Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Manhunt 2 Ban Fallout, Game Rated AO By ESRB

Posted by Zonk on Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:21 AM
from the ultimate-humiliation dept.
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Rockstar's Road To Ruin 59 comments
Via GamePolitics, an exerpt from an upcoming Wired print magazine article on Rockstar's slide from grace. The article outlines a number of the problems we've discussed here on the site, such as their numerous lawsuits, the 'Hot Coffee' scandal, and stock-option problems. At four pages it's only a teaser for the longer article in the magazine, but it's still very much worth taking a look. "The irony is thick: The company that defined virtual criminality is now associated with the real thing. Rockstar and Take-Two executives declined to answer questions for this article, but their rich and troubled story is revealed by official documents and former employees. It seems the blokes forgot that in life, as in Grand Theft Auto, there are repercussions for the choices you make."
[+] Politics: NY Governor to Target Violent Video Games 306 comments
NoMoreGuns writes to tell us that Governor Eliot Spitzer is planning to target violent movies and video games in a new bill. "Spitzer said he wants to restrict access to these videos and games by children, similar to motion picture regulations which prohibit youths under 17 from being admitted to R-rated movies without a parent or adult guardian. Under Spitzer's proposal, retailers who sell violent or degrading videos or video games to children contrary to the rating would be sanctioned."
[+] 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."
[+] Condemned 2 Trying to Avoid Manhunt 2's Fate 108 comments
CVG is reporting that Monolith, makers of the upcoming Condemned 2, are working with the ESRB to avoid an AO rating. As we've discussed previously, an AO ban in the states is effectively a ban on retail sales. From the article: "When asked for examples of what we might now never see in a game again, we were told, 'An example of what we cut would be putting someone's head in a vice. That was too much, you know. There are also some decapitations we've lost. But this is more Sin City than it is real world and we want people to know that this is not a real world.'"
[+] 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."
[+] 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.'"
[+] News: Croal vs. Totilo - The Manhunt 2 Letters 42 comments
N'Gai Croal (of Newsweek) and Stephen Totilo (of MTV) once again match wits in a textual format, this time over the Manhunt 2 controversy. In Round One, the two reporters discuss the process of playing the game for the first time, and wonder what the experience must have been like for the ESRB raters. Round Two sees them take things up a notch, discussing what exactly it is about the game that's so violent. Round Three ... has them questioning the nature of gaming itself. As always, these are two smart guys with some interesting insights into the medium. Well worth your time. From N'Gai's final letter: "It's difficult to 'read' or derive much meaning from a game. That's why in our three Vs. Modes, we ultimately don't spend very much time talking about or analyzing the experience of playing a game, because it's hard to do so without turning our emails into "I went here. I did this. I picked that up." Which is, after all, what games are. So if the essence of a game is located in what we do, is a walkthrough--go here, do this, pick up that--the most truthful way to write about the experience of playing a game? I hope not. But it's something we should consider. Once again, if the essence of any game is located in its action, reaction, interaction, and the rules which circumscribe those three elements, what does the narrative do?"
[+] 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'.
[+] 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."
[+] Manhunt 2 Banned In Britain 593 comments
westlake writes "Rockstar's Manhunt 2 has been banned in the U.K. for what the British Board of Film Classification calls its 'unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying.' 'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.' The company has six weeks to submit an appeal. The last game to be refused classification was Carmageddon in 1997. That decision was later overturned via the appeals process."
[+] Manhunt 2 Ready For Release, Politicians Angered 66 comments
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."
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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by eln (21727) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @11:26AM (#19580583) Homepage
    Seriously, a game like Manhunt 2 gets an AO rating, while true horror games like "Play with the Teletubbies" get rated EC (Early Childhood)! Where is the justice in that?
    • by Cerberus7 (66071) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @11:40AM (#19580849)
      That's right along my first thought after reading the summary. Brutally violent games shouldn't be rated AO? Wha?

      I can understand the outrage over an outright ban, but rating a game appropriately, regardless of the consequences to the bottom lines of the companies involved, sounds like a good move to me.
      • by travdaddy (527149) <travo AT linuxmail DOT org> on Wednesday June 20 2007, @11:59AM (#19581299)
        That's right along my first thought after reading the summary. Brutally violent games shouldn't be rated AO? Wha?

        I can understand the outrage over an outright ban, but rating a game appropriately, regardless of the consequences to the bottom lines of the companies involved, sounds like a good move to me.


        The only thing I really see wrong with it is that it seems that video games get rated more harshly than movies, and there's no reason for it. You press buttons for one and you don't for the other. I'd like to compare Manhunt 2 to Hostel 2 and see which is worse, because I imagine the answer is Hostel 2. Maybe the same board should rate video games and movies?
        • by weierstrass (669421) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @12:36PM (#19582019) Homepage Journal
          Games are more immersive, seem more 'real' for that reason, and you usually spend much longer playing a game than you would watching a movie. So, assuming that some or all people do have their propensity to commit violence stimulated by experiencing fictional violence, a violent game would seem to have more effect than a movie depicting similar acts.
          • by cgenman (325138) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @01:20PM (#19582875) Homepage
            I forget where, but there was a wonderful british study recently that found the suspension of disbelief was harmed by playing a videogame compared to watching a movie. The physical requirement of interacting with a game makes it difficult to forget that you're seeing something fake. Watching a movie, however, has less dischordant elements which stick out, and such things can be more easily glossed over as they require no attention on the part of the user.

            Anyone have a link?

        • by xero314 (722674) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @01:59PM (#19583569)

          I'd like to compare Manhunt 2 to Hostel 2
          Hostel 2 - Rated so it can only be viewed by adults or with parental permission.
          Manhunt 2 - Rated so it can only be purchased by adults or with parental permission.
          Remember that both these rating systems are up to the enforcement of the establishments as is not actually legally binding

          Now for a more telling comparison on why Manhunt should actually be more restricted than hostile. Here are some possible quotes after enjoying these two entertainment devices.
          Hostile 2 - "I saw this one scene where the person was killed in a really horrific way"
          Manhunt 2 - "I killed this one person in this really horrific way"

          Hopefully you can see the difference. One is a movie you were you watch people get killed, while the other allows you to simulate killing people.

          Notice I am not supporting a complete ban, but have no issue with realistic ratings.
  • In that case... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by godfra (839112) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @11:28AM (#19580621) Journal
    I'm definitely going to buy it. Can I order direct from Rockstar?
    • Re:In that case... (Score:5, Informative)

      by yermej (985079) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @03:04PM (#19584559)
      Looks like you can get all Rockstar games directly from them [rockstargames.com].
      • Re:In that case... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by toad3k (882007) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @01:31PM (#19583057)
        I'm pretty sure the distributor is out of the picture now. If it is AO it cannot be sold in any store which is a member of (BSA?). Whatever it is called. So no gamestop, no best buy, no walmart, no nothing.

        If I were them I would just say the hell with it and not even submit GTA or any other game to ESRB. Sell it on their website, on steam-like services and probably on amazon. Rockstar has such a good name now it could probably get by that way now. They would even get to keep all the profits. As a bonus they can now put in anything they want to. No other companies would be able to market a more raw videogame. The only prerequisite is that they make it common knowledge that you cannot get their games in stores.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2007, @11:36AM (#19580777)
    and have an essay contest entitled "Why Microsoft Word is more likely than video games to incite people to commit violent acts"

    Having played violent video games and used Word, one has caused me to become violent, and it wasn't video games....
  • Is there any compelling reason why kids SHOULD be allowed to buy this game?
  • by Bob9113 (14996) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @12:06PM (#19581447) Homepage
    Rockstar, if you're listening, please do us a favor. Keep the game just the way it is. Release it with the AO rating.

    You have the capital to take a risk like this (especially with GTA 4 coming soon, and the tidal wave of cash it is sure to generate). Someone has to be the first to put out high quality AO content. The Atari 2600 came out in 1977. There are lots of adults that have been playing games for their entire lives, and want game content that falls in the same noire category as 300, Reservoir Dogs, and Sin City.

    Until there is a proven market for this material, the vendors won't take a risk on it. But you have the ability to establish that market, and the cashflow to take the risk.

    I don't even think it's that much of a risk; the first game to thumb its nose at the family-values whining minority. Everyone who would have bought the game will want it, 90% of them are old enough to legally buy it, and most of those will be willing and able to make the effort necessary to do so.

    So please, give it a shot. You can always rerelease it with duckies and bunnies, and a gun that shoots hearts to make the furry animals love you, later.
  • by TheSciBoy (1050166) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @12:17PM (#19581653)

    Was going to post this in the "UK BAN"-thread, but post it here instead.

    I have always been a firm believer in films/games not making people more violent. Something happened to me, though, to sort of make me doubt my strong belief.

    I bought Manhunt and played it. It was really fun, a great little sneak-and-kill game. But it was very violent and I did not really like being that violent but it was part of the game and making the gruesome kills was fun in a strange way. It was axhilarating to see how long you could sneak behind someone before you had to do the kill.

    When I finished the game I played for a particularly long day and that night I had the most bizarre and gruesome dreams. I dreamt that I cleft people with chainsaws and ran over them with my car. Everything felt OK and I didn't have any moral complaints in my dream, which, if you ask anyone in my surrounding, is totally different from my personality. I am not a psychopath as far as I can tell. :)

    I haven't had any such dreams since and I hope I won't again (though they weren't nightmares in the true sense since I wasn't scared in them, only by my reaction to them). What I'm saying is that I do believe we are affected by what we see/experience. At least if its done frequently enough.

    In cases like very violent films or games, however, having a 18-year restriction on buying the game is enough. Grown up people can decide for themselves what they want to see/play. I felt desturbed by my experience and probably won't buy Manhunt 2 for that reason, but I certainly don't believe in denying the experience from anyone else who is old enough to make a grown up decision about this.

  • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @12:33PM (#19581963)
    Quite frankly, I personally think games like Manhunt 2 are decadent garbage. That said, if someone wants to purchase and play these games they should be free to do so.

    This sort of excessive regulation, to me, reflects the general decline and weakness of the West. We've got these nanny states run by people who increasingly believe it's their responsibility to control every aspect of our lives. More troubling is how citizens are themselves abdicating all responsibility, expecting their governments to do everything for them. What these people apparently fail to realize is that inevitable the system will eventually come around and start trampling on their freedoms; it's a very slippery slope.

    Ultimately, it's the parents who should be responsible for what their children are doing. If a child who plays these ultra-violent games has violent tendencies I'll guarantee those issues stem from poor parenting and not the game. From personal experience this has always been the case. The fact that the child has access to such games is merely a symptom of that problem.

    As long as humans have been around there has been violence. I'm not making excuses for that violence, but humanity has in general gotten along fine. Look at the level of violence depicted in a lot of anime that officials in the US feel the need to censor. Yet Japan maintains extremely low crime rates.

    Sometimes I think trying to shield children by depicting an unrealistic, utopian fantasy is a big mistake. It renders them poorly equipped to deal with the harshness of the real world. I'm not advocating they participate in violent blood sports, but as always everything in moderation is best.
  • The real issue... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 7Prime (871679) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @02:31PM (#19584083) Homepage Journal
    The real issue here, above and beyond the "do games make people violent?" question, is why are adult gamers demanding such violence? "Please consider the opinion of the adult gamer," sort of disturbs me, somehow. Why is the opinion of the adult gamer, consistantly, "we want more violence!"? 30 years ago, this level of violence was unthinkable. It's not the violence itself that I mind, it's the fascination with violence that really disgusts me.

    When the topic first came up, and that pretty much started in the mainstream with Mortal Kombat, the defense was that it added realism and immersion. But to be honest, I never bought it. And that's becoming apparant now that we're going above and beyond realistic violence to DEMANDING that violence be much more prevolent than just an innocent desire to uphold "realism".

    I think there's really two reasons for this:

    1) We're not talking about adults here, we're talking 13-18 year olds. It's basically the job of teenagers to try to disgust their parents as much as possible, as a form of rebellion.

    2) Culturally, males are being taught that they're basically immoral and unintelligent, and that the only way to prove your masculinity is to be the ultimate in those areas. "I want a beer, and I want to see something naked... that's all." When better way of establishing that identity by sitting and playing ultra-violent video games with no emotional tie-in? I've seen it, 15 year olds saying, "check this out, I can cut off his head" and then go up to some guy, and chop off his head while he's screaming in pain. It basically says, "I can do this, and I won't even feel remorseful about it, it doesn't bother me, because I'm a man."

    So my theory is that violence is largely used as a means of establishing independance and gender identity. It's not the fault of video games, it's the fault of our culture for not having any possitive rolemodels to look up to. As a friend of mine likes to quote, "where have all the cowboys gone?"
        • Re:So wait. (Score:5, Funny)

          by tolan-b (230077) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @11:48AM (#19581021)
          So pretending to graphically murder someone is more suitable for younger people than watching people have sex?

          You must be from the US ;)
            • Re:So wait. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @12:35PM (#19582005)
              "I LIVE in the US and I've never understood this perspective either."

              It's actually very easy to understand. Just ask a couple of questions:

              How many high school seniors have fathered or mothered a child?

              How many high school seniors have killed a person?

              The thinking is along the lines of: "I remember what it was like when I was in school, and I don't want my child getting/causing pregnancy and ruining their life." The idea that they're going to go Columbine at a school is a distant thought.

              It's not about the act, it's about the probability of it becoming a problem in the household. I don't personally subscribe to that line of thought, but it's not like half the country took a crazy pill or something.

              • Re:So wait. (Score:5, Insightful)

                by db32 (862117) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @04:57PM (#19586357) Journal
                The whole thing still smacks of irrational fear. No different than the Osamas in Pajamas hiding under the stairs. God forbid people actually, you know...pay attention to their kids?

                However, I think its not so much about the probability of sex vs probability of violence. Lets look at US history for just a brief moment. Who came here first? Oh thats right the uber puritans...you know...scarlet letter and all. The folks that believed it was perfectly natural to burn whiches, stone whores, drown the nonbelievers, cut out tongues, and any other number of horrifically violent things...and these horrific and violent responses were frequently in response to that horribly impure and immoral SEX!. So this stuff has been ingrained into American thought from day 1. Sex is horrible and impure and an affront to God, violence on the other hand is frequently used to glorify God, so the choice of violence vs sex seems pretty easy, how else could you possibly justify stoning the whore?
            • Re:So wait. (Score:5, Funny)

              by trdrstv (986999) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @03:14PM (#19584723)

              It is very, very, very likely that someone is going to have sex.

              You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot!

            • Re:So wait. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by ChatHuant (801522) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @04:02PM (#19585363)
              While both Europe and the U.S. have a pretty retarded policies when it comes to censorship (neither violence nor sex are appropriate things for the government to censor), the idea that sex in media is worse than violence does make sense. It is very, very, very unlikely that someone is going to commit murder. It is very, very, very likely that someone is going to have sex.

              And why does it matter? It's very, very, very likely that someone is going to eat sometime, so we should censure all references to food in movies? Sex is a natural behavior, everybody will engage in it sooner or later (there's still some hope left for you slashdotters!), and educating children about sex is a much better way to go about things than making it a forbidden and hidden dirty secret. Procreation is part of the normal functioning of human race and society. Murder isn't. What's the message you send kids when you're ok showing them somebody's head blown off, but have a conniption at the accidental sight of a nipple?
        • Re:So wait. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by sesshomaru (173381) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @01:06PM (#19582595) Journal
          Ok, the NC-17 rating was never supposed to be for porn. What it's supposed to be for is movies that would normally not be able to get an R rating for content but were considered to have artistic merit.

          The best way to explain this is the film Midnight Cowboy [wikipedia.org] which got an X rating, won an Oscar anyway, and was later re-rated by the MPAA to be an R.

          Ok, this was an embarrassment for the MPAA, especially considering nowadays no one thinks an X rating is going to be for a movie with much actual content. So the NC-17 rating was created to cover cases like this. If you've ever seen an NC-17 rated film, you've probably been disappointed if you were looking for porn. (I've seen a few, like Requiem for a Dream [wikipedia.org] one of my girlfriends favorite movies.)

          However, the distribution still treats NC-17 movies as things that it doesn't want to deal with, you won't see them in Blockbuster or many retail stores. The rating has failed to achieve broad distribution for controversial films, and films that are intended to be commercial will either be edited to be R or if the director has enough clout the MPAA will rate them R and turn a blind eye to content that would earn an unknown director an NC-17.

          It's far simpler for video games. AO is the rating for porn games, period. There's no such thing as an NC-17 rating for video games, because they are currently considered to be entertainment only with no artistic value by the Establishment. Since no game will be considered art at the present time, there is no reason for an "art" rating. (Note: The views of the Establishment do not reflect the views of the author of this comment.) If your game gets an AO rating, it better fit into that niche (although... in movies porn is pretty huge for a niche, and makes a huge amount of money to show it). If it doesn't, you are basically screwed, you've probably spent to much on development to justify a niche game that will only sell on the Web (even the porn store guys that sell porn games will likely go, "you're kidding, right?" if you try to distribute it through them).

    • by ChaosDiscord (4913) * on Wednesday June 20 2007, @12:42PM (#19582157) Homepage Journal

      Nonsense. The summary made it perfectly clear why they don't want the AO mark: a number of cowardly stores refuse to stock AO games. Fewer stores means less visibility and fewer sales, even if they really only want adults purchasing the game. For a game that was expensive to produce, an AO rating can destroy the producers chance of making a profit. A Mature mark would get them into most stores with almost identical effectiveness (AO is 18+, while M is 17+ [esrb.org]).

      Exactly as many people predicted, the ratings system, even a voluntary one, has stifled creativity. The ratings system resulted in incentives for stores to refuse to stock the highest rated games to appease the whiners. Not being carried in stores reduces sales, frequently to the point of ensuring the game will be a commercial failure. Developers and publishers to restrict what they do to avoid the top rating mark. End result: you get almost nothing specifically intended for the adult market. What you do get tends to be low quality and pandering, because shameless crap is the only thing likely to make money. The end result is that the highest rating becomes associated with pandering garbage, which just reenforces the entire cycle. You're pretty much guaranteed that some topics and some styles of gameplay that serious game developers might want to turn into a top quality title will either be watered down or simply never produced.

    • by toad3k (882007) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @01:35PM (#19583121)
      Coming soon to the Nintendo Wii and PlayStation 2: a game that's banned in the U.K and probably won't be sold by major game stores in the U.S. in its current form.

      "Manhunt 2," an upcoming action game from "Grand Theft Auto" development house Rockstar Games, has been labeled Adults Only by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, according to a spokesman from Rockstar Games. Major retailers, including the big game chains, won't sell AO games, effectively guaranteeing the game won't be for sale next month as originally scheduled unless Rockstar changes the content.

      Asked whether the studio would delay the game (which is scheduled for a July 10 release), Rockstar spokesman Rodney Walker told MTV News: "That's the last thing we want, but it's too early to say."

      Walker provided "Manhunt 2" publisher Take 2 Interactive's statement on the game's rating: "We believe the process of rating video games is to help people make informed entertainment choices and not to limit them. 'Manhunt 2' was created for mature audiences and we strongly believe it should receive an M (Mature) rating, aligning it with similar content created in other forms of media. We are exploring our options with regard to the rating of 'Manhunt 2.' "

      This revelation followed news that the British Board of Film Classification -- which rates entertainment, including video games, for the U.K. market -- declared that it had rejected "Manhunt 2," denying it a rating.

      Talking to British gaming Web site MCVUK.com, BBFC director David Cooke said the game was rejected because the game "is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing."

      The ESRB did not return an inquiry about the AO rating by press time. But earlier Tuesday (June 19), the organization said in a statement issued to MTV News that a group called the Center for a Commercial-Free Childhood had been pushing for an AO rating. "We have received the letter from CCFC, and while we might take issue with some of the statements made within, we sincerely appreciate their expressed concerns. Our ratings are intended to provide guidance that allows parents to choose games they deem suitable for their children, and that is a responsibility we take extremely seriously."

      The first "Manhunt," released in 2003, put the player in control of a death-row inmate named James Earl Cash who was forced to commit grisly murders at the behest of a cackling mastermind and snuff-film creator named the Director. Kills could be committed with nail guns and baseball bats. Created by Rockstar North, the team behind the "Grand Theft Auto" console games, "Manhunt" was criticized for its violence but hailed by some game critics for its development of stealth gameplay and innovative use of sound (the Director's voice could be set to only be heard through a headset a gamer wore while playing the game).

      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. The new game would allow a broader range of weapons, including a phone and a suffocating plastic bag, actions that were glimpsed by MTV News on the PS2 version of the game that was shown at Sony's PlayStation Gamers Day in San Diego in May. While the game caused no furor at that event, such a title was sure to garner attention on the Wii, where its kills are triggered by the system's motion-sensitive controller.

      Cooke told MCVUK that the board could see no justification for anyone to play the game: "To issue a certificate to 'Manhunt 2,' on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public."