ESRB responds to Manhunt 2 rerating complaints
Vance says in the statement, "The FTC, the national PTA, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Peter Hart Research have all found that parents are overwhelmingly satisfied with the ESRB rating system. Rather than publicly second-guessing what is unmistakably a strong warning to parents about the suitability of a particular game for children, which presumably neither Senator Yee nor CCFC have personally reviewed, we feel a more productive tack would be to join us in encouraging parents to take the ratings seriously when buying games for their children." Yee and the advocacy groups would have such a better leg to stand on if the movie industry in the US were handled in a more "transparent" way. The Motion Picture Association of America has had a secret society for decades rating movies (see This Film is Not Yet Rated for more details). It just doesn't make sense to hold the video game industry to a completely different standard than films, especially considering the prevalence of torture porn is far less in video games.
[Via Press Release]
STATEMENT BY ESRB PRESIDENT PATRICIA VANCE REGARDING THE
M (MATURE) RATING ASSIGNED TO MANHUNT 2
August 28, 2007 - "Upon reviewing the modified version of Manhunt 2, the ESRB assigned a rating of M (Mature 17+) with content descriptors for Intense Violence, Blood and Gore, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content and Use of Drugs. This is a very clear and firm warning to parents that the game is in no way intended for children. As always, we urge parents to strongly consider the ESRB rating in their decision about whether a game is appropriate for their children.
"Publishers submit game content to the ESRB on a confidential basis. It is simply not our place to reveal specific details about the content we have reviewed, particularly when it involves a product yet to be released. What can be said is that the changes that were made to the game, including the depictions themselves and the context in which those depictions were presented, were sufficient to warrant the assignment of an M (Mature 17+) rating by our raters.
"The FTC, the national PTA, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Peter Hart Research have all found that parents are overwhelmingly satisfied with the ESRB rating system. Rather than publicly second-guessing what is unmistakably a strong warning to parents about the suitability of a particular game for children, which presumably neither Senator Yee nor CCFC have personally reviewed, we feel a more productive tack would be to join us in encouraging parents to take the ratings seriously when buying games for their children.
"The FTC reports that 89% of parents say they are involved in the purchase or rental of the video games their children play and 85% say they restrict them. Additionally, parents can now easily activate password-protected settings on game consoles to block out content they deem inappropriate. Further, according to a recent audit by the Federal Trade Commission, the major game retailers, representing approximately 90% of all sales, currently stop the sale of M-rated games to buyers under 17 the vast majority of the time, having surpassed the level of enforcement achieved by theatre owners in connection with children's access into R-rated movies.
"It is a parent's rightful place to make choices for their own children. The ESRB and console manufacturers provide families with the tools and information to help them do so."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Aharon @ Aug 28th 2007 3:52PM
It's about damn time that someone stood up to these groups.
Shagittarius @ Aug 28th 2007 3:52PM
This just in Manhunt 2 is now a gay dating simulator.
The Boo @ Aug 28th 2007 5:37PM
And it would go right back to an AO rating. God bless America.
Shig @ Aug 28th 2007 3:53PM
"It is a parent's rightful place to make choices for their own children. The ESRB and console manufacturers provide families with the tools and information to help them do so."
Damn straight.
Sam @ Aug 28th 2007 3:56PM
Hey Joystiq, where's McCauley on this??????
Shagittarius @ Aug 28th 2007 4:05PM
I hate to add fuel to the fire but what happened to the ESRB rating on the back of Metroid Prime 3?
It lists:
Animated Blood
Sang en animation
Violence
Now even if its saying animated blood in french or something why the hell would the ESRB allow something like this go into the ESRB warning label. Parents will question what this is, its very confusing. Not a good move during this time of game examination.
ssuk @ Aug 28th 2007 4:27PM
Heaven forbid that a NA game, which is compatable with Canadaian game consoles have FRENCH on them to help Nintendo just have one production line for ALL of NA instead of different ones for French and English language.
And heaven forbid that people look at the ESRB rating and use that thing which sits in your skull, which some of us use now and then, to descipher that "Sang en animation" ISN'T English and thus, shouldn't concern them.
vidGuy @ Aug 28th 2007 5:21PM
Did you miss the rest of the box, which also contains French? I think people are smart enough to see that it's a multilingual box and therefore has a multilingual rating.
Shagittarius @ Aug 28th 2007 5:44PM
So you don't think people who can't understand the ratings now are going to understand them when they are partially written in french? I think this is just the kind of thing the ESRB doesn't need to prove they are effective at doing their job.
But whatever you guys.
Raikage @ Aug 28th 2007 8:15PM
I noticed that also!
Get your French off my English, Nintendo!
I agree if they want to put it on there, put it seperate, not with the English.
Thanks,
Pheonix Wright
megaStryke @ Aug 28th 2007 4:13PM
That was a major burn.
hvnlysoldr @ Aug 28th 2007 4:36PM
Well all else is failing at the moment.
ssuk @ Aug 28th 2007 4:23PM
"It is a parent's rightful place to make choices for their own children. The ESRB and console manufacturers provide families with the tools and information to help them do so."
... "If you still ignore them and blame us afterwards, there is no hope for you and we're very disapointed you've already had children."
Vander @ Aug 28th 2007 4:35PM
I'm impressed. Although I am saddened that the game had to be altered in the first place (not the ESRB's fault, but Wal-Marts and other major vendors), I am happy that they have the gumption to stand up to these neo-conservative, evangelical christian groups that want to censor all mediums, restricting artistic expression and drowning the creative human spirit. Props.
Number Six @ Aug 28th 2007 4:38PM
Sadly, R* "changing" the game had nothing to do with Wal*Mart/Target/BB/CC/et al. It had everything to do with Nintendo and Sony. Don't forget, they will not grant liscences to games that are rated AO. Period.
John @ Aug 28th 2007 5:30PM
Yeah, except that the poeple pioneering the censorship of everything (tipper gore with the music, lieberman and Hillary with the games) are mostly democrats you tool
Crono @ Aug 28th 2007 5:30PM
Its got absolutely nothing to do with neo-cons and christians and everything to do with the government butting in where it doesn't belong. "Nanny State" is what Hilary Clinton wants (It Takes a Village, anyone?)
Leave politics out of it, both parties are equally to blame.
Spartacus @ Aug 28th 2007 7:21PM
"Neo-conservative evangelical Christians"? Where did you pull that from? I was not aware evangelical Christians had much to do with national censorship, let alone that WalMart, ESRB, Sony and Nintendo were part of such a clandestine religious extremist group.
While we're at it, let's blame evangelical Christian's stance on the biblical book of Genesis for the decline in math and science scores across America!
But seriously, just because it is politically incorrect to blame any religion besides Christianity for any of man's problems doesn't make it any less ignorant to do so.
Penguin Warlord @ Aug 29th 2007 5:24PM
@ Sparticus
Actually you could blame evangelical christians for a lower knowledge of science in your schools since they force teachers to teach creationism ( or intelligent design or whatever) in class rooms instead of stuff that's founded on hard facts (science).
However I see your general point.
Farseer @ Aug 28th 2007 4:39PM
Wow, that statement was an elegant and classy way to say "F*ck you".
Go ESRB!!
mr mobius @ Aug 28th 2007 4:54PM
The ESRB just released a statement that needs to be quoted and used for many years to come because, lets admit it, it is the parents fault if an under age kid gets a game rated M and then starts to act up so much that said parent then goes to the media and complains about violent games sending little Timmy to hell.
WiNG @ Aug 28th 2007 5:03PM
wow for once, gotta so, GJ ESRB, kthxbai senators!
Also I would like to add, yes PARENTS are responsible, they got a warning. If you, as a parent, buy a game called "Manhunt 2" rated M, for a 8 year old, you fail at life.
This was like one time in a comic store I heard some dad complaining that his kid bought $500 worth of pokemon cards. Hey dipshit, YOU PAID FOR THOSE CARDS. Unless your kid has the best lemonade stand in the country, in which case, he can buy whatever he damn well wants!
Cartman86 @ Aug 28th 2007 5:20PM
Re-rating is not uncommon. This makes no sense. People edit their films till they get a lower rating every day. I'm sure games do it too. Its just since Manhunt 2 has been so talked about for being banned these people who don't know about re-ratings are up in arms.
vidGuy @ Aug 28th 2007 5:24PM
FANTASTIC statement by the ESRB. I just wish we could find out exactly WHAT was taken out to get the M rating.
Funny that these politicians have problems with a cut-and-rerated video game yet NC17 movies cut and rated down to R or R down to PG13 doesn't bother anybody. It wasn't too long ago when a shot of blood or a single curse word would get you an R rating. Now I've heard all but the F-bomb on TV! That's doing more to degrade our society than a single video game ever could (especially a sequel to a mediocre game).
FatOprah @ Aug 28th 2007 5:38PM
I still can't fathom why Rockstar bothered to make a second Manhunt, what with all of the negative attention they've received, and the microscope they're under. The first must have made a decent profit.
The Boo @ Aug 28th 2007 5:40PM
But they're using American letters!
The Boo @ Aug 28th 2007 5:41PM
@ssuk and vidguy
Is someone working on this reply thing?
vidGuy @ Aug 28th 2007 7:08PM
Just make sure it says "replying to __" above your comment. It doesn't always work the first time you click Reply.
Nice avatar by the way.
J-Guy @ Aug 28th 2007 5:56PM
On the one hand, the ESRB has just dished out a verbal reprimand to politicians and "for-the-children" organisations. On the other, they introduced what I like to call the number confusion. Basically, they threw a percentage into their comment. Normally I wouldn't mind, but let's not forget that politicians also use (fake) percentages too.
But all in all, I think this fiasco should be over quickly as long as Yee and the CCFC stop their idiotic demands.
vidGuy @ Aug 28th 2007 7:10PM
I know what you mean. The response to those stats? 11% of parents aren't involved in the purchase or rental of video games and 15% don't restrict their play. Think of that 10-15% of the children!
Synner @ Aug 28th 2007 6:05PM
The problem is, the politicians have to have some sort of scandal to hold on to so they can project the "protecting you and your children" image to voters too stupid to do research into real issues. It's the same philosophy that perpetuates the teaser for the evening news: "ARE YOUR CHILDREN IN DANGER FROM ? FIND OUT AT 11, then you turn it on to find a story about something that affects .000001% of the people living 5 towns away, 25 years ago, that MIGHT hit your family the same day monkees fly out of your ass.
LaughingTarget @ Aug 28th 2007 6:13PM
Politicians wouldn't give a bad of rat pellets for us. Democrats aren't any more the defenders of the people than the Republicans are. They'll both piss all over you just to benefit their campaigns. This includes trying to attack video games. They're still somewhat an alien concept to many consumers, but thankfully for the Wii breaking into new markets, that viewpoint should begin to dissipate.
Mr Khan @ Aug 28th 2007 6:14PM
As i said before, the ESRB was "strong" to stick to a rating that effectively banned the title, and having the game altered based on their strength will only give them more credibility in the eyes of concerned parents and others
A strong ESRB will prevent government interference
flcl @ Aug 28th 2007 6:14PM
is any one else sick of this shit? every anti games group and their grandmas are bitching about this game (before its even playable) and the only thing their doing is driving up sales. youd think they'd just let it go. Of course, its all because rockstar is doing it. any other developer and it'd be just another game being rerated. (case in point, in 2005 the punisher got rerated from ao to m and i didnt hear one peep from any watchdog group)
Eddie @ Aug 28th 2007 6:29PM
Wait, you mean to tell me monkeys might fly out of my ass, AND my children are in danger? i'm scared, where oh where is my local friendly politician in shining armor to protect my sacred and beautiful way of life?
I'd say it's time for another American revolution, but we're all too glued to American Idol to care. Enjoy your family friendly shows while your smoldering cities crumble and fall to the ashes losers.
murderdeathkillr @ Aug 28th 2007 6:31PM
The designers over did the content, making it far worse then they knew would pass for an "M" rating, just so they could dull it down only enough to keep what they originally wanted in the first place and still get that "M" rating. ESRB took the bait, hook, line and sinker, and we get our gore-rious untainted Manhunt 2 goodness just the way it was meant to be.
dave0123 @ Aug 28th 2007 7:01PM
Has anyone mentioned how stupid it is that the age limit for M rated games is 17 and the age limit for AO games is 18? I distinctly remember once I turned 18 I was ready to look at boobs in a responsible manner, whereas when I looked at boobs at 17 I would have seizures and swallow my tounge.
vidGuy @ Aug 28th 2007 7:14PM
There's a big difference in the ratings. M rated games aren't RESTRICTED to 17 and over, at least not in the midwest USA, and the rating exists as a suggestion. No one under 18 can buy AO. It's like how most stores and theaters are still slack on restricting under 18 from going into an R rated movie, but no one who wants to keep his/her job would let a minor into a porn film.
Evan @ Aug 28th 2007 7:02PM
With so many non-gamers taken offence to the violence in video games, maybe we should stop blaming the non-gamers and take a look at the games. Could it be that they are concerned about violence because games have gotten more and more violent each year? Could it be that video games are rated differently from film because games don't treat the violence in a mature way?
Synner @ Aug 29th 2007 1:52PM
Why should we look at the games? If it is the non gamers that have the issue as you say, then they are already voting with their wallets by not buying these games. Why should I care if there is violence in foreign films for instance, if I don't watch those movies anyway? Why should I have a say on what you find entertaining? If you aren't a consumer of a product, then you should have no say on the development of features of said product.
fester @ Aug 28th 2007 7:46PM
The simple answer is: Nintendo knows sonny boy flies the coop at 17-18, gets $100,000 yr job in the oil patch right outa school,is an ardent gamer,s-o-o-o...they introduce ballsy M rated games for the Wii to keep him outta the Sony and M$ camp and presto!-another N loyal recruit! Simple really cus all that political correctness jive he was fed [before the big $$] ends up as-yes-monkeys flying out of the ass! lol
LightWarrior @ Aug 29th 2007 2:02AM
Sounds like re-hashed responses to me...as if the ESRB is repeating themselfs...
then again Politians can't get it through their thick heads.