Condemned 2 developers working closely with ESRB
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Jul 24th 2007 at 6:45PM }
Hantzopoulos says that things like someone's head being put into a vice (Casino, anyone?) and a couple decapitations were removed from the game. It's not like Hantzopoulos isn't used to dealing with ESRB censorship – he also worked on Indigo Prophecy which had to cut some sex scenes from the US version. We can't wait until five or six years down the road when we get to organize the absurd censorship fights developers have with the ESRB for a post. We can already imagine the conversations now: "OK, so, three decapitations is an M, but two decapitations with a blood spurt is AO? Got it."
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Imadogg99 @ Jul 24th 2007 6:52PM
Fuck all this stuff. Wow a head in a vice is AO now?
Oh no I bet my comment is AO now because I said f**k.
See they've censored me already.
Evan @ Jul 24th 2007 8:46PM
Alexander, way to show up as utterly bias and misinformed. Now you have all the kids freaking out about the man and censorship, yet you miss the fact that this could be a very good thing. The ESRB working together with a developer during production could potentially save the game from serious troubles down the road, and it forces the ESRB to clearly draw the line between M and AO. Imagine what this could have done for Manhunt 2. This appears to be a great opportunity for developers to get a clearer view of what can go too far for a Mature rating. That is not censorship by the ESRB, as developers are free to make any game they want but are subject to whatever rating it receives.
You miss the point, and the problem, of the AO rating completely. Manhunt 2 WAS NOT CENSORED by the ESRB. It is being held back by retailers, who by the way have no problems with distributing unrated movies (hypocrisy). It is also being held back by Sony and Nintendo by not allowing the titles to be published over a rating.
All the ESRB did was state this game is not suitable for anyone under the age of 18, which means they feel only legal adults can handle the situations of the game. This is only ONE year more than an M rated game. Why are hardware makers and retailers refusing to sell/publish games over ONE year. That should be your story. On top of that, apparently no one even considers to think that a publisher may have been irresponsible or overzealous with their game development (Manhunt 2!). The problems associated with AO are with console makers and retailers, and the social stigma attached to it. It is not the decision of the ESRB whether or not a retailer or console allows a game.
The ESRB doing their job is not censorship. All you have done is set another fire on a dry forest while ignoring the real problems. The ESRB is supposed to rate games, and it is one of the few things saving the gaming industry from a full out legislative assault, (and saves it when they do pass legislation). Instead of bashing it for some quick clicks you should consider a bigger picture.
Your outright unprofessional use of the word censorship just adds to the misinformation fed gamers left and right. The worst part is, most of us take Joystiq for its word, so we actually believe what you say to be true. Then this article will be posted and linked to by various other websites and it will continue from there.
I know you can say that you have the right to editorialize and this is a blog, but you do so recklessly. News and editorials are often mashed together on this site and never clearly labeled. Various other websites will pick this story up solely as news. It is fine to hold a personal opinion of ESRB censorship, but prove it. When has the ESRB *ever* refused to rate a game or refuse a game a rating?
I apologize for the outright hostilities but I am stunned and amazed at how everyone, including you, likes to take the easy road and blame the ESRB for all the problems without looking at the issues. Maybe enough negative feelings towards the ESRB in the gaming world will disband it. Then your wishes can come true when Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and others from the government control the rules of the gaming industry.
Just for clarification I do not work for the ESRB or in the gaming industry. I am just a consumer worried about the false implications of censorship, misplaced blame, and the consequences of those actions.
faceless coward @ Jul 24th 2007 9:08PM
Imadogg99: Even if the ESRB were disbanded, the First Amendment is still in effect. Yes, the ESRB was established on the basis of threats from Congressmen, but I think rulings in court have shown those threats to be empty. Of course, I don't have anything against the ESRB; I think it's a very valuable resource for parents who are trying to make sure their kids aren't seeing things they don't think they can handle. My point is just that the ESRB isn't the only thing that stands between lawmakers and the game industry: there's also the Constitution.
Megaqwerty @ Jul 24th 2007 10:13PM
Evan, as others have noticed, the technical difference between M and AO is nonexistent. The ESRB knows this.
No retailer will stock AO games. The ESRB knows this.
Hence why Joystiq called the ESRB's decision a "de facto banning," while the AO rating does not explicitly prevent the sale of the game, brick and mortar retailers have previously demonstrated that they will not buy AO games.
Ergo, if a developer is working closely with the ESRB in an attempt to secure a M rating, the ESRB can exhibit a more direct influence (as compared to its influence over Manhunt 2's contents) over the exact removal of offensive content, otherwise known as de facto censorship.
faceless coward, for a better look at how politicians can affect an industry, go look at comic book sales: sales of comic books in 1988 were less than a third of what they were in 1953. Censorship effectively killed comics in America and while that probably won't happen with video games, I wouldn't be so at ease about that matter.
Matt B @ Jul 24th 2007 10:33PM
So basically, it's OK to kill things... just not in a violent or graphic manner.
What they should do is let those of us of "proper age" and interest can DL this extra content. I'd even pay extra to get the scenario's too taboo for the censors.
Rare Hare @ Jul 24th 2007 10:47PM
Evan, I'm sorry. But it's "biased". BIASED. I know it's completely beside the point, and this comment will probably get negative votes, but honestly... how difficult is it to learn English?
ssuk @ Jul 25th 2007 3:01AM
Simple as, the ESRB needs legal powers to enforce their ratings. Store sells M game to 12 year old? LEGAL ACTION.
They should also get rid of AO and just have M. It's a year differance between them and it does nothing but damage a game's apperance to have an AO rating on there. Nintendo and Sony descriminate against AO games but would gladly welcome M which is basically AO anyway.
The UK's BBFC system works pretty well. Game got too much violence? PEGI passes it onto the BBFC, who's ratings are legally binding and if sold to underage people, they can take them to court and have an unlimited fine.
Evan @ Jul 25th 2007 8:05PM
@RARE Hare
Since you made it an issue please reference dictionary.com or your nearest dictionary for some interesting info on the word "bias." (Or the English language in general.) It can be used as a noun, verb, adverb, and an adjective. You should know this because you are an apparent connoisseur of the English language. Also, you would know that English poorly structured and allows many examples of exceptions to its rules. Many words can be manipulated with prefixes and suffixes to make their meanings different from the root word and words have multiple meanings depending on the context of sentence. They can also change the classification of words from adjectives to nouns, verbs to adverbs, etc.
In the particular sentence "Alexander, way to show up as utterly bias and misinformed." the subject is "Alexander" and the verb is "show." (You could also argue that the subject is "you" inferred because I am using "Alexander" like a command.) "Utterly" is used as an adverb describing the ADJECTIVE "bias." "Bias" is an adjective describing the noun "Alexander." "Misinformed" is also an adjective describing the noun "Alexander." I had to add the suffix "-ed" for the opportunity to use it as an adjective. It can also be used as a verb but I clearly did not because in the structure of the sentence it would have had to have been a transitive verb. Transitive verbs require a direct object explaining what the verb is doing. Since I did not state who he misinformed that would be invalid. I stated he was misinformed, not that he was completing the the past tense action of misinform.
The use of the prefix "-ed" is completely optional in this instance because the root word "bias" can natively be used as an adjective. I am also not representing the past tense of "bias" as a verb so it would be improper to use it for that purpose.
Your sentences "Evan, I'm sorry. But it's "biased". BIASED. I know it's completely beside the point, and this comment will probably get negative votes, but honestly... how difficult is it to learn English?" You have a sentence that starts with a conjunction, which in the context is not an acceptable use of the word "but." "BIASED" itself is not a sentence. Your next sentence is a proper English nightmare. No one with a mastery of English like you boast to have would add that many thoughts into one sentence. Your use of an ellipsis to add emphasis is improper. Finally, the assertion that I need to learn English is incorrect. You are criticizing my grammatical skills because all the words in the sentence you criticize are in the English language.
I have never been criticized for language before and I do take offense that you would claim that I do not know how to communicate. In fact, I understood what you were saying despite your grammatical errors just fine. Honestly, I could care less if everyone on the Internet used proper English and grammar at all times. If you do, you may want to actually start yourself. If you felt really compelled to "flame" me for my grammatical errors you could probably consider my comma usage. I always feel like I use too many.
Also, do you have anything to say about the points I made about the article? I would think that would be a more appropriate thing to discuss in the comments section of Joystiq than people's mastery of grammar.
I do apologize to everyone for wasting commenting space replying to this.
Imadogg99 @ Jul 25th 2007 8:11PM
LMAO Evan I wish u sitted next 2 me in english class lolz
Evan @ Jul 25th 2007 8:14PM
Before you attempt to flame me again, I do see I made (at least) two errors in the previous post. I am human and I do make mistakes like everyone else including you. Please insert the word "is" between English and poorly in the first paragraph.
Also in the first paragraph "or" should not be capitalized and the period should not appear after bias or after general but actually outside like this: ")." Honestly I cannot even figure out where to put the period for the sentence I just wrote.
Hopefully you will be forgiving for my errors.
Imadogg99 @ Jul 25th 2007 8:22PM
Dude I don't think anyone is gonna read your comments on this post anymore... I just keep coming back cuz I get an email anytime someone replies to my post and it makes me feel good...
qbix @ Jul 24th 2007 6:53PM
This sucks major ass. I was looking forward to this game but not so much if it's being censored.
Tony @ Jul 24th 2007 7:03PM
The sex scenes in Indigo Prophecy admittedly added absolutely nothing to the game to begin with (on the PC version, you had to literally thrust your mouse), but it's stupid they were removed at all.
I posted the same thing on 360fanboy:
You know, killing is killing. I guess I can understand the whole idea of certain methods being more "malicious", but I have to wonder why there's a group that has to differentiate between stabbing someone in the face or putting their head in a vice. What is really the difference there? The mixed signals created are very confusing.
Really, at the end of the day, I'm an adult. Let me buy what I want.
Psaakyrn @ Jul 24th 2007 9:51PM
Killing is not just killing.. Take for example: we have different levels of murder (1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murders).
Also, it's not the method of killing that irks us, but the intent of the killing that is more important. By displaying the killing in the fore, the killing becomes the core part of the scene. By focusing on the gory parts, the gore becomes the core part of the scene. If they focus on the screaming and look of fear, the torture becomes the core part of the scene...
Tony @ Jul 24th 2007 10:15PM
We're also talking about games here. When we're talking about scenes that are simply gory in general, does something like slashing someone's throat or blowing them up with a bomb in detail really any worse than throwing them through a TV or smashing their head in a vice?
Personally, I don't really think so. The intent in all of these cases is completely malicious to begin with. Once you get beyond anything that isn't basic attacks we're beyond the realm of self defense anyway.
zwarrior @ Jul 24th 2007 7:29PM
So is Manhunt 2 still coming out or is it canned for good?
blooh @ Jul 24th 2007 7:29PM
this is fucking gay. this shit would only make a movie be rated R (ever seen Saw or its sequels?)
I'd happily buy manhunt 2 as it is, but they aren't even bothering to try selling it online or anything. I'd get it from amazon if I could
blooh @ Jul 24th 2007 7:30PM
(because I'm an adult)
what's the problem with selling adult-only games to adults? and what's the difference between M and AO? does M require you to be 18 and AO needs 21? wtf
faceless coward @ Jul 24th 2007 9:13PM
M is 17 and AO is 18. AO exists primarily for legal reasons, I believe. Because the ESRB doesn't refuse to rate pornographic games (I think that's a mistake, but that's a different matter entirely) it's important that they make the distinction. That's not to say ALL AO games are pornographic, but some are.
Word of the street. @ Jul 24th 2007 7:40PM
Really the worst part of the censorship is **********.
Well I dont believe this is going to alter the gameplay in a drastic way.Really wassup with the ESBR,AO wasnt the rating for the games with explicit Sexual themes?,Now blood and gore?.If this continues I guess the next Gears of war title is going to be rated Ao unless they turn it into a Halo sort of game with no blood or mutilations(That would suck).
But then again who the hell lisents to them,13 year old are playing Gears of war/GTA as we speak yet if they make it AO is going to be a glitch since that would mean that it wont be avalible in Blockbuster or other places with the "Ao" policy.
Yoshi @ Jul 24th 2007 7:41PM
Actually M is for 17 year olds and AO is for 18 and up... so apparently in that one year people are supposed to mature a lot... *rolls eyes*
Shalex @ Jul 24th 2007 7:59PM
You realize this article is sensationalistic BS right? They have been cutting back content for years to get an M rating. To believe this is new is sad. Secondly, what was M before is M now. All that's going on now, is reporters are asking about it, and developers are whining about it. Condomend 2 is not going to be any les gory then the first one.
It's been done for years. Don't blame the ESRB, don't blame the console makers. We all know that these games aren't made for adults, they are mad for High Schoolers. That's why Take 2 mad such a big deal out of not being able to make it a console game.
They all know their Target Audience is 15-30 year old males.
Evan @ Jul 24th 2007 8:53PM
I totally agree.
sheppy @ Jul 24th 2007 8:05PM
Frankly speaking... the game industry needs an NC-17 style rating. Period. The problem with the ESRB, as it stands right now, is that sex games and "too extreme" games get lumped in together. Same issue they had with the X rating a long time ago. So suddenly Scarface had the same rating as Debbie Does Dallas. That's the core issue. Then the movie industry seperated the violent content from the sexual content and while NC-17 is still frowned upon, you can still buy those films. Or you can ignore the copies with the NC-17 rating and simply go for the "unrated" version (which directly translated means "we put back in all the crap we had to take out to get our R").
But as it stands in the game industry, an AO rating is a death knell for a game. It shouldn't be that way. The AO rating is meant to protect the consumer, not punish the publisher. Which is why we need something between AO and M. Something Sony or Nintendo can jump behind without having to share the same rating as X-Change or Water Closet.
Negativecool @ Jul 24th 2007 8:16PM
Boo-urns!
ESRB - "Wa-wait a minute, wha-whats THAT?"
Monolith - "Ugh, gushing blood?"
ESRB - "Oh no...no no, I'm sorry but Mature audiences can only handle, at maximum, 5 drops of blood/second. Any amount more than that is grounds for an AO rating!"
Monolith - "O...kay Consider it fixed."
ESRB - "Good!...Wait, hold the phone! What is he drinking?"
Monolith - "It's early in the morning at this stage of the game....It's hot coffee."
ESRB - "HOT COFFEE?! I'll have to check with my superiors but I'm pretty sure we can no longer allow that in games.."
Monolith - "....wtf?"
Rob Accomando @ Jul 24th 2007 8:30PM
welcome to PG-13 "adult" games.
Judd @ Jul 24th 2007 8:58PM
Yea, if you compare censorship standards in video games to movies it's ridiculous. I mean M rated games are the equivalent of R rated movies, yet you cannot show nearly as much nudity in an M rated game.
Think about nudity in M rated games as the equivalent of a PG-13 movie. Occasionally, for a few seconds you can see a breast hanging out, like in God of War, but even Hot Coffee had less nudity than an R rated film.
I'm not some kind of perv who cares how many times he sees a boobie in a video game. My problem is, WHO THE FUCKS DECISION IS IT, TO TELL THE REST OF THE POPULATION WHAT IS APPROPRIATE IN ONE MEDIA BUT NOT APPROPRIATE IN ANOTHER?
Who somehow decided than someone between 13 and 17 can only here the "F-word" once? Who made the decision that it's more inappropriate to show vagina than tits?
And most importantly, why is it that in both video games AND movies, sex is viewed more inappropriately than murder?
Judd @ Jul 24th 2007 9:00PM
"Who somehow decided than someone between 13 and 17 can only here the "F-word" once?"
Oops. Who somehow decided that someone between 13 and 17 can only hear the "F-word" once?
FOR3MAN @ Jul 24th 2007 9:37PM
I am really dissapointed in this. I hate that artists must alter their creative vision due to some bullshit politics. Condemned was very underrated and I am saddened that it's come to this. The big 3 companies need to allow release of AO games on their console. I am 28 and at about the AVERAGE age for a gamer, I can handle ficitonal morbid violence.
Why do movies get away with it but "games" not?
zwarrior @ Jul 24th 2007 10:18PM
Movies cannot. Hollywood avoids the NC-17 rating like a plague. And in majority of M rated movies, you only see the action about to take place and then they cut to another scene, leaving what happened to the viewer's imagination. There are many tricks that directors take that are not applied to games.
Jake @ Jul 24th 2007 10:16PM
It just sucks that many of the elements that adult gamers would pay to have in a game, like elements that they pay to see in a movie, cannot appear in a videogame. The content should be rated the same as in a movie. Movies like Debbie does Dallas will not be shown at your local Cinema 12, and can be restricted from mainstream family friendly consoles. But games with content equal or less graphic than movies like Hostel, Boogie Nights, and Die Hard are available on consoles with an R rating. Halo3 would be considered PG-13.
That way, parents know exactly what types of content are available in the game. If they feel playing is worse than seeing, they can restrict their kids from PG-13 and worse games. It is a coding system that everyone understands and are comfortable with, rather than this arbitrarily made up bullshit.
Is that so hard? I guess people will argue that games are not the same as movies with regards to how the content will motivate and affect you in your life, and therefore it is worse than equal content on a movie. I think that is complete bullshit.
The real problem is the public's perception of videogames. If people in general perceived them as equally worthy forms of media and entertainment as movies, books, and TV shows, then politicians would not be trying to have them banned and sway public opinion against them.
sheppy @ Jul 24th 2007 11:24PM
I think you should also point out the fact that Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all released consoles which could OFFICIALLY playback pornographic material.
Sony: PS2, PSP, and PS3
Microsoft: Xbox Xbox 360
Nintendo: Panasonic Q
baby sea tuna @ Jul 25th 2007 7:00AM
Hello chilling effect!
grrr...
Jack of No Trades @ Jul 25th 2007 8:22AM
Screw ESRB. They're just a bunch of old cocksuckers that like to flex their power at the game industry because it makes them feel needed. AO & M rated are only a year apart. ESRB needs a makeover along with the US government.
Nate @ Jul 25th 2007 8:30AM
a few points:
1.) Just because this is not new does not mean it is also not unjust
2.) This IS censorship. It's the most insidious kind of censorship, because it stops content producers from even *considering* creating content that might be offensive. Consider if someone wanted to make Manhunt 3 - that's a totally non-viable game now.
3.) This kind of thing is utter bullshit - an 8 year old kid can get a book describing the most utterly depraved and perverted acts known to man from a public library for free... that's ok, but paying for moving pictures of naked people? oh the humanity! I'm all for trying to protect kids, but parents need to be the ones doing it. If your kid is playing games, you need to know exactly what those games are about, and not rely on some committee to tell you what's ok. A little internet search will turn up all the info you could ever want.
MONGO @ Jul 25th 2007 9:53AM
Sure it’s not exactly censorship, but the fact that developers are starting to omit content from their games, based on what the ESRB says is acceptable, is just plain silly. If the UK (or whoever else), doesn’t want your game in their, because they’re worried about the content being too harsh and violent, then don’t sell it in those territories. I know that may be easier said than done, but selling your soul (and your art), because of organizations like the ESRB is just plain pathetic.
If these assholes are so worried about violent content, etc, then they need to focus on other media besides just games. Music, movies, books…..all have extremely violent content.
PS-anyone who defends the ESRB can go f…k themselves.