Clinton and other senators ask ESRB for review over Manhunt 2
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Nov 20th 2007 at 5:45PM }
The letter went over the differences between the ESRB and the British Board of Film Classification, which banned the game. The letter was also concerned over the Wii motion controls being used in a game like Manhunt and asked the ESRB to take controls "into consideration" for future ratings. It all boils down to the senators asking for a review and saying, "In sum, we ask your consideration of whether it is time to review the robustness, reliability and repeatability of your ratings process, particularly for this genre of 'ultra-violent' videogames and advances in game controllers." What happened to all that bridge building we saw just last year? The ESRB has yet to respond.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
giantenemycrab @ Nov 20th 2007 5:49PM
Geez I hate Manhunt 2. Not only did it suck, but it gave all the witch hunters a good excuse. Also, if Hillary is elected president, expect A LOT more of this.
Rususeruru @ Nov 20th 2007 5:58PM
And people said she was the "freedom of speech" advocate, where were these people in the 90's? She's tried to censor almost everything.
Intentless @ Nov 20th 2007 6:09PM
Since when is she the freedom of speech advocate... My only thing I like about her is the restrictions she wants to put on salaries of the wealthy. Like in Japan where the highest paid person can't make more than 10 times the lowest...
Synner @ Nov 20th 2007 6:21PM
Yeah, because we need to punish success in this country... Here's a thought, don't like what you're paid, get another fucking job!
Mr Khan @ Nov 20th 2007 6:22PM
Being a core left-winger, i distrust hillary as much as the average right-winger
She is not to be trusted, simply put
But both parties have their anti-gaming wing. The dems have the Political Correctness Gestapo and the reps have the "Won't Someone Please Think of the Children" Religious
Synner @ Nov 20th 2007 6:24PM
Actually it's the dems going the think of the children route now too, they realized that PC just pisses most of america off
Mromson @ Nov 20th 2007 8:17PM
Clinton says "Manhunt" and loses my "vote" - I find it a fair deal.
rv @ Nov 20th 2007 8:58PM
Exactly. It's all right when she tries to stop kids from buying something, but when she tires to stop adults from buying games, then its not cool with me. I can say whats already been said.
"Look at saw and hostel"
"M isn't for kids"
But I'm pretty sure she understands these points, and is just trying to make a campaign issue out of it. I hope so much she doesn't get elected. If she's nominated, I've gotta go republican, which I would hate so much.
Ignatius @ Nov 20th 2007 5:52PM
Two cents says they never looked at the game, just read a press release of the AO rerating and started whining.
Jeff @ Nov 20th 2007 5:54PM
I'll raise you a dollar.
Grey Fox @ Nov 21st 2007 3:41AM
I fold. This shit is stupid and I'm getting real fucking sick of the ESRB because not only is it the whipping boy but it has no fucking balls.
michael @ Nov 20th 2007 5:53PM
How dare you call Bayh a republican, the only democratic with balls to ever come out of Indiana, was a candidate for president, but smartly chose to drop out and is gonna be a front runner for vice president, write that down
Jeff @ Nov 20th 2007 5:54PM
The ESRB is more strict than any other organization like it. This just reflects the older generations ignorance about videogames.
I'm sure they were just as annoyed when idiot politicians tried to blame rock n' roll for society's ills when they were kids.
And their parents were annoyed when alcohol was blamed for all of society's ills... and then prohibition made them worse.
At least the world is done blaming Witchcraft.
Rususeruru @ Nov 20th 2007 6:00PM
BURN THEM!
wait so you're telling me whether she floats or not doesn't matter... crap, that means we've drown at least 3 girls.
Nick the Hero of Canton @ Nov 20th 2007 5:55PM
M = Mature
E = Not mature
See the difference? Good.
M = MATURE
E = NOT MATURE.
Let's do this again:
M = MATURE
E = NOT MATURE
Now class, what is M?
M = for kids?
WRONG!
M = Mature
E = Not Mature
I will either get rated up for this comment or down... :P
Ethan @ Nov 20th 2007 10:26PM
You might have dragged it on a bit but the point needed to be made.
Duscrom @ Nov 21st 2007 4:44AM
M = Mature
M = Not Mature
E = Mature, but not Violent
E10+ = Everyone Ages 10 and up.
Don't call Manhunt "Mature" It's Violent and for adults, but it's far from "Mature"
Intentless @ Nov 20th 2007 5:56PM
Is an AO rating really all that much different than a M rateing... Don't both require ID's to show you are of at least 18 years of age? I never understood that...
Probot @ Nov 20th 2007 5:57PM
Stores don't sell AO rated games. That's the difference.
Mr Khan @ Nov 20th 2007 6:23PM
AO = NC17
And both = De Facto Ban
FK @ Nov 20th 2007 5:57PM
Dude.. that logo was creepy enough by itself. You went ahead and stuck Hillary heads all over it... Sleep is not in my future.
EMaster @ Nov 20th 2007 5:59PM
Shouldn't she be munching carpet or something instead of trying to get a really bad game banned?
SGT Grumbles @ Nov 20th 2007 6:00PM
Next week:
"Clinton convinces ESRB to re-rate Manhunt 2 AO. Gamers too busy playing good games to care."
WiNG @ Nov 20th 2007 6:00PM
...this is why Ron Paul needs to win.
jake11 @ Nov 20th 2007 8:47PM
seriously? almost all of his policies scare me.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 21st 2007 9:06AM
Thats because you've gotten too used to a nanny state that will take care of you instead of relying on yourself and hard work.
Do you realize how much more money we'd all have if the income tax was revoked?
That said, Ron Paul is not a republican, he's a libertarian. Just like Hilary isn't a democrat, she's a socialist.
Grapefruit Juice @ Nov 20th 2007 6:02PM
A Clinton? pandering to the un-informed masses? For personal gain? What a shocker.
/sarcasm
Isak? @ Nov 20th 2007 6:05PM
If the ESRB caves even the tiniest amount on this, the system has failed. The ratings will mean nothing, and they will become puppets of senators looking for attention. There only real response should be "The ESRB has made it's final decision in the matter."
Matt @ Nov 20th 2007 6:19PM
What we need are younger politicians who aren't whiny Baby Boomers. This is why I'm voting for Barrack Obama.
TWiNKiE @ Nov 20th 2007 11:13PM
Barrack Obama is my hero. Seriously.
Ranko @ Nov 20th 2007 6:20PM
I think as gamers, we need to make pretty charts.
Envision this:
Percentage of Gamers that give a crap about MH2.
Percentage of idiotic politicians that have nothing better to do then run this country to the ground with moronic drivel such as this.
Then we can throw in a picture of a baby or a puppy.
Kaemon @ Nov 20th 2007 6:23PM
Ah good old Hillary Clinton, bringing us one step closer to Socialism.
Jon @ Nov 20th 2007 8:25PM
Yes, because Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Germany are doing so horrible right now.
ThornedVenom @ Nov 20th 2007 11:26PM
Not Sweden anymore: liberal conservative party won last year.
Once upon a time, France was socialist too. President Mitterand actually served 2 mandates.
I'm not promoting socialism, but I just find it bullshit to point it out as something as nefarious as communism.
LaughingTarget @ Nov 21st 2007 12:03AM
They were saved when the EU was formed and they used the financial nuclear option - changing currency. They'll fall apart real fast since those nations print money out if thin air to fund most if those programs. Children, printing money without an equivelant economic expansion = bad.
Kaemon @ Nov 21st 2007 1:31AM
"I'm not promoting socialism, but I just find it bullshit to point it out as something as nefarious as communism."
Not as bad, but still pretty dang bad. I mean, its one small step away from it. One very small step. I'd like the chance to actually archive things on my own and actually keep what I earn, not use it to pay for things that people should pay for themselves. (Hi healthcare!)
J @ Nov 21st 2007 2:30PM
What's wrong with getting healthcare to the poor who can't afford it? I'm really having trouble understanding how people are okay with the Republicans giving away billions of dollars to Corporations in the form of subsidies (read: welfare) who are already making windfall profits of billions of dollars, but aren't okay with giving it to poor people who actually need the help. Either you didn't know this was going on or you have no soul.
That being said, censorship is weak and is the reason I didn't vote in 2000 (Tipper Gore, anyone?), but have regretted it ever since. As a flaming liberal, this shit makes me sick... even coming from a "socialist".
Kaemon @ Nov 21st 2007 4:22PM
J, I understand where you are coming from, and how you have these opinons and what not, because it makes sense from a purely aesthetic standpoint. But once you look at it more it doesn't quite make sense.
"What's wrong with getting healthcare[...]? I'm really having trouble understanding how people are okay with the Republicans giving away billions of dollars to Corporations in the form of subsidies [...] but aren't okay with giving it to poor people who actually need the help."
Ohkay. I'm going to assume you have a job, so you might understand this.
The place I work at, is a smaller business, and can't employ too many people. Now, because of that, I can't have as many work hours as I would like, which would help me make more money, and pay for things. If the company had less burdens or even some extra money help then they can employ more people, for longer hours, giving money out and putting it into the market, therefor improving other peoples lives. You spend the money you earn, it goes to businesses, who grow bigger, hire more people, give them money, cycle continues. Even the biggest of the subsidies, which can mean a tax break so the company doesn't end up giving up as much to the government, don't end up costing the people as much as social healthcare would.
And health care is REALLY easy to get in this country, I mean, its not hard at all.
But look at places who have free healthcare, the places that are supposedly the best, Cuba for example, boy, do they have great healthcare, but why are they all trying to run to America, because the type of government the supply's everything to its people also takes away freedoms that people want and need. Canada has free healthcare, so why do we have Canadians coming to America to get simple things done that shouldn't take months to get done in canada, but do. If you give people social healthcare you destroy a industry. Healthcare is NOT a right. It improves your life yes, but you do NOT need it. We all need food, so the government should just give us all the food we need, we also need houses... we should get free houses. The government is to protect you and keep your freedoms, not pay your way for everything.
"Either you didn't know this was going on or you have no soul."
I know about everything, and yes, I do have a soul.
I doubt you will see this since I don't think it will send you a comment replied to notice since I'm just replying to myself, how sad. I would love to see your response.
J @ Nov 26th 2007 3:34PM
I appreciate the thoughtful response and almost didn't make it back here to read it, but thankfully did. I would like to concur in saying that I also understand your points, but only on the aesthetic level as well.
What you are describing is fundamentally Reagan's "trickle down theory" which never really played out in any successful manner. There is no guarantee that the money not being used for taxes would go back into improving the lives of the employees, or the ability to hire more. It sounds good in theory, but doesn't typically play out that way in reality. (Bush's tax cuts anyone?)
As for: "health care is REALLY easy to get in this country, I mean, its not hard at all."
40 Million uninsured Americans would disagree with you. It is hard to recognize the plight people who are coming from a less priveledged background than you. What you may recognize as everyday opportunities are not necessarily available to many people no matter how easily accessable it is by you.
Cuba and Canada do, in fact, have great healthcare, but you should know that I work, in DC, with a Canadian who drives home every time he gets sick because the healthcare is far superior to ours down here. You can not say with any certainty that ours is better. It is the for-profit system that is costing lives by utilizing methods and tools provided by the lowest bidder.
I also agree w/ the sentiment that the types of Governments who help provide their citizens w/ healthcare, tend to take certain rights away, but this is not necessarily the case in Canada and in many European nations and it certainly wouldn't have to be true here in America. The two issues are not necessarily inter-related.
"The government is to protect you and keep your freedoms, not pay your way for everything."
What about other goverment funded programs that you probably take for granted like the roads you drive on and not having to pay for sending your kid to private school? Sure, these are tired examples, but they are costs that would add up to exceed the taxes you are charged.
I personally think that sociallized healthcare is a form of "protection" and should be included in our taxes like everything else. I think that you probably do agree with a higher level of socialization without admitting it, whereas I believe that socializing healthcare would save and improve more lives than it would hurt. Yes, it could potentially destroy an entire industry, but I believe that this process would be replacing an industry that has been putting profits and greed in front of health. Which do you feel is more important?
My main point in my previous post is that even though our government wastes so much money in so many different ways (corporate welfare, billions and billions completely unnaccounted for in Iraq, abstinence programs, ad infinitum) most people on the "right" say absolutely nothing about it until a program like socialized healthcare, that is meant to benefit the largest amount of people, is proposed by the "left". My question is mainly why not rail against all of the waste going on that has zero benefit to our society in general instead of waiting for a program like this to bring it up?
My own thoughts on that point are that since the Media is heavily tied to the Pharmaceutical industry, who are rightfully scared shitless about socialized healthcare, and many in the media are the ones who talk like this, everyday Americans who hear it are just repeating what they've heard without realizing its origin. Sure, keeping our goverment fiscally responsible is important, but is this the only program keeping it from being so?
Do me a favor. I haven't seen it yet myself, but watch Michael Moore's (I know) movie Sicko because it addresses many of these issues much more eloquently than I can. Even Fox news couldn't help but give it positive reviews. So, that should say something if you catch my drift.
Thanks man, Peace
Kaemon @ Nov 26th 2007 8:16PM
Small note about something you said as just a side cut, about the Bush tax cuts, now, it actually did help my family at least, so thats my experience with it. I'm not from some rich family either, of course there were many tax cuts I believe and not all effected anyone.
And Yes there are 40 million or whatnot uninsured Americans that don't have health care, but what we provide them School, help with college, so many things to gain a education, many of the people choose to pass up, like kids dropping out of school just because they don't like it, and then when adults they can't pay for healthcare because they don't have a good job, which they could have gotten if they had worked hard when younger. I'll admit that some places are rather... difficult to gain a higher education in but there are many people who you hear come from horrible places that end up succeeding and living a great life.
Funny that you mention Cuba, it yes, has WONDERFUL healthcare, but at what expense. If you live in Cuba, what do you own? Your house, no, your car, not really, any jewelry, not at all. The more you supply your people the less you truly have. Of course I believe you understand this part since you tend to talk more of Europe and Canada. So Maybe this part was pointless to write, hah.
I can say that ours is better, the for-profit system is what drives one doctor to be better then another! One person to innovate medicine the fastest! Around where I live there are clinics that don't deal with insurance, they just charge $35 per normal visit, thats it, the doctors work there and do their best to keep their customer for a low price, they get the money directly, work hard, and don't have to deal with insurance company's. Truly that is what is the best medical system. People competing to be the best at the lowest price. For profit is what drives innovation.
Europe may also have good healthcare, but how high are their taxes? I mean, if I lived there, I'm sure my family wouldn't have nearly as much because of how much more we would be taxed. Having money to spend as I will it I believe is a freedom, that things like socialized medicine can take away. The freedom to chose what I do with my money that I worked for is very, very important to me.
One thing I don't understand is how people can be so... self righteous, in a way, as to feel that its fine to destroy peoples life work, and by that I mean the people who run Health care companies. (That sentence is not meant to offend in any way, just couldn't think of a better way to phrase it. hah) How do they put profit and greed in front of health, the better care they provide, the more they help,the more money they get, tends to be how things work. Cheating peple out of their money never has been a way to make money, and the healthcare companies aren't stupid enough to do it. With as many as they are, if one is bad, people move to another and it will fail.
Moving on... How is helping a country like Iraq a waste that will have zero benefit to our society? Last I checked getting rid of people who find it fine to kill us for disagreeing with them seems like a pretty good way to protect society. And Everyone then brings up how long we've been there, yeah, but how long were we in Japan? And the middle east is in worse shape, if we were in Japan for almost 10 years, and were still there for a long time, then why does helping another country have to end so soon? The best way to make a friend is to help them, and I believe that helping them set up a working government, and making the place run by rules, not fear, will be a great help to them, and in turn have them eventually help us.
If I was in the Pharmaceutical industry I would too be terrified of the socialized healthcare industry. My goodness. By doing that you destroy private research for new medicines, and then any work on drugs is handled not by business, who once again compete, but by a government and people who have no incentive to work faster.
I've mentioned a few time that competition will always make things work better, but just to cite something, lets look at school teachers. Lots of crappy teachers out there, school system not doing too good I say. Why? Well, because there are bad teachers. Why? Well, why should they bother to really work hard to get students grades up, they get paid the same anyway. If it was made so the better teachers get paid more, like many competitive things, there would be alot more good teachers because then they would work hard at it in order to get more money.
Hmm, I don't have much else to say. I'm gonna post this as a reply to my comment, but then reply it to you're comment thats on here so you get a notice... quite interesting things.
But just as a final note, I don't expect to change a opinion of yours, I merely wish to state mine. Why? Because its really really hard to change a opinion, people have values that they live by, and dang is it hard to change those, and nothing someone says on the Internet is gonna shake them for the most part, I'd assume..
nick @ Nov 20th 2007 6:32PM
FYI - Lieberman is not a Democrat -- he's an independent.
Jon @ Nov 20th 2007 7:58PM
He doesn't represent Connecticut either. He represents Israel, vicariously, at least.
DammitBran @ Nov 20th 2007 11:41PM
OH! The [I] is for Independant. I totally thought it meant Israel.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 21st 2007 9:10AM
Lieberman was one of the only democrats I had respect for, since he wasn't running the party line of "Everything bush does is bad".
The dems are more interested in humiliating the republicans than winning the war and moving the country forward.
Mr Khan @ Nov 21st 2007 3:24PM
It is odd that primary election politics have been boiled down to a series of pissing contests
For democrats, its all about who can bash Bush best
For Republicans, its all about who is the least like Hillary
Shagittarius @ Nov 20th 2007 6:34PM
The ESRB should simply respond with the statement:
"I think someone needs to get laid."
Blast Processing Megadrive @ Nov 20th 2007 6:39PM
But she has a husband... Oh, wait. Nevermind.
hydralisk456 @ Nov 20th 2007 7:07PM
May god have mercy on my soul, I'm upping Shagi...
Roy @ Nov 20th 2007 6:36PM
Anyone who wastes a lot of time tackling violent and controversial video games will not be getting my vote. If you just took a look at other important issues facing this country; illegal wire-tapping, reduction of civil liberties via the Patriot Act, Blackwater, the outing of Plame, and how this country wound up in Iraq. All of this would have made a perfect case to impeach our present president. Instead we get Kyle's mom instead of a candidate you can take seriously.
Jon @ Nov 20th 2007 8:06PM
That's exactly why you should vote for Kucinich, who attempted to bring the articles of impeachment against Cheney, but failed, due to pussy Democrats fearing a backlash.