Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Manhunt 2 Ready For Release, Politicians Angered

Posted by Zonk on Tue Aug 28, 2007 08:21 AM
from the tangled-web dept.
Government Entertainment Games Politics
After much hemming and hawing, Take-Two appears to have secured an 'M' rating for Manhunt 2 from the ESRB. The title is now due in stores around Halloween. The reversal of fortunes for the much-maligned title has prompted a number of conspiracy theories and outright outrage from groups 'fighting' videogame violence. Well-known commentator on the subject and California State Senator Leland Yee is demanding more transparency from the ESRB as a result of this decision. From GamePolitics' coverage: "Parents can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating. The ESRB and Rockstar should end this game of secrecy by immediately unveiling what content has been changed to grant the new rating and what correspondence occurred between the ESRB and Rockstar to come to this conclusion. Unfortunately, history shows that we must be quite skeptical of these two entities."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Manhunt 2 Ban Fallout, Game Rated AO By ESRB 384 comments
In the wake of yesterday's announcement of a UK ban on Manhunt 2 , Rockstar has registered its disappointment at the BBFC's decision. The company simply stated that they 'respect those who have different opinions about the horror genre and videogames as a whole, but we hope they will also consider the opinions of the adult gamers for whom this product is intended.' Meanwhile, here in the US, the ESRB has given the game the dreaded AO rating, for adults only. If you're unfamiliar with this seldom-seen designation, it's essentially the 'kiss of death' for a title at retail; a number of popular videogame outlets refuse to carry titles with that rating. MTV's Stephen Totilo has a lengthy and considered discussion of these proceedings. "For 'Manhunt 2,' signs pointed to the title being both less and more extreme than the first. Gone from press previews were mentions of snuff films and Directors. Instead, a more traditionally violent video game premise: one man's struggle to stay alive in an insane asylum gone mad."
[+] Your Rights Online: AO Rating Basically Bans Manhunt 2 From Release 295 comments
Yesterday we discussed Manhunt 2's AO rating, and what it meant for the game's retail outlook. Gamespot points out that effectively an AO rating means that the game will never be released in the first place. "Both [Nintendo and Sony] forbid licensed third-party publishers from releasing games rated AO for Adults Only on their various hardware platforms. Though Manhunt 2 isn't slated for any of Microsoft's systems, the company has also confirmed that it does not allow AO-rated titles on the Xbox or Xbox 360. The sole exception to this rule was in 2005 when the already released Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was retroactively rated AO, at which point retailers pulled it from shelves and Take-Two suspended production of the game."
[+] Politics: Take Two Shelves Manhunt 2 350 comments
If you've been following this story so far, it shouldn't come as a shock that Take-Two has shelved Manhunt 2 for the moment, while they decide what to do next. The company is considering its options, and still fully supports the game as a 'work of art'. "Take-Two Interactive Software has temporarily suspended plans to distribute Manhunt 2 for the Wii or PlayStation platforms while it reviews its options with regard to the recent decisions made by the British Board of Film Classification and Entertainment Software Rating Board ... We continue to stand behind this extraordinary game. We believe in freedom of creative expression, as well as responsible marketing, both of which are essential to our business of making great entertainment." Analysts have already started weighing in, with some seeing this as unfairly targeting the GTA-maker for previous 'sins'.
[+] Take Two Vows To Publish Manhunt 2 116 comments
Despite Manhunt 2's bad reception in both UK and US, Take Two has publicly announced that it will publish the game at some point. Backing the title as art, once again, the company vowed to see the game released in some capacity or another. "The chairman added that Take-Two subsidiary Rockstar Games, which publishes Manhunt and the Grand Theft Auto series, sees itself as a producer of games rated M for Mature. However, Zelman did say Take-Two would stand by its game, even if it bore the dreaded AO for Adults Only rating. 'We don't see ourselves in the Adults Only business,' he told analysts listening to the call. 'Having said that, if we find ourselves in the Adults Only business, it would be because we have a title that we consider art and entertainment, that we consider if appropriately labeled AO, and that we would like to bring to market.'"
[+] The ESRB, Earmarks, and Manhunt 2 in Game Politics 48 comments
GamePolitics has a number of interesting posts up this week on developing stories. The ESRB has fired off a warning to 3D Realms over some out-of-date labeling on the Duke Nukem portion of their website. The organization says it's standard procedure, but 3D Realms co-founder Scott Miller views it as a 'sucker punch'. Meanwhile, Senators discussing earmarks for the year are in a row over videogames. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is resisting a $7.5 Million appropriation for an advanced computer system, which he 'compared ... to videogames.' Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) countered by noting that Coburn authorized spending that resulted in the creation of an actual videogame, the Full Spectrum Warrior title released by THQ. Finally, Rockstar has fired back at GamesIndustry.biz. The respected European news site wrote a blistering editorial when the Manhunt 2 kerfuffle first started, saying that Rockstar was being 'juvenile, shameful, and irresponsible'. They've now responded: "What about games make them deserve special treatment from the authorities? According to industry groups, the average games player is in his or her 30s, yet you support the widely held view that games are somehow a less sophisticated medium than cinema, only suitable for immature audiences. In other words, although gamers can negotiate the boundaries between reality and fiction in other media, you believe we are incapable of navigating the same boundaries in videogames ... We believe in a well-run ratings system. With the best rating system in history and the future of the industry and medium at stake, we don't understand why it is necessary to effectively ban all games intended for players 18 and older."
[+] Rockstar Appeals British Ban on Manhunt 2 56 comments
1up is reporting (via MCV) that Rockstar has decided to appeal the BBFC ruling on their uber-violent Manhunt 2 title. The 'next step' is to get a hearing scheduled, which will allow the game to be demo'd and arguments given. "Rockstar Games had been given six weeks to appeal the decision, and with that opportunity about to expire, the company lodged its formal appeal yesterday ... The appeal was filed with the Video Appeals Committee, which can overturn the BBFC decision. As noted in our first article about the ban, the VAC overturned the BBFC's ban of Carmageddon back in 1997, giving Rockstar a glimmer of hope in its current situation."
[+] ESRB Refuses To Detail Manhunt 2 Re-Rating Logic 60 comments
Next Generation reports that the ESRB is flatly refusing Leland Yee's request to further outline their logic behind Manhunt 2's re-rating. Says organization president Patrica Vance, "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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Manhunt 2 Ready For Release, Politicians Angered 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Silly video game industry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by faloi (738831) on Tuesday August 28 2007, @08:27AM (#20383027)
    Maybe if they start throwing money at national and state Senators like Hollywood does, they won't have these problems. Or maybe I missed the release when Leland was disgusted at the level of violence in movies.

    • Re:Silly video game industry (Score:4, Insightful)

      by poppen_fresh (65995) on Tuesday August 28 2007, @12:51PM (#20387125)
      Seriously. What I would really like to see is national attention that generates the following (changes bolded):

      Americans can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating. The credit rating agencies and credit card companies should end this game of secrecy ...
      Or anything else of real importance. This think of the children bs is beginning to piss me off.

  • Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BigMe (612025) on Tuesday August 28 2007, @08:29AM (#20383053) Homepage

    "Parents can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating."
    Works for the MPAA, why not the ESRB?
    • Because they are thinking of the children?

      Everyone knows video games are marketed towards children! But movies, well, real adults watch those!
    • Not only that, what is so indecipherable about ADULTS ONLY?

      • Not only that, what is so indecipherable about ADULTS ONLY?
        Due to policies adopted by all three members of the video game console oligopoly, the only set-top video game machine that can play a video game that has been rated Adults Only is a home theater PC, and there aren't enough of those in existence to make development and marketing of AO games profitable.

      • Re:transparency (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 28 2007, @09:25AM (#20383695) Homepage Journal
        Well at some point, this very point of the ESRB not playing every game was brought up by our law makers:

        http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2006/9/ 27/5427 [arstechnica.com]

        I agree that there is an element of trust but the ESRB was created and is supported by the game industry. Developers and publishers are only hurting themselves by submitting bogus material. Witholding content from the ESRB raters is just what Washington needs to turn the ESRB from a self-regulating body to a government-regulated body.
        • Witholding content from the ESRB raters is just what Washington needs to turn the ESRB from a self-regulating body to a government-regulated body.

          Which would quickly be sued over constitutional issues and disbanded. Personally I think the game industry should have gone straight to that option.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "I agree that there is an element of trust but the ESRB was created and is supported by the game industry. Developers and publishers are only hurting themselves by submitting bogus material."

          It already has happened in a sense with the Rockstar / GTA controversy. The lies told by Rockstar ("not ours! not our fault!") along with the discovery of "hidden" content eroded some public trust in the system itself. Granted, it was an "M" game to begin with, but in the mind of a large segment of the population, a l
          • IIRC, the hidden content was completely hidden [wikipedia.org] and abandoned early in production. It was left in the game data as apparently is often the case (example - Diablo [wikipedia.org]) and needed third party hacks to access. Therefore, it's a bit unfair to blame them for having "hidden" content.

            However, they certainly lost a lot of credibility by lying about the content being there...mind you, I'd put money on the fact that the denying was done by an exec who hadn't bothered to ask the programmers if it was true or not...

      • ESRB doesn't play every game, it relies on information given to it by the publishers.
        Including videos of game play. If you complain that the videos do not show every single scene in the game, imagine having to review 8,760 hours of video to see everything that happens during days and nights in the yearly cycle of a real-time social simulation called Animal Crossing.

  • Cannot trust? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fozzyuw (950608) on Tuesday August 28 2007, @08:33AM (#20383097)

    Parents can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating.

    Do parents "trust" the G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, NR ratings for movies? And what is there to "trust" about an "M" rated game? That it won't be violent? *yawn* Just politicians trying to win some votes by barking louder than their bite.

    Cheers,
    Fozzy

  • before he rants and raves like a loony.

    From Wikipedia:

    EC -- Early Childhood: Contains content that is considered suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.

    E -- Everyone: Contains content that is considered suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.

    E10+ -- Everyone 10+: Contains content that is considered suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language, minimal and/or infrequent blood and/or minimal suggestive themes.

    T -- Teen: Contains content that is considered suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.

    M -- Mature: Contains content that is considered suitable for ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

    AO -- Adults Only: Contains content that is considered suitable only for ages 18 and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

    Its just like the movies your great backwards state likes to put out Mr Senator. They constantly take crap out to enable them to get a lower rating too. Why is it so hard for you people to get it through your skull that NOT ALL GAMES ARE FOR KIDS! Hell why are you even bitching about it as if a parent is going to buy this? ITS STILL RATED M.... ITS STILL NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 17 AND IF YOU BUY IT FOR THEM YOUR A BAD PARENT

    As for transparicy... last I looked the Motion Picture Rating Board was not transparent either.

    god these people make me so bitterly angry at their stupidity.

    • Because it was never about HIS children. It was about controlling everyone else's children. He's perfectly capable of teaching his own to stay away from violence, but he has no control over everyone else's unless he gets laws passed.

      The 1 year difference between M and AO means absolutely nothing. They don't magically mature enough during that year to handle 'graphic sexual content' or 'prolonged scenes of intense violence' unless they are already being exposed to them. (That's actually problem with the
      • well I just read his webpage. Seems he is a crusader against all violence so obviously this is a easy target for him. Funny though I doubt he would say anything about the crapload of violence his own states major economic draw puts out. But then they pay him money and grant him voters, those evil video games dont.

      • The 1 year difference between M and AO means absolutely nothing.
        For one thing, it means the size of a monitor that displays the game. AO games run only on PCs, and hardly any PCs are connected to monitors larger than 19 inches diagonal. Consoles, on the other hand, are more often connected to 30 inch or larger monitors, but they run only games rated EC through M.
    • You don't understand politicians, do you?

      He in all probability knows what you just posted about but he has to stay in his position as a fighter against violence in games and gain political support no matter how bullshit his arguments are. Politicians rarely speak about what they believe in, it's just a big power game with sources you exploit for votes and support.
    • An 'AO' versus an 'M' rating guarantees loss of retail space, less spaces for advertising and subsequent loss of sales. The ratings category may be nearly identical as far as stated intent (suitable for 18+ rather than 17+) but the morality police want to make sure that "filth sellers" are punished financially in order to stop such games from finding a publisher in the future.

    • ITS STILL RATED M.... ITS STILL NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 17 AND IF YOU BUY IT FOR THEM YOUR A BAD PARENT

      If I, as a parent, evaluate a game (let's say it's hypothetically rated "M") and its content, then evaluate my children and their probable response to that content, and decide to get it for them anyway, am I still "A BAD PARENT"?

      • If I, as a parent, evaluate a game (let's say it's hypothetically rated "M") and its content, then evaluate my children and their probable response to that content, and decide to get it for them anyway, am I still "A BAD PARENT"?

        It depends. Was the decision you made a really stupid one? If so, I'd say yes. "Evaluating" something and coming to a decision isn't really a panacea. If I carefully evaluate crack use and decide that it's appropriate for my five year old to hit the pipe once a week, am I not

    • Woah, woah, woah.. If I buy my 14, 15, or 16 year-old a game with fictional violence, when I'm around to put it in context, I'm a bad parent? But if they go off to college, they're suddenly prepared for scenes of intense violence and prolonged/graphic sexual content? Sorry, but the only change from 17 to 18 is a number. A birthday doesn't magically make someone more prepared for the world, and they're going to have to deal with a lot more than a hot coffee mod. I'm fine with ratings to ensure parents ar

  • Mixed news (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Intellectual Elitist (706889) on Tuesday August 28 2007, @08:44AM (#20383213)
    While I'm glad that Rockstar has found a way to get the game released, I think it's ridiculous that they had to jump through so many hoops just to protect the supposedly fragile minds of 17-year-olds (the only people affected by an M rating vs. an AO rating).

    Sony and Nintendo should be ashamed of themselves for their prudish prohibition of AO-rated titles on their consoles, and Rockstar should have the last laugh by releasing Manhunt 2: Uncut for the PC at some point down the road.

    • Re:Mixed news (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Is0m0rph (819726) on Tuesday August 28 2007, @08:53AM (#20383297)
      Yeah really. 1 more year older and the government encourages you to join the military so you can actually go kill people in real life.
      • Actually with parental consent you can sign up and ship out while you're 17. A buddy of mine turned 18 while we were in Iraq. This is just a bunch of old men screaming about something they have no understanding of. Really if I'm old enough to kill a man for my government then I guess that I should be old enough to buy a game that lets me kill someone virtually. Also something interesting to listen to is Wil Wheaton's PAX keynote speech. I don't have the link offhand but if you go to Penny Arcade you ca

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DrWho520 (655973)

      Sony and Nintendo should be ashamed of themselves for their prudish prohibition of AO-rated titles on their consoles...

      It is work mentioning that GameStop/EBGames does not carry on their website, Walmart and other retailers will not stock and Blockbuster does not rent AO titles. As far as I know, Barnes & Noble does not carry "Jugs" magazine. I do not think companies should be "ashamed" of making a conscious business decision.
      • > GameStop/EBGames does not carry on their website, Walmart and other retailers will not stock and Blockbuster does not rent AO titles.

        That's fine, and perfectly within their rights. But it also doesn't prevent people from self-publishing AO-rated titles on the PC. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft actually prevent the licensing of AO-rated titles for their game consoles, so it's not legally possible to bypass traditional sales channels to release this sort of content for their systems.

        > I do not t

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by plague3106 (71849)
        As far as I know, Barnes & Noble does not carry "Jugs" magazine. I do not think companies should be "ashamed" of making a conscious business decision.

        They carry penthouse, playboy, hustler and a host of others though.

    • Sony and Nintendo should be ashamed of themselves for their prudish prohibition of AO-rated titles on their consoles,

      Just for the record, Microsoft has the same stance with the 360. Every one of the big 3 requires the game be rated before it appears on their system, and no one allows AO games.

      Rockstar should have the last laugh by releasing Manhunt 2: Uncut for the PC at some point down the road.

      The real kicker is they could "technically" leave in Wii-Mote support. It is BlueTooth after all. (altho

    • Just so we're clear, Microsoft doesn't allow AO games on the Xboxes either (and I have a nagging feeling about the GfW label). In retaliation, they should make the uncut release Mac/Linux only

  • What? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aladrin (926209) on Tuesday August 28 2007, @08:46AM (#20383223)
    What do they REALLY expect when they give a single entity complete control over something? I'm sure the ESRB says 'we won't tell you why' because they don't want to get into arguments about specific content and they don't want the constant 'well, is this okay then?' that they'll get if they start that.

    But I've always felt that was a bit uppity of them. They decide what is right and moral for all of America and nobody has any say-so, or any idea what they are even saying.

    At the very least, I think the system should be overhauled to rate each thing seperately. Violence, nudity, language... Everyone feels differently about each of these. While I would put nudity down at Pre-Teen level, I would keep outright sex at Adult level. Shooting a weapon would be Adult, for any reason and any enemy. 'Bad' language would be Teen. And I'd add a concept, though I don't know what I'd call it: Concepts, Politics, Ideas... The overall concept of the game, and the message it brings, should be rated. Games about raising a horse for fun would be for Everyone. Games about raising a horse to be a war-steed would be Teen.

    I can already hear people screaming about how I'd rate things. Don't bother to respond, that's exactly my point. Nobody agrees with me exactly! The rating system should explain WHAT is bad about that aspect of the game, instead of just giving it an overall rating.

    I'm making this up, because I have no idea what Manhunt 2 entails, but I imagine the ratings should read like:

    Violence: Firearms, killing humans.
    Nudity: Full nudity, deviant sex
    Language: Full range of taboo words, constant usage
    Concept: Killing for pleasure, little consequence for actions

    And then a parent that thinks killing people is fine, but showing skin is absolutely taboo can properly understand what they are handing to their child.

    • Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Applekid (993327) on Tuesday August 28 2007, @09:39AM (#20383831)
      They already had it. The RSAC [wikipedia.org]. Seems they evolved into a web-ratings organization instead.

      Ultimately it came down to LAZINESS. It didn't have an age rating on it, so lazy parents couldn't be bothered to know their children, look at the scales, and figure out what they can and can't handle.

      That system exposed game content for the world to see and evidently it didn't make a big enough splash.
  • Sounds like the critics are the same for video games as the ones for the MPAA... Then again, no games should be banned.

    http://www.ifc.com/films?aId=18019
    Do we need a movie like this for the ESRB? ;-)
  • I don't think the problem lies with the ESRB not being transparent.

    The problem is that most retailers won't even sell A-O games. I don't know what changes rockstar made to get Manhunt to be M, but the point of the game is still the same. The ESRB was perfectly right to give it a A-O rating. It really is the big stores that prevented them to do their work properly this time around.

    Seriously now, does Wal-Mart think that killing perverts in a game is more acceptable now that there is an M on the box instead
    • The retailers are not the problem. The console manufacturers are. The big three will not allow an A-O game to be MANUFACTURED for their system. An A-O rating means release for the PC only.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Sarutobi (1135167)
        Yes, you are right. I forgot about that.

        I don't know about Microsoft, but I remember reading that Sony and Nintendo don't allow A-O games on their consoles. But still, it raises the issue: the ESRB did its job and industry players will not play along.

        It is still true though that target, best buy and some other stores refuse to carry A-O games.

        • It is still true though that target, best buy and some other stores refuse to carry A-O games.
          They also don't carry pornography, but that is still a rather lucrative industry. While retail pressure on ratings does exist, it's not the same as an effective ban. (Which the manufacturers have in place)
  • "Parents can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating. The MPAA and should end this game of secrecy by immediately unveiling what content has been changed to grant the new rating and what correspondence occurred between the MPAA and to come to this conclusion. Unfortunately, history shows that we must be quite skeptical of these two entities."

    Disclaimer: I am not a US citizen, and don't know how MPAA or its rating system works.

    • Re:Difference from MPAA? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Spudtrooper (1073512) on Tuesday August 28 2007, @09:15AM (#20383587)

      I am not a US citizen, and don't know how MPAA or its rating system works.
      I am a US citizen, and I don't either.
    • Disclaimer: I am not a US citizen, and don't know how MPAA or its rating system works.

      If anything the ESRB rating provides more information into why a game has a certain rating when compared to MPAA ratings. If a game is rated "M", I can look at the sidebar and see why it's "M." For movies, I have to take a best guess. Further, the MPAA system is more fluid over time (movies that are rated "R" these days probably wouldn't've been able to be released 50 years ago), and nobody bats an eye when scenes are
    • The fact that parents actually do trust (or, more frequently, don't care) about the ratings is kind of the problem. Is it so hard to actually take an interest in what your kids are doing? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a third-party opinion, and my folks didn't either. They paid attention to what we watched on tv, what games we played, etc. and made sure we had a decent grasp on the reality outside those mediums.

      I guess it's too hard to actually put the effort in and too easy to make it someone else's proble

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tepples (727027)
      The difference between MPAA ratings and ESRB ratings is that the film reel manufacturers do not reject all NC-17 rated films.
      • No, just anyplace where you could watch or rent them. NC-17 is considered the "kiss of death" for movies - you'll note it's been many moons since ANY movie was released with an NC-17 rating, mostly because none of the middlemen will touch 'em with a 10-foot pole.

        • No, just anyplace where you could watch or rent them.

          True, Blockbuster doesn't carry NC-17 products. But movie producers are still allowed to have NC-17 DVDs pressed and either sell them online or rent them out through Netflix. Even Walmart.com carries NC-17 movies [walmart.com]. Video game studios intending to have their games played on screens larger than 19 inches diagonal have no such option.

  • Parents can't trust a rating system that doesn't even disclose how they come to a particular rating.

    Parents are irrelevant to all games that are rated M. Unless you are still breast feeding your 17 year old and telling them that babies come from storks, I think they are old enough to choose what they play. It blows my mind how stupid politicians are these days. I am hoping that this is just something he has to pretend to do to stay in office....even so, I have a lot more respect for people who can hold
  • Oh the horror. Parents have to actually parent their spawn rather than count on a society of strangers and an army of entertainment devices to do it for them.

    FFS people, it's not up to the government or the industry to make sure your freaking kids are safe from all possible bad influences. It's your damn job as a parent to actually pay attention to what your little dorklings soak up with their sponge brains, and getting a rating on a box to make that easier should be considered a gift. I'm in favor of re
  • Who through the CARA (Classification and Rating Administration) issue ratings without disclosing how they do it.

    Hmm... sounds like people who are just complaining because they're not getting it their way. It's widely known that the film rating system is horribly broken to the side of allowing kids to see Stallone kill 300 people, but not see Mel Gibson's butt-cheek. Seems like the ESRB is just the same.
  • I played the original "Manhunt" just because of the Rockstar name to it, and while confronting and horrific (yay, a murder simulator), it wasn't actually that much fun to play. Like GTA without the cars and replace slapstick with gruesome.

    Sad but true, all this publicity is about the only thing that is going to get Manhunt 2 to sell, and it's probably still only going to get mediocre sales.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.