NY Times: R-rated movies gorier than AO Manhunt

by Alexander Sliwinski { Jun 26th 2007 at 10:57AM }

Looks like Take-Two invited the mainstream media over to play Manhunt 2 the other day, because not only did Newsweek and MTV check it out, but so did the New York Times. The NYT essentially walked away saying that games like Manhunt 2 have a long way to go before they reach the gore found in modern "torture porn." Seth Schiesel writes, "Banning the original version of Manhunt 2 may be a good way to demonstrate that the industry can police itself. Side by side, though, movies seem to be way ahead of games in delivering top-notch gore."

Schiesel tests this by renting the R rated version of Saw II, where the "first scene was of a young man in a bleak cell being taunted to find a key by digging into his own oozing eye socket. If he does not yank out the key in 60 seconds, his head will be crushed in a spiked metal 'death mask' around his neck." Scheisel points out that the game probably got the rating because all the ESRB sees is a highlight reel of the game, they don't actually play it. He says it'll be "fairly simple" to re-edit the game for an M rating in time for the holiday season. And the New York Times isn't above going with the general conspiracy theory floating around about Manhunt 2, saying, "Whenever it does ship, Manhunt 2 is likely to enjoy a level of public awareness (and potentially sales) that it could never have attained without the ban. That of course may well have been what its makers intended all along."

Tags: manhunt2, newyorktimes, rockstar, schiesel, take-two, taketwo

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

ScreamingSkull @ Jun 26th 2007 11:05AM

I kind of doubt they wanted to extend their development time. But if it was never really ready to begin with...

Rob Accomando @ Jun 26th 2007 11:21AM

They could have planned a Sept release date all along. This whole thing could have been a clever marketing scheme that worked. Sounds like a conspiracy theory though.

Aj Vaynerchuk @ Jun 26th 2007 11:21AM

Can a video game really be that "gory"? Its a darn video game - it is not real life people involved!

mo @ Jun 26th 2007 11:29AM

thank god theres some one in the mass media whos not a total idiot, its pretty obv that a movie that depicts real people being tortured is worse than a game that depicts polygonal representations of people being tortured

Crono @ Jun 26th 2007 11:29AM

I know I'll at least rent it when it comes out, just to see what the hubbub was about.

Karen @ Jun 26th 2007 11:43AM

From the preview at IGN:
"In Manhunt 2 you can, Wii remote and nunchuk in hands, use a pair of pliers to clamp onto an enemy's testicles and literally tear them from his body in a bloody display; and if that weren't enough, you'll take one of the poor victim's vertebrae along with his manhood. Or, if you'd prefer, you can use a saw blade and cut upward into a foe's groin and buttocks, motioning forward and backward with the Wii remote as you go"

Seth left out these moves in his article.

Jon @ Jun 26th 2007 11:52AM

@ Al,

Well there aren't real life people involved in films as well! You think those are real people being decapitated in films???

Anyway the NYT got it wrong when they mentioned the word 'ban'. Manhunt 2 isn't banned in the US. I am not American and even I know that you can't ban stuff in America. It got a valid legal AO rating. Blame Nintendo, Sony and Take 2 for not sorting out the licensing issue.

MrPaulJames @ Jun 26th 2007 12:03PM

Karen in Sin City at the end Bruce Willis YANKED OFF that guys cock and balls...

Big freakin' deal.

I'm gonna prove a point and go on a rampage, and then when I'm asked why I'll say it's because of pent up rage that I couldn't release by playing a gory game like Manhunt 2...

Same fucking principle as playing it and going on a mass homicide.

Ska Oreo @ Jun 26th 2007 12:08PM

The ESRB is so full of shit. Seriously they say that there were no political nonsense involved with their decision. If that's the case why is it that the original Manhunt got an M? And I'm pretty sure that one was pretty bad as well. It's pretty funny how a few years ago they said that they were protecting games and gamers from all this political bullshit that's going on.

Ryuukuro @ Jun 26th 2007 12:10PM

Wow, he has a point. While the Manhunt series sounds and looks completely unappetizing to me, I must say that it's nothing compared to the sick horror films that are coming out now. After reading his description Manhunt 2 actually sounds like a Resident Evil clone watered down with blood. But I know I could never watch a movie like Saw even if I had a tolerance for hyper-gore because for me it is indeed violence porn.

Zsavior @ Jun 26th 2007 12:14PM

I liked this guy Seth Schiesel every since Robert Summa pointed him out in rage(which made me like him even more), I may not agree with everything he says but he think like any actual gaming Journalist which can't be said for a lot of the industry.

Even though I am a conspiracy nut myself, part of me wants to think other media forums don't want games to take on a more adult feel to them so they don't have to compete all the way in that industry. Also so they keep videogaming as a conduit for their poorly made tie in games. But that is a longer rant for a different time.

sheppy @ Jun 26th 2007 12:21PM

@Karen

"Seth left out these moves in his article."

Frankly... I looked at several videos and the action often took place so quickly, I couldn't tell the pliers were used to attack the genetals until the guy walking through it told me so (I just thought it was stabbing in the lower back). But I suppose you're right. He didn't mention those (possibly because he never saw them).

But he also didn't mention how the lead character shows guilt for his kills. That he's forced into this situation though he does not like it. You also neglected to mention that the elaborate kill scenes only seem to last, at most, 10 seconds and considering the large amount of time you spent moving and avoiding guards and such, that's like saying Super Mario Brothers should be judged enitrely upon all that flag humping.

But no, you'll continue to stand behind the IGN review and continue of the opinion that somehow this game will destroy society and the rest of us have to suffer because it's "not your bag."

pagmer12 @ Jun 26th 2007 12:46PM

So many people are missing the point in this. If you want to argue why this game isn't being licensed, take it up with Nintendo and Sony. As far as the ESRB goes, though, going by the IGN preview alone it deserves an AO rating. If being able to pull someone's nuts off with a pair of pliers in graphic, gory detail does not qualify a game for an AO rating, I don't know what does!

This debate should never be about the rating. Claiming that the ESRB should not rate Manhunt 2 AO simply because you want to play it would be a gross undermining of the ESRB's ratings system, and that's the last thing we need at a time when we're trying to prove to the government that the ESRB works. In all honesty, screw movies and how they're rated. It disgusts me that so many people want video games to be considered as a mature, legitimate, independent art form that can stand on its own, but when put to the test in a manner such as this everyone's running to the freaking film industry to legitimize video games.

Not saying we should never question the ESRB, but this is borderline ridiculous. I have yet to read a review/impression of Manhunt 2 where the reviewer didn't label the game as one of the most--if not THE most--violent games they've ever played. And there's description upon description upon description of all the sadistic, disgusting things you can do to kill someone in the EARLY levels of the game (If you're sawing off limbs and pulling off nuts in the beginning of the game I fear what the later levels are like). The reasons why this game gets an AO rating should be terribly obvious.

So we, the gaming community, need to stop attacking the ESRB, which is only serving its function, and go after Nintendo and Sony. Ask THEM what the hell the point is of having and endorsing a ratings system if they're e just going to disregard it and ban a rating on their consoles. Ask them why they're encouraging inaccurate game ratings within the ESRB due to some big-money publisher wanting their game to sell.

TheNino85 @ Jun 26th 2007 12:54PM

@8
Yeah, that's exactly what we need. How much did JT pay you to say that?

So, when someone shoots up a school, violent video games are to blame. When an especially violent video game is released, suddenly they defend it because "movies are so much worse." Don't get me wrong, how Hostel and Saw got R ratings is totally beyond me. That indicates to me a failure in the movie rating system. I love explosion and firefights and dead Commies in a movie, but violence porn is another matter entirely. Also, looking through my games the other day, almost all of them are M. I'm no Puritan. But IGN and other credible sources have reported on what the game entails, and it is certainly NOT tame from their descriptions. They have seen the game actually played, has this reporter Schiesel? Just sounds to me like a self-righteous reporter writing a story on something he doesn't understand just because he considers himself to be a crusader of free speech.

Even if this game were to be pretty tame when it comes out and Rockstar is just playing it up for publicity, when you play with fire, sometime you get burned. I for one have no pity for Rockstar. Games are not art. They are commercial products (yes, even Final Fantasy or insert-trendy-Japanese-title-here,) and Rockstar made a miscalculating when assessing Sony and Nintendo. It all boils down to that. No censorship, no ban, just a company that failed to deliver the product that its partners wanted and is now using the "free speech" argument not because it cares about free speech, but the commercial viability of their product. I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. We all strive to obtain money, every single one of us, and how we get it differs from person to person. Even the little child strives to obtain it. "MOMMY I'M HUNGRY!" is the same as "MOMMY SPEND MONEY ON ME!" although the child is not old enough to realize it. We need it to survive. Even in any (non-ideal, realistic) communist society, money reigns supreme. With that said, this ultimately comes down to money, pure and simple.

warioswoods @ Jun 26th 2007 1:04PM

Sorry, but honestly it IS fair to give video games a stricter rating than movies that feature similar or worse violence. Why? Due to the position of the spectator. 'Saw'-type movies are gruesome, but while there is some ambiguity as to the relation between the audience and the victim and the term 'torture porn' is somewhat warranted, the spectator is not explicitly the one responsible for choosing to apply the violence, and for choosing to kill using one method or another based on its goriness. The movement from a passive spectator to an active agent of violence does, indeed, warrant much more strict rating. The ESRB did it right; sorry to disappoint you.

Joystiq: stop whining about censorship, unfair ratings etc. The ESRB rating makes sense, and Nintendo and Sony have every right to say No to a game. And they even have a right to do so based only on 'taste' if that's what it comes down to. Taste means a great deal when you're allowing games to be packaged with your logo. Nintendo/Sony have no obligation to release anything, they're selling a brand.

Jason @ Jun 26th 2007 1:10PM

I just hope, that at some point, either through their website or elsewhere they offer the "AO version".

Rob Accomando @ Jun 26th 2007 1:13PM

@10 "Saw" is 'violence porn'? What are you 12?

Mike @ Jun 26th 2007 1:24PM

Some people need to educate themselves on video games in general. Would you people that believe that Manhunt 2 should be AO also agree that a game like Gears of War also be rated AO? I mean you literally saw people in half splattering blood on the screen and blow their heads off with a sniper rifle. In HD mind you. In GTA you can take bats and beat people to a bloody pulp leaving a massive pool of blood on the ground. In Saint's Row you can set people on fire. In Viva Pinata you can build houses for your little pets to get it on. I'm not saying that Manhunt 2 should not be rated AO. I haven't seen the preview video that the ESRB received. All I'm saying is that you can't single out this game when other games exist that are also very violent. If you go to www.ESRB.com you'll see that the main difference between a M rated game and an AO rated game are the words "prolonged" and "nudity". So I'm assuming those that don't like this game b/c of the possible AO rating don't like M rated games either or are you a hypocrite? I can't wait to see what happens when they rate No More Heroes. Suda51 wants to make that even more violent than Manhunt 2.

Crono @ Jun 26th 2007 1:33PM

No more heroes will get an M because its cell shaded, and thus is inheirantly less realistic. Think about bugs bunny, how many times did the coyote get blown up for the sake of laughs.

I personally think that america has become way to up tight since the 80's.

Brian @ Jun 26th 2007 1:42PM

@14,

How are games not art? Or at least how do they not have the same potential to be art as movies, music, and literature?

Karen @ Jun 26th 2007 1:55PM

@Sheppy

"There are three levels of executions, with escalating levels of savagery: Hasty, Violent and Gruesome. But these execution scenes are optional and don’t seem to last more than 10 seconds."

"The intensity of the execution scenes seems to warrant the AO rating. Then again, simply eliminating the top tier or two of executions might go a long way toward reconciling Take-Two with the ratings boards."

He saw something. I just want to know why he didn't mention what they were.

That last paragraph you wrote Sheppy I have no idea if you were writing about. If it was directed at me that's a lot of conjecture.

pagmer12 @ Jun 26th 2007 1:59PM

#18

"Prolonged" is the key word, there. I'm not going to say the line is clear between prolonged, excessive and sadistic violence, and minor violence. But what should be clear at this point is that it's a line that Manhunt 2 has definitely crossed. I don't believe every violent game deserves the AO rating, but there should be a distinction between games that you buy off of a store shelf and access underage, and games that require you to be an adult to locate and purchase. Manhunt 2 just might be one of those games.

Oh, and No More Heroes may be violent, but its goal is obviously not realism. You're in a cell-shaded world where you cut someone in half with a lightsaber and blood shoots out like confetti. To me, there's a major difference cartoonish, unrealistic violence and something that's striving to be as realistic as possible, like Manhunt 2.

I honestly think that this anger towards the ESRB and the AO rating itself is largely misguided anger that SHOULD be directed at console makers. I mean, ask yourselves this: If we lived in a world where the AO rating wasn't a de facto ban, where at most some retail stores just wouldn't carry it and you had to go to a specialty store like Gamestop and show ID to purchase it, but you could still play it on your console. If that were were the case, do you think people would be in such a stink that Manhunt 2 got an AO rating? I think not. I think just about everyone would agree with that rating and think it was fair, considering the content of the game. So it's not a problem with the rating, or the ESRB; it's a problem with how that rating is treated by Nintendo and Sony. And that, is a different, more important debate than jumping on the ESRB and crying censorship.

WizarDru @ Jun 26th 2007 2:08PM

""Saw" is 'violence porn'? What are you 12?"

The current preferred term is 'torture porn', really.

Jake @ Jun 26th 2007 2:14PM

I guess this settles the debate of whether or not graphics or the wiimote make a game more immersive. Movies have great graphics, yet are viewed more appropriate content for youngsters than games. That or it means that playing rather than passively watching some how auto-magically makes it worse. Or, people are just afraid of games and being stupid.

WizarDru @ Jun 26th 2007 2:16PM

"I personally think that america has become way to up tight since the 80's"

That's only because you clearly didn't live through them.

As far the violence in games like Gears of War or GTA's bat-beatings is that they aren't necessary to win the game, nor even mandatory. You can get through GTA without beating a prostitute to death and you can finish GoW without ever once using the chainsaw. At no point do you find yourself forced to kill someone with a set of pliers...nor do you choose the level of violence. You don't decide to cut someone's hands off; it's a canned animation over killing a marauding alien (or in multiplayer, where there is an even greater disconnect). That sort of contextual distinction resonates with the ESRB and would resonate with the general public.

Citing Saw or Hostel as being gorier ignores the issue of direct involvement, as one person already said. You can close your eyes during Saw or Hostel and wait for a scene to pass...it's still a passive form of entertainment. In a video game, it's a conscious choice, regardless of relative levels of visceral detail.

Dirk Dorkelson @ Jun 26th 2007 2:22PM

"Anyway the NYT got it wrong when they mentioned the word 'ban'. Manhunt 2 isn't banned in the US. I am not American and even I know that you can't ban stuff in America."

Did you even read the article? Earlier in the piece he explains, "The rating essentially killed Manhunt 2, because Sony and Nintendo have said they won’t allow AO games on their systems." He's just using the word ban on subsequent reference to do away with explaining the same point four or five times in his article.

Ajay @ Jun 26th 2007 2:56PM

Here's one thing that I would like to point out about the relationship of the ESRB and console makers. We ALL know that Nintendo and Sony don't allow games rated AO to be made playable on their systems, so we can get mad at the console makers...

Here's one thing that you console maker haters seem to not realize: The ESRB also knows that games rated AO will not be made available on these consoles.

My conclusion to this is that it is valid to be angry at either party, console maker or the ESRB itself.

Another important argument is the one concerning No More Heroes. This game may be cel-shaded. Big deal. It emulates the same things that Manhunt does. That thing is death of a most cruel persuasion. That depiction will not be lessened in your mind just because the visual cues are different. I don't know if any of you have ever seen Happy Tree Friends, a series of short cartoons featuring representably cuddly animals being killed and mutilated in all sorts of ways. Here's the point: Their cute Saturday morning-esque animation doesn't lessen the effect on your mind when you see one of them being graphically melted away by acid...

The same will hold true with No More Heroes, so I don't wanna hear No More Arguments about that subject...

sheppy @ Jun 26th 2007 3:00PM

@theNino85

Reading comprehension isn't quite your bag is it? This article states the reporter got some playtime with the game at Rockstar. The article linked to this joystiq post stated this journalist was invited to play the game at Rcokstar on Friday night. This isn't a guy who based his opinion off YouTube, he was there. He played it. Next time you decide to bash a journalist for not doing something, at least take the five minutes to read.

@Karen,

It's a quick right up. He's saving space and also trying to spare us of some of the more gory sequences. Typical practice in REAL news, actually. After all, I read a review of Bentley Little's University (after I read it of course) and made mention of some horribly graphic scenes. Of course some of the scenes were

THOSE OF A SENSITIVE NATURE, SKIP THIS

A woman tying a man to a chair and squeezing his testicles until they popped. Or the one scene which almost made me quit reading the book, where they flash back to a guy who witnessed his daughter having been killed while crazed people were raping the orifices they stabbed into her body. A ten year old girl... and yet I borrowed this book from my high school library long ago.

SAFE TO READ AGAIN

He skipped the gory details because it was a times piece and space was likely limited regardless. The fact that NYTimes wasn't trying to get more hits on their website by being as graphically detailed as possible is likely another motivation. Not saying that IGN are hit whores... no, wait... they are.

@pagmer12

Actually, you'll find quite a bit of rage lobbied at Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. Fact of the matter is, AO should not be a killing blow to a game. But it is and that's not fair. No company is willing to stick their necks out for a rating that is largely occupied by pornography. I mean, all the companies have to approve of the game through various stages. They can't simply state "whoops, didn't know about THAT, sorry guys." I mean, you said it yourself. Sony and Nintendo both have a name brand to defend. How well do you think they are defending it when they let blanket ratings dictate policy?

@WizarDru

You're yet another who needs to do less typing, more reading. Do you really think you get forced into the ultra violent killing sequences? No. That's why the article and all other news relating to this game confirm there are three basic kill levels that players choose when they kill. Hasty, Violent, and Gruesome. You never have to see the ultra horrible versions at all. Just keep doing hasty. A quick jab of a screwdriver in their lungs, bammo, you're done. A shank to their neck, it's over. Let's just put it this way, this ultra violent horrible way of dying? This is a "Gruesome" level kill...

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=66505

Now I ask you, isn't this more prolonged and cruel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWejqPMPPuQ

Yes, nobody FORCES you to do a fatality, but nobody forces you to go all sick house on peoples asses in Manhunt 2 either.

pagmer12 @ Jun 26th 2007 3:06PM

"
Here's one thing that you console maker haters seem to not realize: The ESRB also knows that games rated AO will not be made available on these consoles.

My conclusion to this is that it is valid to be angry at either party, console maker or the ESRB itself.
"

So are you suggesting that the ESRB should have given Manhunt 2, a game they feel warrants an AO rating, a lesser rating than they think it deserves simply to appease the masses and help the product sell?

Wow...maybe the video games industry should be government regulated...

Ajay @ Jun 26th 2007 3:46PM

What I'm saying, pagmer, is that both parties have regulations that they must adhere to. If either party gives in, it's likely to "appease the masses". I'm not saying that's the correct course of action, but here's the things that need to happen for Manhunt to be realesed:

1. (Which is actually happening) Rockstar revises the game to make the gore acceptable to an M rating.

2. The ESRB re-reviews the game, taking a better look at game content than a quick reel that is mandated to show the worst of the worst.

3. Nintendo and Sony make a special exception and allow Manhunt to be made available on their consoles.

Let's also look at the factor of time and a little thing called desensitization. If a game, let's say Gears of War, was released even a few years ago, say 2001, it would've probably been deemed excessively violent, and therefore given an AO rating, allowing no one to ever experience it.

Today, it received its M rating because there are subjects and other media that is comparably more mature. And now, we see Manhunt 2 receive an AO rating with close to the same amount of gory graphical content. Who's to say that Manhunt just isn't ahead of its time? As the ESRB gets used to seeing more games like Gears of War, God of War II, and the like...will their ratings become more lenient??

You better bet they will. They'll say things like, "We've seen this type of content before, and given it a Mature rating, this one will also deserve an M rating."

These are not the days of Crash Bandicoot and Sonic. Just as movies have recently evolved to be rudely graphic, video games too are moving into this new territory. This also has to do with new technology..Movie industry is now playing with the most advanced CG animation available, and they're putting it to use everywhere. They're asking questions like "How can we make this scene look as real as possible?", and "How can we use these artificial graphics in a way that the audience can't tell the difference between person and polygon?". Game makers are also asking themselves the same questions, but are lightyears behind movies as far as an actual depiction of reality goes.

So when we see the things in video games that are viewed as mature content, maybe this isn't as much as "trying to be scary" as it is "pushing the realism envelope". Because in movies, that's EXACTLY how we view it. And don't tell me that you're just a spectator in movies, and that you're some kind of horrible antagonist in violent video games. You buy the ticket or the movie to see what it's creators wrought, and you press the buttons in a video game to advance in the story arch, same deal.
Movies and games are both incredible forms of art.

So instead of jumping on MY back, maybe you should delve a little bit deeper in to the inner workings of whats going on, and stay away from Nintendo and Sony Policy, because that will never change.

pagmer12 @ Jun 26th 2007 4:23PM

1) I highly doubt that even the goriest scenes in GOW come close to what we've read takes place in the early levels of Manhunt 2. This goes beyond desensitization--some things will just always be incredibly violent, especially as technology moves closer to total realism. Pulling someone's testicles off with pliers will always be incredibly violent and sadistic. The same goes for scenes you'd see in a movie like Hostel.

2) You don't rate a game based on what may be publicly acceptable at some unknown point in the future. You rate a game based on the standards set today. That's the whole point of ratings.

3) If it came down between either the ESRB or console makers changing their policies, it should DEFINITELY be the console makers. Nintendo's in charge of Nintendo. They wouldn't need to check with anyone to change their policies on AO games. The ESRB, however, is a board made up members representing just about ever facet of the video games industry, and their policies were set to represent a standard in that industry. It would not be easy at all for the ESRB to alter their policies on game ratings, nor should they, because they represent the entire industry. The ESRB is, alo, the only thing between the video game industry and the government right now, and if the government got the impression that the ESRB--the system that is supposed to keep video games in line--could and did change their policies on a game by game basis, that would give them all the reason they'd need to press for more regulation on video games

MrTroy @ Jun 26th 2007 4:46PM

Manhunt 2 is dumb... it deserves an AO rating. Rockstar wants to be a gruesome as possible? Congrads you got the AO tag. The argument should be why aren't AO games allowed on these consoles.

If I wanna be that freakboy rock'n a trench coat in the back of a comic book store going to the "Adults Only" section hiding my face behind a few comic books to buy a video game, so be it. Sony should be ashamed of themselves pushing for the most realistic games ever and not exploring to the height of what they can do with it. Yeah I could see them saying "No pervert games" (Which I still don't agree with) but...

I dunno I'm done thinking about this whole thing. The industry as a whole is one big corruption pool which is far WORST than the movie industry.

Gross Greg @ Jun 26th 2007 4:48PM

Sheppy FTW!

Avatar @ Jun 26th 2007 5:46PM

Ok new rule. If you're going to try to sound intelligent to pretend to be an authority on something, at least try to spell properly all the time. It's really hard to take people seriously when they can't spell. Or use proper grammar.

Also, Manhunt 2 will be just fine, it's all a ruse to make more money.

Matters @ Jun 26th 2007 11:07PM

Karen: and what you left out of your post is that there are rated R movies like cell or whatever where a guy cuts into his belly.. takes his guts.. puts them on a Rotisserie style thing.. and slowly turns it while ripping out all of the guys fucking innards... while he is still alive and fucking screaming.

Matters @ Jun 26th 2007 11:27PM

pagmer12: You're full of shit pagmer12. The fact that I'm old enough to watch NC-17 movies with way more violence and sex than this game could EVER IMAGINE is enough to prove that point.

Oh and BTW 17 year olds can watch NC-17 movies.. but they can't buy Manhunt 2.