ESRB Refuses To Detail Manhunt 2 Re-Rating Logic

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."

What's the issue?

[steveo777 (183629)]

Seems cut and dry. The ESRB isn't a news source and probably has in its guidelines that it can't release any game info anyway. Come to think of it, HAS anyone ever leaked info at the ESRB? That would be news indeed.

Next story.

Re:What's the issue?

[Sinistar2k (225578)]

What is also cut and dry is that the ESRB said that content that garnered the AO rating was changed or removed to bring it back into M territory. This is no different than films initially rated R cutting content in order to achieve a PG-13 and yet no politicians demand to see detailed change lists for every movie re-rating.

Re:What's the issue?

[Babbster (107076)]

Yes, but movies don't turn children into homicidal maniacs. Don't tell me you can't understand the difference!

Re:What's the issue?

[Khaed (544779)]

Actually, a better comparison is NC-17 to R, not R to PG-13. Most movie theater chains won't show NC-17 movies -- it's a kiss of death from the MPAA. Since most retailers won't sell AO games, that's a good way to compare.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a pretty decent documentary on the MPAA ratings and board. There are a few times when I feel like they go overboard, but the general information about the ratings process and history was interesting.

I'd be interested to know how the ESRB comes to ratings conclusions. I mean I know "Violence" or "Sexual Situations" but I'd like to know how they judge them.

Re:What's the issue?

[ravenshrike (808508)]

They take an Excel spreadsheet and put up 5 columns. G is weighted at one, PG 2, PG-13 3, R 4, and NC-17 5. Then they put the events in the movie/game under each category. Then they make a pie chart of the results, put it on a dartboard, and throw 7 times. Whichever rating area gets the most is the rating of the movie.

Re:

[I'll Provide The War (1045190)]

They use a 100 point scale with 0==EC and 100==AO.

Since this is the US every shotgun blast to the face is penalized 0.1 points while a nipple equates to 75 points.

Makes sense

[ZakuSage (874456)]

Would you want the MPAA raters to give away any bloody and tragic climax found in a movie? Of course not.

Re:

[eln (21727)]

No, but I sure would like to know which of the movies they rate have particularly graphic sex scenes so I can be sure and watch^H^H^H^H^Havoid watching them when they come out.

Translated:

[spocksbrain (1097145)]

"We do not want people to scrutinize the way we arbitrarily make willy-vanilly decisions on the way we rate video games."

Re:Translated:

[jythie (914043)]

Better translation: We don't want to get our asses sued off for releasing other company's confidential information.

Oversight

[orclevegam (940336)]

I don't see any problem at all with requiring that the ESRB give details about what it objects to in games to those that request it. Likewise a think the MPAA should also be required to specify how and why it rates movies a particular way. For anyone interested in the MPAA rating process and exactly how shifty it appears to be, check out This Movie is Not Yet Rated which follows a movie as it makes its way through the MPAA and attempts to determine who rates it, and how they come up with the ratings.

Re:

[CrashPoint (564165)]

I don't see any problem at all with requiring that the ESRB give details about what it objects to in games to those that request it. Likewise a think the MPAA should also be required to specify how and why it rates movies a particular way.

I see a problem with it. They're private organizations, and their ratings are by nature a matter of opinion. There's no reason anyone should be legally required to justify an opinion. That's a road we don't need to go down.

Re:

[0xdeadbeef (28836)]

That's a road we don't need to go down.

And why not? The nanny-staters' next question will be how do we rein in this violent, smut-loving private organization accountable to no one. If the ratings are mere opinion, then Yee's opinion on the game is equally valid.

Re:

[orclevegam (940336)]

I see a problem with it. They're private organizations, and their ratings are by nature a matter of opinion.

That's an excellent point and kind of goes to the heart of the problem. Even though they are a private organization, they serve a role similar to a state agency by restricting the distribution of a game by some arbitrary rating. Admittedly there's no law that says anything rated AO can't be distributed, but it won't be carried in most stores, and if it became common place to distribute AO rated games I'd bet there would be a bunch of laws passed to regulate them. As it is there's already laws in a few pla

Re:

[CrashPoint (564165)]

As it is there's already laws in a few places (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that can fine stores for selling M rated games to anyone under 17. The fact that this private organization is assigning a rating to something that carries with it a legal burden on the distributer kind of muddies the water as to its required level of transparency.

No, there are no such laws. Several states have tried passing them but they've all been struck down or enjoined from enforcement. Also, they weren't tied to the

Re:

[grumbel (592662)]

### I don't see any problem at all with requiring that the ESRB give details about what it objects to in games to those that request it.

I don't see one either, but this should be limited to *after* the game is being released, not before.

Re:

[sholden (12227)]

I don't see any problem at all with requiring that the ESRB give details about what it objects to in games to those that request it.

Seems a bizarre requirement designed to increase the ESRB workload and allow Jack Thomspon to bury them under a mountain of requests.

They should give details *to the submitter* of the game as to what it objects to, etc, etc. Otherwise how do you know what to change to get a different rating, and whether they are being fair or if you should go public with why they are giving it

Re:

[orclevegam (940336)]

They should give details *to the submitter* of the game as to what it objects to, etc, etc. Otherwise how do you know what to change to get a different rating, and whether they are being fair or if you should go public with why they are giving it the rating they are if it seems unfair/political/etc.

That's fair, just so long as there is some level of transparency in the whole operation. I don't personally know how the ESRB works, but if it works like the MPAA does then they don't release any details at all to anyone outside the ESRB other than the final rating. If they provide the submitter with more details, then I'd say it's mostly a moot point, although I would still be interested to know as a consumer exactly what the criteria are for a particular rating, and also to have some way to verify that

It probably is a smart thing to do

[joeflies (529536)]

It probably is because that anytime there is a line drawn in the sand with something as arbitrary as a social standard, then you end up having to explain away yourself why some things fall above and below the line.

What happens if they say that "the game was rated AO because of graphic decapitation", and then the lawyers end up twisting that rule so that they can press the ESRB how come Baraka's fatality isn't an AO

It's a way that they can do ratings with an "I know it if I see it" type methodology without having to be held accountable why some things are AO and some are mature. They're an industry board, not a government agency, so I'm fine with that. I have no problems with the way the games are being rated now, and I'm ok with manhunt being sold as mature too.

Why is this surprising?

[Minwee (522556)]

Games are submitted to the ESRB with the understanding of confidentiality. All that the ESRB releases is a final rating, they don't leak the whole content of the game.

Doing anything different would be like the MPAA releasing movie ratings of "This film is rated PG for sci-fi action violence, with some mature content like that scene near the end where Darth Vader reveals that he is Luke's father" or "Rated PG-13 for intense thematic material, violent images and Malcolm Crowe really being dead all along but not realizing it".

If Dr. Linn or Senator Yee want to know what changes have been made to Manhunt 2 then they should be asking Rockstar about it. You know, the people who wrote it, made changes to it, and are in a position to release that kind of information. Hounding the ESRB for details is like calling someone's family doctor to demand details about their health.

Obligatory

[Ecuador (740021)]

What? Darth is Luke's father???
Damn you poster! I wanted to watch that movie!!!

At least I don't recognise "Malcom Crowe" so whatever that movie is I'm spared.

Anyway, since Star Wars is spoiled for me I guess I'll have to rent another flick. I guess I'll try that Bruce Willis thriller everyone was talking about a few years ago but I never got to see. Hmm... what was it's name...

Gamepolitics

[Hemogoblin (982564)]

For the last week, the website Gamepolitics.com [gamepolitics.com] has been covering the Manhunt controversy and related stories. Gamepolitics is one of the few high quality journalistic websites that covers gaming news. Check it out.

Heres a couple choice stories:
Yee: What is ESRB Trying to Hide? [gamepolitics.com]
Californias Leland Yee: Let Consoles Play Adults Only Games [gamepolitics.com]
Consumer & Game Industry Reps Weigh In On Dreaded AO Rating [gamepolitics.com]

Doesn't matter.

[Duffy13 (1135411)]

Well, even if the ESRB released their process information and it indicated that nothing was in fact changed, it would not really matter one bit legally. They are a voluntary organization, their is no legal enforcement behind their decisions. They can do whatever the hell they want. Would it possibly damage their image and put the whole self-rating system into a new light? Probably. Would it be good or bad in the long run? Tough call.

I love it how...

[by Anonymous Coward]

When the ESRB wouldn't tell us exactly why Manhunt 2 was rated AO when infinitely more violent films aren't the anti-video game croud were all for it, but when they wont release why it's been re-rated to M it's suddenly a bad thing to them that the ESRB doesn't dish out that kind of info.

The double standards of the anti-gaming muppets just go to show how utterly idiotic they actually are.

The ESRB should stand strong.

[Devir (671031)]

the ESRB is a body of people organized to self govern the Game industry. Their ratings are pretty damn clear to people with basic english reading skills"

"M 17+, Realistic Violence, blood, sexual content"
"13+, cartoon violence"

Blah blah.

Games are the 2000AD version of the Witch hunts that went on in the 1400 to 1600's. It's a distraction against real political issues that no one really seems to care about, like:
"The war on terror, we gonna catch and kill Osama or not?"
"Budget over runs and useless pet projects, like $10 million slipped into the war budget for research why breasts are getting bigger"
"reviewing our current and past laws to see which ones are outdated and should be repealed and rewritten instead of just writing MORE laws to enforce and obfuscate."

These days people care is a 62 year old senator is having sex in rest rooms, how people choose to waste their time and how long some famous hottie is jailed for.

With the ESRB holding their ground and telling these senators to get jacked, we're sending a message that we're done with being pushed around. Now we need to get the government to focus on important topics like Highway speed laws (raise the limits), Fair use copyright, catering to the consumer instead of big business, win the war on terror, stop wasting money on stupid projects and government funding and lower taxes, and review and rewrite foreign polic.

There are tons of things far more important than sex in M rated video games and graphic violence. THere is serious real world violence that needs to be quelled, jobless and homelss, corporations running amok setting repressive laws, making us buy the same item 4 times to use it in a slightly different way and so on. We need better education and understanding, not just kicking the "trouble" child out of class and watching their grades go down. We need to raise the bar on education, not lower it because more kids are failing. I know it's easier to lower standards than to fix the problem, but this is the future of our world here. Any one who watched the movie "Idiocracy" can see that is our future.

In such a "Free" country, I'm not feeling the love here. I'm not feeling the freedom to drive my car down an empty highway at 90. I'm not feeling the freedom of making a mix CD for the lady I am courting, without the fear of defending myself in court. As kids we used to share the newest computer game and install them on the school computers. Others would love that game and go buy a copy for themselves...

I feel myself straying off topic. But I'm passionate about our freedoms and how fast we're loosing them. It extends far beyond the ESRB and Manhunt, and Hot Coffee, and Bioshock. It stretches into how soft we've really become and how the innovative spirit the country was founded on is now lost in Patent lawsuits and mega corporate infighting.