Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Manhunt 2 Ready For Release, Politicians Angered 66

Posted by Zonk from the tangled-web dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.

Manhunt 2 Ready For Release, Politicians Angered More

Manhunt 2 Ready For Release, Politicians Angered

Comments Filter:

  • 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?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      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.

  • 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

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2007 @08:39AM (#20383161)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      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
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • 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.

    • Re:Maybe this jackass should read up on the materi (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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"?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Copid ( 137416 )

        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

    • 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.

      The man is obviously right, I mean how dare they make a game available like this available for our poor innocent 17
    • 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.
      • I had no idea that something like the RSAC existed. I think it would be great if it replaced the MPAA and the ESRB immediately. I think the rating system is completely worthless.

        For example, if I'm going to see a rated R movie, do I care that it is rated R? Well it depends. WHY is it rated R? For Violence? What KIND of violence? Gory torturous SAW/HOSTEL violence? Historically accurate, albeit disturbing, Schindler's list violence? WWII Saving Private Ryan Violence? Braveheart violence? Matrix V

  • haha (Score:2)

    by alexandre ( 53 ) *
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by faloi ( 738831 )
      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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by demon ( 1039 )
        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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          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

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Sanction ( 16446 )
      Not to mention that breast feeding your 17 year old would definitely get an A-O rating...
  • 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

  • Blah blah blah. (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by pclminion ( 145572 )

    As a parent, if you're so unsure of whether the game is appropriate, here's a simple fucking solution: DON'T BUY IT.

    Or, DO buy it, and... shocking insight coming up next... PLAY IT YOURSELF FOR A WHILE to see what it's like. If it turns out to be a poor choice, don't let little Johnny play it.

    "Oh, but now I'm out $60," you whine. Shove a sock in it and suck it up, loser. This is the way it goes: different people have different tastes. There is a rating system which tries to codify this. It ain't going t

  • didn't 2 Live Crew teach politicians anything!? Now every kid in America is going to buy this game. My only thory is that this politician got paid big bucks by Rockstar to start this campaign against them. There were games far worse than this that, unless killing someone with a chainsaw and pissing on their dead corpse wasn't far enough in Postal 2?
  • 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.
  • Here's hoping that the BBFC here in the UK will change their mind (they banned the game here recently). Sadly I doubt the game will see a release here unless it is cut back or censored in some way. Still, at least the savvy importer such as myself can obtain a copy from over the water :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close