| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (89)

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 1:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ 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.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 1:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 1:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 1:46PM impositron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
To all those that say that there is as much violence on tv and on movies - Di you play Manhunt? The fact is that the game is a living recreation of rotten.com. I enjoy games no matter how far they go, and Manhunt went there (almost to the end). But Manhunt was not as good of a stealth game and relied more on fetishistic violence.
Many people in the movie industry are crying out right now to stop the onslaught of fetishistic violence like SAW 2, 3, and 4, and Captivity, Hostel, I Know Who Killed Me, etc. Why? SAW 1 was more of homage to Se7en. While both of those movies contained graphic scenes of violence, there context made it arguably acceptable. The movies that followed those have step over that line, throwing out plot and substance and replacing it with the most violent deaths imaginable, in vivid detail.
Manhunt went there. Manhunt 2 was going there again. The ESRB let Manhunt 1 slide but realized much later the effect it had on watchdog groups and it's players. Was it fun? Yeah sometimes, and boring as hell other times. I wanted to turn myself in to the authorities when the game put me in the mind of a killer willing kill in the most violent ways in or to escape the psychological mindf@$* that was the game.
I'm not going to get into how do we fix the problem. I just wanted to try and explain it to those that defend it. I do believe in the power of free speech and expression.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 1:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't really have a problem with the AO rating and since I don't live in the UK, I couldn't give a rat ass about what goes on there. Sucks to be an adult video gamer in UK, I suppose.

However, Sony and Nintendo really gotta get uptospeed with the realities of video gaming market these days. I guess it's not too surprising that Nintendo and it's family oriented marketing go with the "no AO rated games", but Sony has no such claim. Obviously since it's their platform they can do whatever the hell they want with it, but it's a little hypocritical IMHO.

The average age of a video gamer these days is 30+. Is Sony and Nintendo saying adult gamers aren't welcome to play adult only games on their platform?

I'd hope both companies would take a "common carrier" type of approach to games on their platform. Inclusivity, not exclusivity.

I don't understand what the hell is the problem for letting adult gamers play whatever the hell they like on these platforms. I can go see a horror flick any day of the week in the movie theatre and nobody's complaining about that. But try doing the same on a Nintendo or Sony video game platform and all of a sudden it's verboten. Bullcrap.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 1:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just to keep things in perspective MS too has the same AO game restriction in place. So its the current console industry's unanimous stance.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 1:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
it isnt so much apples and oranges. i understand the ps3 and wii are proprietary hardware. what i was trying to say was that the most likely reason seems to be one that someone said earlier. sony and nintendo are afraid of some sort of backlash. they believe the games they allow will be a direct reflection of what they allow on their systems. (ie porn on umd). id like to know what xbox has to say about it all. theyve been pretty tight lipped about adults only games it seems. anyone know what their views are?

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Building off of "adult gamers" arguments: when does a medium shift from being a facet of the entertainment business to being an art? The former is regulated, the latter is respected.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ TJ

"Adults Only: This rating means what it says: The program or game is only for adults, meaning ages 18 and older. This is pretty straightforward. A game receives this rating if there are prolonged scenes of extremely graphic violence and/or sexual content. It is company policy that there are no AO games for Xbox or Xbox 360."

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/personality/xboxdad/20061031-whatsappropriate.htm

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What the ESRB needs to do is make a T+ rating or a light M for games like Halo,(and imo GTA), and reserve M for games that have dangerous amounts of violence, but keep the AO rating so that the people who might complain won't say that T+ is the new M and M is the new AO, because there are a lot of games out there rated M that straddle the line between T and M. We Also need this for the new breed of Horror Movies, a super-r, but without the sex stuff that would get it an NC-17

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:12PM sand0789 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I want to know what exactly it was about the game that got it an AO rating. The PS2 version, I believe, passed with an M. The Wii version obviously did not. Was it the addition of physically acting out the sadistic motions that put the game over the edge? Was there a difference in content? Was it just the randomness of passing a game through when some of the pannel members are having a bad day?

My guess is that the mimicing of the motions is what put it over the top. The ESRB agrees, Wii controls are more immersive. ;)

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually all versions of the game received the AO rating. The whole wii-controls thing was just rumor.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:16PM Serrenitei said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, you all on here are brutal. I thought over at gamepolitics we squabbled a lot; but man, some people here take the whole idea to new heights of, well, pettiness honestly.

Personally, I like the ESRB rating system. I like being able to tell at a glance what's generally speaking, within a game. However, I don't see a need for anything about an M rating. The difference in the ESRB's website is subjective and obscure, and akin to splitting hairs. Similar to an NC-17 rating, I believe that the AO rating is used specifically for politically driven decisions.

I don't think it's the industry, the ESRB, or the retailers who are the problem. I think it's us, the populous, the unidentified masses of faces who control this planet, though we like to pretend we don't. It's much harder to be a victim of a situation if you control that situation.

Counter-legislation, getting into a huff, telling everyone else how much they screwed up and playing the innocent bystanders won't do anything. if you want the perception to change, then change it. People see us, gamers, as suggestible, easily swayed, with little hold on reality, no social skills and deviant from the societal norm.

In my mind, education is the key. Educating parents on what their duty as a parent is. Educating the general public that gamers are not their stereotype. Will education solve all the problems? No. Will it stop all forms of censorship and the chilling effect? No. But hell, at least it's a productive option, something definitive to do that will at least make some difference.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:21PM Aminojaku said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ J.Goodwin

Not quite true. The original plan had an X rating. That was specifically for companies who choose to self-rate their games. The rating below X were trademarked, leaving X free to use by movie companies on their own since it was not trademarked. (Just as NR is not trademarked Eventually the MPAA wanted to bring that rating into their fold. Since X had become a rating used nearly exclusively by the porn industry they ended up trademarking NC-17 to be the equivilent of what X originally was for.
http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:35PM accolade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think what's dissapointing about this news is how both Nintendo and Sony have outlawed the sale of AO rated games on their system, and even Microsoft for the Xbox.
They've set a bar so games can't be too extreme or racy.
So much for creative expression and free speech.

It's a shame when you look at it, but I don't blame Nintendo because they always had that attitude, going back to the early 90s.

The only company that ever was willing to take a risk was Sega, and there now long gone from the hardware market.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:36PM Aminojaku said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ herman

Yes, there should be 1 limit and 1 limit only. That limit is physical/mental harm to the innocent upon the creation of the item in question. That's it. If there is no harm there is no censorship. PERIOD. The rest is CHOICE. That is why porn is allowed but child porn and real rape films are not. That is why fake snuff (Saw) is allowed by real snuff is not. That is why truhful disparaging remarks are allowed but slander is not. No innocent id forcably harmed by an AO video game. Nobody was killed in making it. Nobody was raped. No child was harmed. Nobody is slandered. NOBODY IS HARMED. Any other limits are bogus forced morailty and have no place in a free and open society. Go live in some backwater hole like Iran if you want your forced moralty.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JoseMiguel

"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."

The most hilarious part of your stance here? It's self defeating. The "Unrated" versions of movies were often the versions that got NC-17 and had to be cut. Yet Unrated is out there, easily obtained. Books, well hell, as far as I know have neither warnings or even levels. Does it comfort you to know an 8 year old can read American Psycho and it's actually encouraged by our culture just because he's reading?

Regardless, my stance is the AO rating should NOT be a death knell to games. As you stated before, AO is usually reserved for strong sexual content. Frankly speaking, the sexual content wasn't even mentioned in their rating release. So what you have is the AO stigma being attached to pornography. Clearly, Manhunt 2 isn't pornography. Especially when people who have played it have stated content, from their experience, doesn't even approach the gruesome nature of recent shock flicks like Saw or Hostel. As games approach the uncanny valley, this will become a bigger and bigger issue.

Meanwhile, Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft's blanketed stance is tragically out of touch. What happens when a rape sequence makes it into a game to further the story? Well, the uncut version becomes a download only release on Dell's website and restricted to PC only. As in Indigo Prophecy Director's Cut. And despite it being only slightly worse, the AO rated REAL version of the game remains limited strictly to PC digitial distribution.

Frankly speaking, approval for games SHOULD be handled on a case per case basis. After all, if Sony would deny Metal Slug 3 release because it was a no frills port of an OLD ASS arcade game, certainly they can take the the same kind of "hands on" approach with approving or denying Manhunt 2. A blanketed ratings system shouldn't be used as a convenient excuse to avoid controversy. ESPECIALLY when their console can play Debbie Does Dallas on BluRay.

If Nintendo can make judgement calls like denying Naruto US release for three years because, despite being an okay fighter on a console in desperate need of them, Naruto is unknown in the US (horseshit), then certainly they can pay someone to sit down and play Manhunt 2 to see if it can be released on their console. FUCKS SAKE! They have several people who scour porn sites looking for Nintendo IP references so they could sue them! Once again, Nintendo is hiding behind a blanketed rating to excuse themselves from controversy.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:47PM frankDrebin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ JoseMiguel

You're not better than JD just because you learned english by yourself. You're better than him because you're a reasonable guy and he is a completely spoiled kid. Congrats for your language skills. Ignoring JD is the only way to make he grow.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:52PM frankDrebin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
*him

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 2:52PM Altairio said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

83% of people who make the actual purchase of video games are 18 & older.
The average age of the game buyer is 40 years old.
70% of computer gamers are 18 & older.
60% of console gamers are 18 & older.

Seems like much ado about nothing to me.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 3:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I for one, applaud the console makers for taking a stand on garbage like this. The standards of what is acceptable grind downward every year and maybe, just maybe, companies like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo don't want to be a part of it.

Between the seemingly bottomless desire for repugnant content and the incomprehensible language some write with, the gaming community is starting to feel like A Clockwork Orange.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 3:52PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ whoever said Wii discs are proprietary: No. They are DVD9's in all respects save their insane encryption keys, a Wii disc is just a 360 disc, except much harder to crack (although certainly easier than the GC, since it actually fits in a PC DVD Drive, and the Wii itself actually has a straightforward means of interfacing with its own BIOS)

But anyway, I don't think that Take Two will back down at this point, as it is a company that needs capital pretty badly right now, scrapping a project that is complete is not an option, they'll have to just tone down the violence to whatever level they had in the original (basically restore a lot of Manhunt 1's gameplay)

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 3:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Here's how I know this is a good column: everyone's mad about something.

Some readers take issue with some of my comments. I've also been blasted over this by Jack Thompson and the game industry people are upset as well. It's a grand slam! Or a triple play... or something.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 3:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Mr Khan

Correction noted.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 4:02PM kip said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seriously, just release a director's cut. They don't have to be able sell it in Wal-Mart. Amazon will carry it.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 4:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Interestingly enough I just heard a segment on NPR Marketplace about all of this. Before going into an actually balanced discussion, the announcer started out with.

"It looks like it's game over for software publisher Take Two punlishers of the bloody GTA series"

I just got a kick out of the whole 'bloody GTA' comment.

The rest of the segment was good journalism. Speaking of how the AO rating was a defacto ban and the likes. Reluctantly the reporter admitted that there was a legitimate consumer base for the game but considering the the underlining affects of the AO rating it would need to be edited and resubmitted for financial sucesss of any kind.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 4:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Between the seemingly bottomless desire for repugnant content and the incomprehensible language some write with, the gaming community is starting to feel like A Clockwork Orange."

Wow, tard much? Here are the differences though...

The people who were offended and outraged at the violence and sickness in A Clockwork Orange were the ones making death threats and sending letters to anyone involved about how they were going to rape and kill their family...

Also, sales for M rated games still represent a barely noticable blip in industry wide sales. Obviously, should one desire it, you can avoid the sick games. But no, rather than using common sense and thinking for yourself on the media you choose, you'd rather have it all sifted through, sorted, and anything you cannot agree with should be removed all together.

You're, you're not much of a reader, are you? Because myself, despite not actively seeking it, have read scenarios and scenes in freely available books so graphics, it would outrage anyone with any sense of morality. Frankly speaking, the stuff I've read makes Manhunt 2 look like an episode of Scoobie Doo.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 4:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ kip

FYI Nintendo and Sony actually will not lincense AO rated games. So it does even matter if it was sold at Walmart at this point.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 4:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"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?"

Did you miss Nintendo's mission statement or are you intentionally being intellectually dishonest? Nintendo has made it clear that they want to move BEYOND the hardcore white male 30 year-old consumer for the console market. They're looking to get grandparents and casual gamers and non-gamers into the fold. What does Saw and Hostel have anything to do with the Wii, exactly? Other than Thrill-Kill, no violent game has earned an AO rating based on its violence before...and given some of the sexual material in even Thrill-kill, that may have been a factor. The game feature violent castration using the pliers and saw, which may have been the deciding factor (the marriage of sex AND violence certainly pushes buttons).

Of course, all of this assumes that their is an ironclad, universally agreed upon rule of what constitutes an 'M' game versus a 'T' game versus an 'AO' game. And it's clear that, at this point, we don't have that consensus. Especially as it's a sliding scale. The ESA formed the ESRB in response to stuff like Mortal Kombat and as a defense against criticism from titles like Manhunt 2. Many forum posters claim they'll vote with their dollars, but at the end of the day, they'll get a cola and forget about while playing something else.

sheppy said: "If Nintendo can make judgement calls like denying Naruto US release for three years because, despite being an okay fighter on a console in desperate need of them, Naruto is unknown in the US (horseshit),"

You've made this claim before, so I'm curious...are you saying Tomy wanted to release Clash of Ninja in the US and Nintendo specifically blocked them? Can you provide a link or some sort of reference to back that up, or is that just your personal belief? Considering that the first time I saw it was at an anime convention, where many people THERE didn't even know what Naruto was, I can't imagine there was this hidden groundswell of popularity for it that was being suppressed, but I'd be interested to see why and how Nintendo was blocking its release if you can give me some more information.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 4:58PM Jude said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They should just go ahead and keep the AO rating and take it even more over-the-top by making the Wii-version a "Porn Simulator" too.

This whole thing is ridiculous. All its going to do is make little kids, who these people are supposedly trying to "protect", want it more. Back when the 2 Live Crew were in court against the censorship of "As Nasty as They Want to Be", I was in elementary school and never would have heard of them if it wasn't for Tipper Gore, but I ended up buying their album and becoming a fan even though they really weren't all that great in the first place... not to mention the interest I gained for drugs because of the DARE program, for girls after Sex-Ed (well I kinda already was into them) and how enticing the oh-so-"forbidden" cigarrette became after having it being crammed down my throat how bad they are.

The point is, I had no interest and wasn't aware of many "bad" things until they were forced upon me by someone wanting to keep me from it and I am willing to bet that many children reacted and will react in a similar way.

In an only slightly (un)related manner I think it is also much more of a shame that the left and Democrats in this country (who I generally agree with on most issues) are the one's who take things like censorship of the media on as their personal causes to appear moral (Hillary Clinton on video games most recently). I would have voted for Al Gore in 2000 if it weren't for his wife Tipper Gore and so would have many other people that I know. Who knows how different our country would be if he won a bit more overwhelmingly?

People should just let this be the great land of the free that it is meant to be and focus on the real issues such as the actual real-life people in places like Iraq and Afghanistan whose real deaths our tax dollars are responsible for ending.

Since when did games and media take more precedence over actual human life? Like I said above, this is ridiculous.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 5:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I find it quite ironic when people point out that america treats sex so much more restrictivly then violence, and then cry foul when they stick an exessivly violent game in the same rating as sexual content. Really, the community of gamers is just as self-serving and crazy as the communitys trying to place restrictions on games.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 5:55PM Rabidkeebler said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Okay, for everyone yelling "Freedom of Speech" get a clue. All this is is a rating. Nothing more, nothing less. England banned the game, preventing it from being sold in the country legally. Here in the US it can be sold legally.

Now the main issues are wal-mart and the big N(intendo) and S(ony). The issue is that AO games don't get support. But the AO rating is correct (barring any real screw up by the ESRB) and there is no reason to blame them.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 6:29PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ J

Clinton's half-assed attempts at taking up morality causes are why i won't vote for her in the 08 primary, she has a tendency to be a bit of a left-wing demagogue

Posted: Jun 22nd 2007 11:11PM Evan Tribley said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"1. 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?"

I was under the impression the ESRB was originally created to provide warning labels for parents and consumers about the content in video games. Was there never any good intention with the ESRB or are you insinuating it was purely to protect themselves. Call me naive, but I still thought sometimes things were made out of good intentions.

Posted: Jun 23rd 2007 12:51AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wish everyone would stop using terms like censorship or "effective ban." One nice thing about the ESRB is that it helps keep politicians from thinking they should censor gaming, like is done in many other countries. The market has worked itself out as it should. Many gamers may feel robbed of something, but frankly none of us are entitled to whatever a developer creates.

Take-Two could release the uncensored game on PC or other platforms if they wanted but will probably choose not to. Now, you might whine about the developers' "artistic freedom" but don't confuse "artistic freedom" with the right "to have someone fund, publish and distribute your game all over the country." Obviously that latter does not exist, nor should it. No one kept the developers from creating that content. Now they would be forbidden from releasing it without Take-Two's permission but that is obviously something they agree to when they started working for the company with company funds.

No one's rights were actually violated as all parties agreed to allow this sort of thing happen to them. Well, except for us gamers but you don't have the right to see Manhunt 2 unless its owners decide to let you. I'm afraid any rights that you dream up in your head won't take precedence over the rights of retailers, console makers, and game makers.

Posted: Jun 23rd 2007 11:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What bothers me the most about the whole situation is that Sony and Nintendo refuses to license the product and the retailers refuse to carry it. I couldn't care less about Manhunt 2. I didn't like the original Manhunt. My roommate used to play it and it bored me to tears just watching. I don't mind violence in a decent context but lacking a compelling context its just plain boring. Still we complain and complain about politicians and watchdog groups trying to censor games and censor the industry and when it comes right down to it the console manufacturers and the retailers do it for them. The ESRB did its job. Manhunt 2 should be aloud to stand with an AO rating. After all there is no shortage of adult gamers out there. I can't help but wonder if Sony and Nintendo, or the retailers forget that sometimes. Maybe they should stop and remember that the majority of video gamers now are in their 30s. They make the largest bulk of their sales from adults. What is so wrong with making an Adults Only product to sell to adults? Am I the only one that doesn't think thats a novel idea?

Posted: Jun 23rd 2007 10:20AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It IS an "effective ban". It IS censorship. This is not about funding. This is not about publishing. This is not about distribution. This is about *allowing* *release*. Without Sony and Nintendo's consent, Rockstar literally *cannot* release the game on their platforms without being sued to death. And the result is that Rockstar has a choice between either spending millions (which they probably don't even have right now) and accepting about a year's delay to port the game to PC, bowdlerising it, or canning it. That's not a choice in any meaningful sense of the word, people. And the fact that Nintendo and Sony are not govenment officials does not stop it from being censorship, and nor does it absolve them in any way.

Nor are the ESRB blameless. No, the current situation with AO ratings is not ideal. However, either the ESRB is staffed entirely by morons or they are perfectly aware of the console companies' policies. They knew that an AO rating *was* an effective ban, regardless of what they would like it to be, and they assigned it anyway. That is censorship as well.

And just for all the mouth-breathers who seem to think that everyone arguing against the rating must be in favour of murder: I wouldn't even buy the game. I don't like that level of violence. But it should be released.

Posted: Jun 24th 2007 12:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@86

You seem to be missing the point. Rockstar/Take-Two AGREED to undergo ESRB scrutiny when they started developing the game (or got their dev kits) and they new that meant no AO titles. Neither you nor I have played Manhunt 2 and it isn't our place to say whether to ESRB chose the proper rating but Take-Two is an ESA member and does have a part in the ESRB and like I said, they agreed to be under ESRB scrutiny. And if Take-Two really can't release the game on another platform, as you suggested, then obviously that would have been another thing they agreed on. And the developers themselves signed away their "artistic liberties" when they started working for Take-Two. Sure its a type of censorship, but holding your tongue when you want to curse out a misbehaving 2-year-old is also a form of censorship and I certainly don't have a problem with that.

Nintendo and Sony are businesses and unlike a government, they cannot force anything on Rockstar without a contract of some sort. If you sign a contract to pay back a loan, are you going to accuse the bank of stealing your money a year later? Not the best analogy, but I'm sure you get the point. I'd much rather see Take-Two be held to its past deals than see Nintendo, Sony or anyone else lose their rights to do legitimate business.

Posted: Jul 9th 2007 8:06AM ZippyDSMlee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
sites are moving to a higher res layout,so on 1XXX by 1XXX its not bad looking.

Anyway

My take on the mess is its unbalanced leaning to the side of censorship,the ESRB is doing a ok job but they can do better(mostly with more stable rating to PG13/M/AO titles but then again its more art than science I guess), the next thing I would like to see is the PR blitz on no AO games on our systems be dropped,really MS/Sony/nin,take the thumb out of your as and let AO games be put on your systems,you are adding unneeded stress to the ESRB by claiming godwin and not letting adults have their media, the market itself on the retail side of things will make sure that AO games are limited so grow up already…..

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW