The Political Game: Winners & losers in Manhunt 2 meltdown
Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:
Perception is reality, except when it isn't. And in the case of Manhunt 2, it's not as easy as you may think to pick out the winners and losers from this week's craziness.
Start with the Adults Only rating that the ESRB slapped on Manhunt 2. That may seem like a bad thing, but it's not. Just as new NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell recently cracked down on thug players for the good of the sport, the ESRB needed to prove to parents and politicians that the video game industry could police itself. By assigning an AO to Manhunt 2 ESRB president Patricia Vance certainly did just that. Surely new ESA top dog Mike Gallagher was in on the final decision as well.
In any case, Gallagher and Vance did what needed to be done. The bottom line is that the industry comes out smelling like a rose. And -- bonus cliché -- the proverbial line in the sand has now been drawn. While some content creators will understandably chafe at any sort of limits, the fact is that video games are not only big business but a form of entertainment which people invite into their homes. There needs to be a certain amount of public trust. Designers who can't deal with the realities of the market are welcome to go the Ryan Lambourn route.
And while Take Two will bear the financial brunt of the AO rating, it could have been a lot worse for the publisher whose most probable avenue of escape involves editing the game down to an M rating. Beyond that, new chairman Strauss Zelnick and his team are absolved of blame to a large extent by the fact that Manhunt 2 was never their project. The game was green-lighted during the troubled reign of bumbling former CEO Paul Eibeler. Zelnick and his band of merry men inherited Manhunt 2 when they seized control of the Take Two board in March. By that time the interactive gore-fest was pretty much in the can.
Ironically, watchdog group the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood didn't fare well during this week's remarkable turn of events. Mostly this was due to incredibly bad timing. As dawn broke on Tuesday morning it seemed like the CCFC's unexpected demand that the ESRB assign an AO to Manhunt 2 would be a huge story. But the news cycle can be a harsh and unpredictable master. As it turned out, the watchdog group's power play was crushed between a pair of gaming thunderclaps.
The timeline went something like this: while banging out my Tuesday morning GamePolitics story about the CCFC's AO demand, an e-mail arrived with news that Manhunt 2 was banned completely in the U.K.
OMG!
Later in the day, word leaked out that the ESRB had already tagged
Rockstar's controversial game with an AO, completely taking the wind out of CCFC's sails. The group, which reveled in its censorship of M-rated game ads on public transit in Boston a few months back, was reduced to urging its followers to "keep the pressure up" on the ESRB. Still, the CCFC is more organized and effective than any of the other video game watchdogs. The game industry surely hasn't heard the last of Dr. Susan Linn and her group.
Looking slightly two-faced are Sony and Nintendo, both of whom desperately wanted Manhunt 2 on their systems, right up until the blood spatter hit the fan. Suddenly, gamers were serenaded with a duet of "Sorry, no AO titles," as if the system makers had no clue until Tuesday as to what Manhunt 2 was all about. But that's just another reminder that video games can be, in more ways than one, a cutthroat business.
Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at
Start with the Adults Only rating that the ESRB slapped on Manhunt 2. That may seem like a bad thing, but it's not. Just as new NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell recently cracked down on thug players for the good of the sport, the ESRB needed to prove to parents and politicians that the video game industry could police itself. By assigning an AO to Manhunt 2 ESRB president Patricia Vance certainly did just that. Surely new ESA top dog Mike Gallagher was in on the final decision as well.
In any case, Gallagher and Vance did what needed to be done. The bottom line is that the industry comes out smelling like a rose. And -- bonus cliché -- the proverbial line in the sand has now been drawn. While some content creators will understandably chafe at any sort of limits, the fact is that video games are not only big business but a form of entertainment which people invite into their homes. There needs to be a certain amount of public trust. Designers who can't deal with the realities of the market are welcome to go the Ryan Lambourn route.
And while Take Two will bear the financial brunt of the AO rating, it could have been a lot worse for the publisher whose most probable avenue of escape involves editing the game down to an M rating. Beyond that, new chairman Strauss Zelnick and his team are absolved of blame to a large extent by the fact that Manhunt 2 was never their project. The game was green-lighted during the troubled reign of bumbling former CEO Paul Eibeler. Zelnick and his band of merry men inherited Manhunt 2 when they seized control of the Take Two board in March. By that time the interactive gore-fest was pretty much in the can.Ironically, watchdog group the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood didn't fare well during this week's remarkable turn of events. Mostly this was due to incredibly bad timing. As dawn broke on Tuesday morning it seemed like the CCFC's unexpected demand that the ESRB assign an AO to Manhunt 2 would be a huge story. But the news cycle can be a harsh and unpredictable master. As it turned out, the watchdog group's power play was crushed between a pair of gaming thunderclaps.
The timeline went something like this: while banging out my Tuesday morning GamePolitics story about the CCFC's AO demand, an e-mail arrived with news that Manhunt 2 was banned completely in the U.K.
OMG!
Later in the day, word leaked out that the ESRB had already tagged
Rockstar's controversial game with an AO, completely taking the wind out of CCFC's sails. The group, which reveled in its censorship of M-rated game ads on public transit in Boston a few months back, was reduced to urging its followers to "keep the pressure up" on the ESRB. Still, the CCFC is more organized and effective than any of the other video game watchdogs. The game industry surely hasn't heard the last of Dr. Susan Linn and her group.Looking slightly two-faced are Sony and Nintendo, both of whom desperately wanted Manhunt 2 on their systems, right up until the blood spatter hit the fan. Suddenly, gamers were serenaded with a duet of "Sorry, no AO titles," as if the system makers had no clue until Tuesday as to what Manhunt 2 was all about. But that's just another reminder that video games can be, in more ways than one, a cutthroat business.
Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jeff @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:11PM
I agree with most of this.
The fact is, people, the ESRB is an *industry* group. Take 2 themselves are a member. And the reason the ESRB exists is specifically to *avoid* the threat of federal legislation regulating video games. If the industry can't police itself, then the government will do it for them. Which would you rather have?
This is an example of the industry - collectively, through the ratings board that it set up itself - exercising editorial control over its content. It's not "censorship". It's private enterprise setting an appropriate rating, and then two private (as opposed to government) manufacturers setting limits on what can be placed on their consoles. It is akin to a book publisher saying they don't want to publish a particular book. That is *not* censorship.
It's really kind of sad seeing how nuts people are going over this. People have this attitude these days that they're just entitled to whatever they want all the time. Call it the Paris Hilton syndrome. Well, sorry, people, this is the real world, and sometimes you don't get what you want - for a variety of reasons. Trying to make it appear as if you have the high moral ground (by crying "censorship!") doesn't help to mask your selfishness.
And Rockstar should have known this would happen. Nobody in the industry should ever be surprised by an ESRB rating. Take 2 is an ESRB member; they pay their dues, they attend all the ESRB meetings, they have all the ESRB handbooks. It's spelled out pretty clearly in those books what triggers what rating. Rockstar brought this on themselves.
ihateemo @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:14PM
Count me as one of the people who are of the opinion Rockstar knew exactly what kind of firestorm they were getting themselves into.
I'd probably be more supportive if the game were coming out on the 360 because, dammit, I loved the original Manhunt.
JoseMiguel @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:15PM
So, it's ok to watch all types of violence in tv, with Cnn reporting about missing pregnant women,movies with all types of violence like saw, gansta raps and all other types of glorification of violence the world + dog have in tv, radio and other media, but as soon as it gets into the video games space it needs to be censored? We should take the candid aproach, be cowards and deal with it?
Why are you defending this?
I mean, I didn't like the gratitous violence in GTA and manhunt games from day one, but I like the squashing of artistical rights and common sense even less. What you're basicly saying is two things: Developers shouldn't be free to express in their games any artistical expressions that aren't set to a guideline set by watchdog groups and political bigots, and two: The american public is too retarted to chose the right games for their children, and the ESRB is totally useless, as they can't really do their job without the external microscope of politics and idiotic people being on their ass.
Good lord, what's with the hypocrisy? I can't buy manhunt 2 in the same place where I can buy Saving private ryan, saw, psycho, black hawk down and stuff?
Good to know. America is even more retarted by the minute.
Jeff @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:16PM
btw, the one thing I *disagree* with here is that any manufacturer "desperately" wanted Manhunt 2 on their system. The original game sold around 400,000 copies. Manhunt 2 was not getting a whole lot of hype before the crap hit the fan, so it probably would have done around the same numbers - maybe less because of the systems it was on (as opposed to being on the PS2 and Xbox during the peak of their usage).
The Manhunt series is sort of a "vanity" series for Rockstar - it's not a sales driver. The manufacturers sure don't need it.
sheppy @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:20PM
Wow, Jeff... judging by your claims, you've... you've never read anything about the ESRB... have you? There are no strict guidelines. In fact, ratings are based enitrely around the concensus of a randomly chosen group. Sometimes it's good and accurate (God Of War), other times it's questionable (Ratchet & Clank). Other times, the exact same content could be submitted at two different times and receive two entirely different ratings.
So as you say it's all spelled out, I submit to you, you're basing your entire arguement on a myth.
Joe Smith @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:21PM
Well written. Thanks for the thoughtful (a little unusual for Joystiq) analysis.
rasgueado @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:21PM
No. The rating system was intended to help inform the uninformed *parents*. The public isn't being allowed to make this decision for themselves, the retailers (by exercising their freedom to choose what products to stock) are making the decision for them. The public aren't being *trusted* to make their own decisions because of a PR campaign.
Jose Miguel @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:23PM
And btw how are Sony and Nintendo two faced?
With the nintendo case they've had that policy for a long time now, and they have often being criticized for being kiddy and censoring games for their content, now they do it along the ESRB and suddenly they're two faced? What's with you guys?
Luis Zapata @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:23PM
Why don't they release two versions? The uncut and the censored. They could sell the censored version in family stores and the uncut director's one in music and other "more adult oriented" stores. They could still make a lot of money from both versions.
There is just one thing. If Nintendo nor Sony licenses a game, does that mean it can't come out on their consoles? Or does it mean it won't carry any official logo? Either way, I might be spoiled and I wouldn't be traumatized with some violence from an uncut version.
funk_dat @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:25PM
"..the ESRB needed to prove to parents and politicians that the video game industry could police itself"
Hilarious.
This debacle is proof that the ESRB rating system does NOT work. Dont throw the blame on Nintendo and Sony, they don't allow AO games because that rating has been almost exclusively assigned to porn/dating games. There is no rating for legitamite adult-themed titles. The system is broke.
And don't be fooled. The ESRB KNEW that the AO rating would be an effective ban, but without all the bad press (think of the children!). They just wanted to avoid looking ineffective as they do when games like these come out and the inevitable Jack Thompson crusade follows.
There's got to be a better way.
arrrgh @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:26PM
JoseMiguel
+1 right on dude why can't people see this?
Cat Meat @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:28PM
"While some content creators will understandably chafe at any sort of limits, the fact is that video games are not only big business but a form of entertainment which people invite into their homes. There needs to be a certain amount of public trust."
This has to be one of the most wrong/least right statments I've seen that hasn't come out of Jack Thompson's mouth. All the ESRB really does is assign an subjective and arbitrary rating to keep a very vocal minority quiet. There is no need for a "certain amount of pubilc trust" because most of the public does not pay attention to or care about ratings.
And to suggest that they go the route of the v-tech game scam atrist just makes you an ass, with all due respect.
charlie @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:30PM
I dont have anything wrong with the ESRB doing their job and rating games... I have a problem with Nintendo and Sony coming out and saying that they will not license AO rated games. If Microsoft has the same policy, and I heard they do, then an ESRB AO is de facto censorship. I believe developers should be able to make AO games, and that even if none of the mainstream brick and mortars carry them, you should be able to buy them online or even from specialty video game shops like Gamestop. They could have an especially strict check for age or whatever, but AO games should be able to exist if thats what the developer wanted to make. Video games have already become and art form, and I dont think we need censorship.
TJ @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:35PM
ummm...for JoseMiguel....its not "retarted" its "retarded"...and yes....you are very much so correct....youre a fine example of how america is "definately" "retarted"....youre all moronic sheep that couldnt make an intelligent, rationalized decision to save your lives...."loosers".
HAHAHA
Karn Eggie @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:36PM
for real though, if i want to play a game, i dont want a rating to ever stop me. ive purchased the hardware and i would have purchased the game. I OWN THEM! the companies are not RENTING this to me, if iwant to play something on it, then i dont want them telling me i cant. im an adult and capable of making rational decisions. i dont think:
Sony
Walmart
Target
ESRB
...
should stop me from doing what i find acceptable, however i would like their advice on how they feel about the said product. its a matter of choice and free will. this governance under the guise of informed decision making didnt allow ME to make that decision. im not passing this responsibility onto them, they make a suggestion and then as a consumer its up to me to follow it. NOT allowing it to come out is a crime against one of americas FOUNDING PRINCIPLES, if your offended by something then turn away and dont support it. don imus didnt get directly fired b.c of his comments he got fired b.c of the advertisers pulling out of his show and the channels he was on. dont condemn the product to ambiguity b.c "5" ppl think its bad. this is absolute nonsense. this rule by committee bull is going too far. i can understand the EU but america as well ... this is a sad day for media.
i think its interesting how ppl who hold their morals above anyone elses. let me choose, thats all that it should be, not a denial of access. thats censorship and b.c i accept it on public television doesnt mean that i should have to in the privacy of my own entertainment systems.
DarkeSword @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:38PM
You can't buy this game in the same place that you can buy all those movies. Is that the fault of the ESRB? No, that's the fault of the retailers.
Retailers are the ones who refuse to sell AO games. The ESRB, regardless of the effects on the sales of the game, rates a game based on its content. Period. They ESRB does not, and SHOULD NOT, worry about the ramifications of rating a game AO. That's not their job, and should never be a factor when rating games, because doing so would make them biased. Did they cave to political pressure? We don't really know for sure; I'd like to think that they didn't, and rated Manhunt 2 on its own merits and faults.
The people who've turned the AO rating into a "censor" or "ban" rating are the retailers and the publishers; they won't stand for a game like that. Publishers CERTAINLY have that right. "Hey, I don't want a game like that on my system." And maybe retailers have that right too. "Hey, I don't want to sell that kind of game." Until retailers and publishers man up and decide to really support the artistic endeavors of developers (whether or not a game like Manhunt qualifies as "artistic" is a different discussion entirely), we're going to continue to see them exercise that right and effectively censor games. It's up to them to make the change, not the ESRB.
Games and movies are different beasts. Watching violence passively and acting out violence interactively are different things. We need to stop comparing interactive forms of entertainment with passive forms of entertainment, because we take them in differently, and they affect us differently, for better or for worse.
Alex @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:40PM
as someone who won't bury my nose up the industry's arse, the real losers in this are adult gamers. Old biddys and jesus freaks still find a way to tell us what games we are allowed to play.
sheppy @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:41PM
"And btw how are Sony and Nintendo two faced?
With the nintendo case they've had that policy for a long time now, and they have often being criticized for being kiddy and censoring games for their content, now they do it along the ESRB and suddenly they're two faced? What's with you guys?"
A. Nintendo is the one, not the ESRB, currently running on a campaign as a concole for everyone. Be this fans of sports (Madden, WiiSports) or the more violent content (Saw, Hostile). So Nintendo is the one currently running from people while saying they embrace them. Now what's gonna happen to Nintendo's stance as No More Heroes approaches?
B. By the very nature of the console controllers itself, the Wii is definately a violent system. After all, in Zelda, which has more implications, pressing A, or swishing the remote like a sword. Warioware has a stance call Samurai. What happens if Treyarch gets the idea to utilize the Wiimote to bring back the most accurate sword battling system ever, Die By The Sword? The point? The Wii has positioned itself as the most violent console by default. Now Nintendo needs to defend this position instead of throwing in the towel everytime contreversy appears. Remember Grey Sweat? That shit still haunts Nintendo to this day.
C. Sony seems two faced on this just because of the violent opus, God Of War 2. You TEAR one of your weapons out of a giants eye. And what happened to clothos? Let's just say that was the first time I ever felt sorry for a digital villian. Persius had his head repeatedly bashed in until finally flying through the air and landing on a meathook. So for Sony to come out against Manhunt 2 greatly weakens them. Then again, they were the only console to censor BMX XXX so... yeah.
D. Sony's stance here has officially endangered Home. User created content? Now what happens when little billy goes to his friends apartment and on the digital Bravia there's a video of a fat tranny midget in a bukkake scene? How can Sony defend Home now?
Leftwing @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:43PM
The mass public must be protected from this type of media.. It has cause sooo many murders in the past.. many people, that have met the ESRB suggestion, have killed because of what they saw in a video game.. people of complete sound mind killed another human and did grousome acts because "they did it in that game" so for the love of god please ban this game from all countries...
thats left wing for you.
Tom @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:44PM
I can not disagree more with this "analysis" or anyone who defends this. First of all, unless the game's content would have recieved an X rating in movie format, it does not deserve an AO rating. Secondly, it is blatantly obvious that the AO rating was pure politics and had nothing to do with the game itself. W/O the political crap that has been going on lately I would bet anything that it would have recieved the same M rating that the original got. Finally, this is censorship at it's worst. While MS/Sony/Nintendo do have the right to say what game gets a license and what doesn't.. this is taking OUR RIGHT to determine what we want to see and play away from us. They go beyond simple licensing when they say that any game with an AO rating will not be allowed to even be played on their system. This infurs that they have either enabled an AO lockout (Looking at you MS and Sony) or a lockout of unlicensed games (an act which I would argue is an illegal monopolization tactic). Finally, all this past week is proven is that the power has been removed from the hands of the people it belongs in (game players and parents) and is placed SOLELY in the hands of politics and lobby groups. It's disgusting and nobody in their right might should be defending it.
Brando @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:44PM
Rockstar knew all along what would happen. You can't buy this kind of publicity. They will dumb the game down a little and sell it anyways and make truckloads of money when all is said and done.
Almack64 @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:45PM
I guess the biggest thing that seems to go mostly unsaid is that Nintendo's and Sony's (and MS's) policies concerning AO rated games have been written for quite some time. It isn't as if this is something new based upon the current situation.
Rockstar knew this (or at least should have known this). They wanted to to push gore line as far as they could and they did. The truth of the matter is they were probably betting on the ESRB not giving this game the rating it clearly deserves. Unfortuantly they not only pushed the line, they made the line much clearer and then crossed it. And the ESRB called them on it. It was a calculated risk and just came up on the other end.
It's Business, now they just have move back over that line via editing. I'm just tired of people saying 'oh its stupid that Sony and Nintendo aren't lincensing' when this something had been the case for a while.
One final thing, considering their stance on AO games, Nintendo and Sony probably pushed this game to come on their systems with the asumption that Rockstar would make fall within the M rating since they [should have] knew that the respective platforms do not support the AO rating.
JoseMiguel @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:46PM
Tj... English isn't even my first language, but it's definitely better than any other language you speak, if you do.
I mean, that's further proof of what I said. Instead of addressing what I said, you just concentrated in a typo. Just sad.
Striderhayasa @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:48PM
I've talked about this all week and all I can say is, this is bullshit when I can go to the next isle in the same shops that won't carry Manhunt 2 and buy Saw, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Hostel and a number of other snuff films that are all the rage these days. The hypocrisy is awe-inspiring.
J.Goodwin @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:49PM
Cutting down media to get a specific rating is nothing new. Films aimed at the teen market are typically shot and edited, submitted for rating, and then get cut down to PG13 from a preliminary R rating.
I believe that the Fast and the Furious DVD contains some information on how they went about that process. Basically, they made a couple small cuts to reduce the rating.
traaw @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:55PM
throwing terms like "Jesus Freaks" around in this argument is just stupid and ignorant. I've heard no religous group comment on this and to say Jesus Freaks are behind this is inappropriate.
Shagittarius @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:57PM
"Now what happens when little billy goes to his friends apartment and on the digital Bravia there's a video of a fat tranny midget in a bukkake scene? How can Sony defend Home now?"
you had me a bukkake...
Shagittarius @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:57PM
you had me at bukkake...
grumble...
JoseMiguel @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:59PM
Sheppy, your arguments are weak at best. The AO ratings, as someone else said, have always been given to games with strong sexual and pornographic content (another curiosity of American culture, violence is ok, sex is bad) which has never been seen well for a massive consumer entertainment device such as a console, and that's the reason Nintendo had that AO rated games ban long before manhunt had ever been planned. To say Nintendo should just change their policy all of a sudden for one game would be not only ironic, but what would indeed make them two faced.
And the rest is Sony didn't come after nobody, the ESRB did. Had the game been given a mature rating the manufacturers would've released the game no matter what... The truth is now we may never know.
TJ @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:59PM
LOL @ Jose....dont try to say it was a typo...youre just a moron. i didnt address what you said cause i didnt really care. just saw a pot calling a kettle black. you cant tell everyone there stupid then turn around and make childish mistakes cuase youre too lazy to learn a language correctly...typo...sorry...too lazy to type and edit yourself correctly.....but then again....check out my punctuation and capitalization here.... the first step is admitting you have a problem....oh and....for leftwing...its "gruesome" but...i suppose that was just a typo too...."looser" sheep....
Karn Eggie @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:00PM
also does anyone think that this is a red herring in the fact that GTAIV is going to be close to this in terms of violence and gore, just to test the limits of the ESRB. i mean how much money did they stand to make on this title anyway ... i think its the same thing that tarintino did with pulp fiction, place "hyper"violent scenes to take away from the others in the movie as a distraction.
could this be their distraction ... ?
JoseMiguel @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:01PM
DarkeSword I understand your point, but the ESRB isn't guilty because of retailers refusing to carry AO rated games, the ESRB is guilty because the current rating system doesn't work, period.
As funk_dat said, there's got to be a better way. They should disambiguate the M rating from the AO rating that's been carrying so many stigmas for too much time now. Now We all would agree that manhunt 2 has a very violent theme at its core, but for the ESRB to suck out and assign a rating that they know it’s effectively squashing the game into oblivion is just proof they're failing. They're supposed to inform people about the contents of the game, not pseudo censor them by making the games inaccessible by rating already condemned by the public
TJ @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:04PM
ha...i said "there"....now im "definately" a "looser" too. how "grousome".
Jeremy @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:04PM
To see the guts of how ratings systems work, check out "This Film is Not Yet Rated", which details the inner workings of the MPAA ratings board. Rating a film NC-17 will kill it for the most part (won't be screened, sold in stores), and the decisions are arbitrary. AO is exactly that. And the argument that "The industry has to police itself or the gov't will step in" is bogus, because aside from child pornography, the US Supreme Court has consistently upheld the 1st Amendment protections of free speech for film. The film industry usese the banner of "self-regulation" to squeeze independent film producers from promoting films on a large scale, and protects the watered down cater-to-the-vocal-minority Hollywood fims.
TJ @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:07PM
pulp fiction had hyper violent scenes??
punkcoop @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:07PM
I think Nintendo and Sony need to show some balls and let it be released. There is so much negativity in the press about games and violence, but the reality is many parents still have no idea what any of the ratings mean and what the games contain. Maybe a true AO game for consoles would bring to light the need for a rating system, how the system works, and parents would actually start paying attention to what their kids are playing. I think to many parents are still clueless when it comes to games and can't tell the difference between GTA or Pacman. A game like this could open parents eyes which would be a good thing. I think throwing it out as another M title just makes it blend into the pack and clueless parents will continue going on thinking all games are just kids stuff.
JoseMiguel @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:11PM
"dont try to say it was a typo.." This is the last thing I'm ever going to say to you, as you're just trolling.
You're telling me to "check out my punctuation and capitalization" but everytime you use the "I" noun, as in "i didnt address what you said cause i didnt really care." you use it without capitalizing it, which is what you should do as it always should be capitalized. That and the lack of apostrophes tell me you're not exactly a winner to criticize me about not learning the English language, which btw, I have learned by myself without the need of schools or teachers. Go and beat that kid.
Now I have the excuse that English isn't my first language, but what excuse do you have? "a pot calling a kettle black"
True... Good excuse.
J.Goodwin @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:13PM
There is no such thing as an X rating, and never has been. The Catholic league used a ABC system for rating films, and the MPAA has never used X as a rating. X is equivalent to NR, it means that the film in question has not been rated.
However, there is an MPAA rating above R, NC-17, which is equivalent to AO in the games world. You don't see very many NC-17 films because, guess what, movie companies won't produce them, and theaters won't screen them.
The NC-17 films that do come out are typically foreign or independent films that are very well received and make limited runs in the indie/foreign theaters run by the major chains (they aren't showing up at your local mall though). Other films don't bother getting rated.
JoseMiguel @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:15PM
*pronoun. Before you try to make something out of that. =)
lucius @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:15PM
Im really getting tired of people coming off with comments such as "Lyke oMgz Americas IZ gettings dumber every dAy." What don't you people get about the fact that this is NOT censorship. No one is taking away ANY of your rights. Rock* can still publish the game if they want to and you can still purchase the game if you want to.
RockStar can still publish the game on pc. Yes it is true that Sony and Nintendo have said no, but even though this may seem like censorship, its not. Nintendo and Sony own the rights to their console that is indisputable. As such, they have the final say on what does or doesn't get published for their machines. Its the same as me saying "I don't like rap, as such no one will be allowed to play rap music in my house." Thats not censorship. People can go elsewhere and play all the rap they want just as rockstar can move to the pc and sell their game all they want.
And next im sure you'll come off with, "W3ll N0w w3 c4nt buY 0uR G4mzEz." We'll RockStar can still sell their game all they want on the internet. They could have it set up as a download or they could ship it to you and im sure there has to be some retail chains out there willing to sell this even if, your favorite store, WalMart wont.No one is preventing this game from being sold, to say otherwise is simply moronic. I'm sure that you would in someway be able to get your hands on this "wondrous work of art"
James @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:17PM
I would never play a game like Manhunt anyway but it does worry me that Sony and Nintendo won't allow AO games onto their systems. In the case of Manhunt it's a crazy amount of violence. But what about future games that may have more serious messages, like drug abuse or rape. Those things will never make it into a game for fear of the game being AO and not getting released.
I think in order to prove the game industry has evolved we need games like this to be released. I don't think this should be sold at your local Walmart but it should be in specialty places for the consumers that want to buy it. All this political goodness of "protecting us" from violent media is only going to limit the game industries growth potential.
Almack64 @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:19PM
@ Karn Eggie
I agree that the system needs to be fixed, but the truth of the matter that takes time and this game did deserve something greater than the M rating so that parents do know that it's content is somewhat more graphic than many other M rated games.
Unfortuantly while we should pay more attention to the detailed description on the back of games/movies, I know I don't and I would say most other people don't either. They look at the big rating (if they even care about such things ) and that's it. I for one love the M rated Godfather, however if Manhunt 2 in its unedited state received a M I would be personally appalled by its contents.
This leads to the ok then what should be done then. This game shouldn't (in my opinion for reasons stated above) be rated a M. However in its present state the only other rating is the infamous (mostly do to porn) AO rating. So true the system may need a new vamping to add a new rating but that's not something that's going to be done overnight, hence that's why concerning all the variables in this current situation I feel it is what it is.
Hopefully though depending or the reaction maybe a new rating for just porn will be given and the console manufactors can ban that new rating or a similar situation.
Lazyboy @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:20PM
the ratings for movies hardly work, why should it for games? just release an "unrated" version alongside an "edited version", so people know specifically what they are buying and stores will carry it
btw, thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard, true as it may be. Unrated director's cuts come out every week on dvd with added, more grotesque content that couldnt make it in the movie because it would have gotten NC17, but here in DVD-Land, they can release whatever they want, mark it unrated, and blockbuster will sell it to 14 year olds that couldnt go see the R rated film in theaters because there is no laws about content that is not rated at all.
TJ @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:21PM
ummm...mrs. miguel...you obviously dont read well either....
"but then again....check out my punctuation and capitalization here...."
i didnt tell you to check yours....i said check mine....you just arent very bright is all. its ok....really....its ok....
oh...and youre awesome...you learned english with no teacher...here...i have a cookie for you...maybe two...sorry..."too"...
oh...this morning i made a bowl of cereal on my own.... "Go and beat that kid."
Mandingo Chief @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:27PM
We always read from these websites and gaming industry groups how the industry is "growing up", and how "the average age of a gamer is 29 years old." If this is the case, then the industry needs to grow with the gamers. Some adults may actually want to play Manhunt 2 (otherwise I imagine Rockstar wouldn't have worked on it.) I believe that it's on the console manufacturers to allow AO titles for those adults who want them. If they single-handedly restrict the level of maturity in content, then they are condemning the industry as "kids only", which makes arguments from people like Jack Thompson and the CCFC effectively valid.
As for retailers: they ned the choice on what they wish to stock. Companies like Target and Wal-Mart brand themselves as being family friendly, so clearly they cannot stock AO titles and keep their image. This should not be a problem to anyone as there are many other stores, on-line or otherwise, who will stock AO titles... if the console manufacturers allow them.
wackyban @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:31PM
If I see one more story about this game, i'm going to give the internet up for adoption.
vidGuy @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:32PM
I agree that Manhunt2 deserved AO, and I agree that it was important for the ratings boards to standup and deliever that rating. However, I disagree with what that means for the game. It is in a store's right to deny sale of any product. It's in a console maker's right to deny play to any product. These are private entities with their own reputations on the line.
However, WHY won't these entities put these games out? What makes them so bad? Is it (A) that the company is taking a moral stance against overly violent/pornographic material, or is it (B) that the company is fearful of the public backlash? I choose B.
Companies are worried that releasing such games would give them a bad public image (OMG! they sell pron to little kids!) or that they would somehow be liable for problems down the line. In my mind, slapping a sticker on the game that covers it saying "ADULTS ONLY", and carding at checkout would be enough to counter frivolous lawsuits. It'd be like suing McDonald's over coffee (again), but this time they HAVE A LABEL THAT SAYS IT IS HOT and THE CASHIER TOLD YOU IT WAS HOT. How could anyone expect to win a liability lawsuit with so much warning that they should have known?
I would absolutely support age restrictions on AO games. I would even be willing to accept these as ONLINE ONLY purchases. But I don't think the effective "ban" on these games because of company images is warranted.
MH2 is definitely over-the-top. But don't think about that game, think of your favorite franchise... if that was suddenly rated AO, would you support such outcry against the game? Would you agree with companies' decision to not carry, GTA4, Metal Gear Solid 4 or Halo 3, for example?
I would have bought MH2 as an AO title, from a brick-and-mortar store, from an online distributor, even from Take Two / Rockstar themselves. I will NOT buy a censored version.
Almack64 @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:33PM
@ Lazyboy #43
Just because as you stated the movie rating system fails miserbly doesn't mean it shouldn't work or that the video game rating system should be similarly broken.
You're right that it is hypocritical in its current state, but if you have two that are unequal you don't break the one that is trying to work so that it will be as broken as the other. That's foolishness. You fix the one that's not working, ie the fact that underage kids can get "unrated" movies from blockbuster.
But to be fair both systems probably need to have a major overhaul.
TJ @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:35PM
you dont see any manufactureres making DVD players that wont play above G or CD players that wont play anything with the "F" word in it. why not allow an adult to buy an adults only game? i mean...cmon...where would tne internet be without "adult only" content? ;) it could only help sony grow into the demographic they claim the industry is turning into.
Almack64 @ Jun 22nd 2007 1:46PM
TJ you're arguing apples and oranges. CD/DVD players (even PC's) are not for the most part proprietary devices gaming consoles (in their current state) however are. It means the console makers have the specific right to say what is made for their proprietary systems those other don't at this time. (I think CD's may have started out that way, not sure though) I also think Nintendo and have even more rights over their respectful storage mediums since they too are proprietary. (Not so sure about 360 games)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary