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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

@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.

LMAO Evan I wish u sitted next 2 me in english class lolz

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

I totally agree.

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.

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