it a 360 exclusive

eldee @ Jun 21st 2007 8:54PM

He *cant* take credit for this. Take Two has a restraining order or someshit on him..

Daniel @ Jun 21st 2007 8:55PM

Boscorooty: What does the constitution have to do with anything?

What really killed this game is the fact that neither Nintendo nor Sony will license AO games.
Sony and Nintendo are private companies, not the government.
Also, the ESRB isn't a government entity either.

corehawk @ Jun 21st 2007 8:59PM

I hope GTA4 comes out with an AO rating.
Sony will change thier mind real quick.

BPM @ Jun 21st 2007 9:01PM

BIGGEN, can you be so certain that Microsoft wouldn't prohibit AO games from their console as well?

Ian Von Porter @ Jun 21st 2007 9:04PM

Anyone ever consider that Manhunt deserves the AO rating?

jman @ Jun 21st 2007 9:06PM

So today i reserved this game at gamestop and they said it had a M rating...anybody know why this is???

Wii60 @ Jun 21st 2007 9:11PM

@9
I'm not sure, but I believe that it does. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the ESRB are the ONLY ones in this who are doing their job well. That doesn't mean we have to like the fact that Take Two stirred up controversy that let fearmongering groups use Manhunt II as an example to further cause harm to the community. We also don't have to like the fact that neither Nintendo nor Sony will license this game. It furthers the mindset that videogames can't for Adults, when all of us here know that to be false.

eldee @ Jun 21st 2007 9:14PM

@10: Gamestop guesses a lot of shit so they can sell preorders. There's probably some fine print somewhere saying that they aren't responsible for any misinformation, etc.

man_pie @ Jun 21st 2007 9:26PM

slipery slope.

Kris @ Jun 21st 2007 9:25PM

noooooooooooooooooo

Hio @ Jun 21st 2007 9:28PM

@7

I was hoping the same thing. They should take a stand with GTA4. Take the "Hot Coffee" minigame, finish it up, and slap it back in. Everyone in the world wants a copy of GTA4. It doesn't matter what they would put in the game; It would sale regardless.

Blazur @ Jun 21st 2007 9:33PM

I'm sure Jack Off had nothing to do with this one. T2 more than likely pushed the limits and got burned because of it.

Scumdog @ Jun 21st 2007 9:33PM

Actually Rockstar/Take Two recently informed Gamestop that the game would ship with an "M" rating. Remember, the "AO" rating was the first rating assigned by the ESRB but wasn't necessarily the final rating. Companies are given time to appeal the rating before the game goes gold and the rating becomes final.

But it's nice of you to assume it's Gamestop being shifty.

Michael K. @ Jun 21st 2007 9:34PM

Good, I was getting really tired of every other article being about that dumb game, rockstar sucks.

laserboyjc @ Jun 21st 2007 9:35PM

Nobody is censoring Take Two from making the game, it is just a choice by Sony/Nintendo what products they choose to sell. Companies can make "adult" products, but that doesn't mean your local Walmart/Target/whatever has to sell it if they don't feel it is in line with what their demographic wants. Personally, I find it insulting that Take Two tries to sell this off under the guise of a masterful work of art; people may want it, but Take Two is really just trying to make a quick buck on people's desire for violence/brutality. You cannot compare this to a symphony, a painting, or even some other games which attempt to elevate/inspire society. I'm not trying to trash the game or the people that want to buy it, but it should be called what it is, a testosterone driven, quick gratification, experience...with a very bloody twist. If I had kids I wouldn't let them play it, and yet I wouldn't have trouble with them blasting aliens in a game like Halo/Metroid or such. Why? Because in a fictitious world I don't mind my kid pretending he's defending the world from an alien invasion, but I do have trouble with him thinking he can run around with violence for violence's sake. People can yell at me all they want saying that if its made for adults, then kids shouldn't be playing it, but we all know that most parents are not educated about the choices and still think all video games are ok for their kids. Sorry for the rant, but stop and ask, do some things really need to be made? Just because they can be? As gamers we should demand quality games, and not just buy into a company's desire for shock tactics.

GaryM @ Jun 21st 2007 9:38PM

They delayed it so they can change all the colors to black and white.

RoboJoel @ Jun 21st 2007 9:40PM

I don't want a copy of GTAIV (until it hit's 20 / 30 USD), let alone Manhunt 2.

I am still completely baffled by the general public's perception that there is a difference between the average 17 year old and 18 year old. The fact that we have a rating for each age "group" is ludicrous. I know for a fact that 18 year olds are just as immature as 17 year olds... just as I know for a fact that some 17 year olds could probably run the United States (with proper support)

I also love how conservatives and republicans are arguing over their differences... A- You are both the same. B- you are both wrong on virtually every subject that has to do with the dealings of mankind / human nature, the planet earth, the universe as a whole, philosophy and sociology, and how to determine whether a man lives or dies.

whosmav @ Jun 21st 2007 9:50PM

Damn socialists

Javi @ Jun 21st 2007 9:55PM

Hey , i was wondering? Would someone explain to me how SAW 3 was rated R , Manhunt with an A0. we are talking about stories that encourage people to kill , so i dont get why the big 3 ( nintendo , sony, mcsot) do not have the balls to support freedom of expression. THE REAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF 360 AND PS3 are not kids, and ADULTS SHOOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY WHAT THEY WANT. I thinks this is the beggining of a complete restriction of games.... so speak up, whatchu think

Psaakyrn @ Jun 21st 2007 10:10PM

to #23 Javi

I think it's the necrophilia and excessive feline violence that's more to blame than the killing aspect, though the graphic depications of it all doesn't help either.

Eitherway, developers require a license contract to use the code libraries for the respective consoles (and thus makes games for them). By releasing a game under AO, they will be breaking said contract.

Jake @ Jun 21st 2007 10:13PM

The ESRB rated the game the way they thought it should be rated. That is their job. You may agree or disagree that it is or isn't worthy of its AO label. That is your right. I personally think AO should be reserved for truly sick and shocking material, as well as pornography. I haven't played the game to have an opinion on where it stands.

Target/Walmart/Gamestop/etc. have each agreed to not sell AO content, long before this game was released. They feel it is in their best financial interest to leave that content to different providers to uphold a certain image.

Nintendo/Sony/MS(they have the same rule clearly outlined) all are excersising their right to not support AO content. They also agree that it is in the best interest of their product to avoid such material to uphold an image of their consoles that it is appropriate for your kids to own.

There is no censorship going on. Take Two made a tactical error by creating a game for release that does not fit in the clearly outlined rules set forth by the console manufacturers and retailers and now has to adjust their strategy. They will modify the game to pass, port it to PC, or scrap the project altogether.

Toys R' Us will never sell vibrators. Hardware Hank will never sell dildo's. Barne's and Noble will never sell Hustler's. And Nintendo will never put out a game that is considered AO because of excessively violent or pornographic nature. It is all for the same reason. They don't WANT the shit.

You want to release some "art" that retailers and console manufacturers refuse to sell, you had better release your own console or put it on PC. It is that f'ing simple. This is related, but wholly separate from any laws involving censorship, government restrictions on games, or Jack Thompson.

I don't like it either. I wish the console makers could at least allow their systems to support the game, while family friendly retailers refuse to stock it. But who am I to tell Nintendo what they can and can't sell? Why should they release a game that will get all over the news turning fearful parents away from their console?

You don't have to like this. But PLEASE, don't consider it the same as governmental control over our freedom of speech. Hell, the only thing that could change this is if the government FORCED these companies to release content that they don't want to.

I doubt the game would have been that good anyways. Just a cheap cash in on the shock factor and people who want sadistic entertainment. But why can Hostel be made and released to theatres? Well, movie publishers, theatre owners, and DVD stores haven't yet decided to block that content because the public's perception and resulting backlash towards it is much different than video games.

People fear games, just like Rock, books, and science were all once feared. Hopefully, this will all just blow over once people get bored with news stories about it. Then console makers and retailers can begin profiting off of it, rather than losing by selling it.

Remember, you have freedom of speech. But that doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to spread your art all over the planet. They can choose not to be involved. If I were in charge of Nintendo, I absolutely would not allow this game on my product, at least not until much later in the cycle. Much more potential customers will be turned away from your product than drawn towards it because of that game.

Shagittarius @ Jun 21st 2007 10:14PM

They should release it on the only platform that welcomes all forms of expression...THE PC!

You don't have to pay liscense fees or bow to presure from corporations to censor your creations, PC is the ultimate platform! Its also got the biggest install base.

Yoshi @ Jun 21st 2007 10:25PM

@26

Truth!

nick @ Jun 21st 2007 10:38PM

Mark my words, these public incidents will take their toll on Take Two. They release great software, but at the expense of drawing unfavorable press, which may hurt them financially. I would not be surprised if Take Two is eventually acquired by another company because of these issues.

oldschoolgamer @ Jun 21st 2007 10:43PM

Guys I just can't help but think how much money an original unedited copy of this game would fetch on ebay. Forgive me Lord for my greed.

Rubang B @ Jun 21st 2007 10:56PM

My Wii is rated AO. I covered it in porn and there's a blue LED dildo sticking out of the top.

Jon Doe. @ Jun 21st 2007 10:58PM

"You know what the worst part of this is? Jack Thompson won."

No I'd like to think good taste won. Manhunt 2 is lacking in that category. What next? Why don't they put out a game where you are thrown into a mental ward and you need to rape your way out of it. Multiple penetrations for maximum points! Or how about an American Freedom fighter has to deposit a bio weapon in the center of Iran's capitol. Depending on where you detonate it your body count and score goes up. Think of those great cut scenes. People laying in the streets coughing up blood, miscarriageing. YAH! Hey its good guys vs. Bad and its just a game. So why not. There has to be a point where good taste takes over.

The Drunken Jesus @ Jun 21st 2007 10:59PM

I just hope when they edit it down to an M rated game they plaster a big "Censored Edition" on the cover.

Just remember adults your not smart enough to make your own decisions. If someone doesn't protect you you might go to hell... and that shouldn't be your choice. As good Christian countries (all these countries that are banning (or fake banning... hello AO) are Christian either by choice or just demographically) the old white guys in charge need to protect your soul. God forbid we use that free will BS.

Well I have to go "save" a homosexual then for kicks I'll go scream murder at a girl walking into an abortion clinic... ahhh good wholesome times!

Dustin @ Jun 21st 2007 11:21PM

@31: Those sound like awesome games, you should be a game designer, especially the one where you rape your way out, that sounds bad ass!!!

Ryan @ Jun 21st 2007 11:35PM

@31

"There has to be a point where good taste takes over."

Who's good taste? Yours?

Taste by definition is personal. If anyone stops anybody else from doing/seeing/reading something because they don't believe it's in good taste... well that's censorship.

Censorship is a slippery slippery slope (thanks for mentioning this earlier 14)... I have no intrest in playing this game. It doesn't interest me, but I have no right to stop any other person (parents can censor what their children are exposed to, that is the only form of censorship that is tolerable) from playing this game.

Art is the act of creative development. It doesn't matter if you or the ratings board or God doesn't like it. It's not your choice or anyone elses.

If you don't want to play it, don't. If we start deciding for others what is in good taste or not you may quickly find things you like are no longer allowed.

superbagman @ Jun 21st 2007 11:42PM

You know, I'm not sure if the ESRB was rash in their rating since I've never played the damned game, but I think it's a goddamn travesty that they use a rating that esentially stands for nothing. AO is a nothing rating. The difference between AO and M is one damn year, but the way everyone acts you'd think it was some over the top rating. Why does AO even exist if it is never used...

skyrous @ Jun 21st 2007 11:49PM

THIS IS NOT CENSORSHIP AND THE 1ST AMENDMENT IS NOT DAMAGED BY THIS.

If congress themselves passed a law saying manhunt 2 could not be sold then it violates the 1st amendment.

If the ESRB were a government agency then it would violate the 1st amendment.

The 1st amendment says that the government cannot censor or arrest you for what you say or write, and the ESRB is not the government.

After the whole Mortal Kombat circus 10 years ago the congress did threaten to regulate video games which every knew would be a disaster. The video game industry created ESRB as an independant agency charged with rating games. This is the same model that was used by the movie industry and the music industry when the government threatened to come down on them.

Game company's cooperate voluntarily with the ESRB and are free to ignore them at any time. Rockstar, Nintendo and Sony don't have to care what the ESRB says. Unfortunately Walmart does care and will not sell the game in their stores. And in most cases that is retail suicide.

Though it does seem that with all the PR surrounding this there is an opportunity to sell an "special edition" of the game through select retail channels.

Mr Khan @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:01AM

What many people call conservative today, is really reactionary, conservatives think everythings cool the way it is, reactionaries want to get back to some older glory days (example: Iranian government and their desire to restore old, pure Shia Islamic values)

But this had to happen; this, or cancellation, and Take Two has made too much of an investment to back down

Me @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:06AM

@skyrous

Letter of the law vs spirit of the law.

ESRB rates games, those ratings are observed by all large retailers.

Is the ESRB the US government? Nope. When the 1st admendment was written were there private bodies acting as buffers so the government wouldn't enforce regulations? Nope.

The 1st admendment is there to protect against a powerful body (originally only the government really had this power) deciding what should and should not be said/shown.

The ESRB controls the ability for a game to be sold by major retailors (which I assume probably account for 80+% of game sales) if they choose to ban a game or artificially rate it higher than they might have due to the sheep effect then thats censorship.

John Doe @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:08AM

Ryan,

I'm sorry but people take the first amendment WAY to damn far. It doesn't give you the right to do whatever you damn well want. It’s not a do whatever the fuck you want card. freedom of speech is interperated in such a liberal way that it seems to be the catch all phrase for anyone who thinks they are being oppressed.
I’m pretty sure if you could somehow bring the argument that an entertainment product should be covered by the first amendment to the founding fathers they would laugh their collective asses off.

Good taste is, by and large, defined by a society. Yes individuals have their own morals and tastes but what do you think guides that? Usually parents. Who in turn group up in x society.

PS- So you have no problem with a rape simulator being released by Rockstar right? And if you do then there will be someone out there that won’t. Where the hell is the line?

sheppy @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:22AM

@Ian Van Porter

"Anyone ever consider that Manhunt deserves the AO rating?"

Well let's see. Every other game to get AO was because of sexual content. Now, as you sit here and say Manhunt was so terirble and a line which shouldn't be crossed, here we go.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/20691.html

In particular, look at what the Big Daddy is doing to that guy around 3:40. This is an M rated game. Tell me that somehow the excessive violence in Manhunt crosses a threshhold that slamming someone against the wall, drilling out their stomach, and proceeding to bash their skull in repeatedly which breaking through heavy glass. Or even for that matter, how is God Of War 2 any different from Manhunt 2? The problem is the hypocrisy. If Manhunt 2 is AO, then certainly Bioshock is as well. Hell, Bioshock has violence against Little Sisters and even having them drinking from corpses. And I wonder where your stance of AO being justified would go when Bioshock does.

Rod Munch @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:28AM

I love reading comments about censorship! Its so fun to watch as people moan about how they are being stopped from buying something just because someone else thinks its bad for them. Also, I'm not sure I'd like any of you who want to play this game anyway. And lastly, why are you bothered? The first Manhunt was crap anyway. I'm sure Rockstar and Take 2 are just using this hype and controversy over this crap game just to boost recognition of GTAIV, a game which I am looking forward to. And before you people start calling me two faced for thinking Manhunt 2 too violent but GTA ok, I'm sure you can all see the difference between the two franchises.

Javi @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:35AM

Please sign this petition http://www.petitiononline.com/4manhunt/petition.html

Ryan @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:38AM

I would rather have the first admendment go to far if any have to.

For me it comes down to the Harm principle, I fully believe that the only time anyone should have the right to place their views on someone else is if that action could cause harm to others.

Last time I checked video games have not been linked to an increase in violence. So there should be no reason to enforce what anyone else believes onto any one else for a video game.

I think that the admendments are there to counter soceity, I believe in evolution, a woman's right to an abortion, homosexual marriage and adoption, global warming and legalization of marijuana... the last set of polls I saw say I am in the minority and sometimes the extreme minority... so my thoughts are in bad taste according to the majority of the US. Should I not be allowed to share my views? Luckily I can because of things like the first admendment.

A rape simulator would be disturbing and disgusting, I wouldn't play it, hell I wouldn't play Manhunt 2! But thats not the point. I don't have to buy the game, if someone else wants to buy a rape simulator I think they should be able to (assuming like violence and video games you can't tie rape games to actual rape). Would I hang out with people who played a game like that, no... but thats my choice.

Ahh choice.

So wheres the line?
The line for me is easy, if it doesn't hurt anyone else then let the person make the choice.

You know we are way off topic for Joystiq... so to get people to read this: $ony is teh suxor, what you got 2 game???

ferrarimanf355 @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:14AM

To everyone that wants this game: you guys are all looking forward to ripping someone's meat whistle off with a pair of pliers using the Wiimote? You all disgust me...

Anton @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:20AM

Great, now there is precedent, bring on the over-zealous ratings boards...

mo @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:21AM

@44

ohhhh you guys been judged, whatcha gonna do, you should probly just change your mind and start agreeing with ferrariman, you dont want him to be displeased at you

sheppy @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:24AM

My psychiatrist told me just 52 more councilling sessions with him and I may be able to look into this game-I'm stoked!

Rubang B @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:26AM

I think rape simulators should be legal. Hey, it's better than rape, AMIRITE? Actually, they are legal, but nobody's crazy enough to make one.

This IS censorship. It is not unconstitutional government censorship, but it is still legal douchebag censorship nonetheless, and is another example of my favorite industry shooting itself in the dick. That is all. Good day.