Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
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.
ESRB is out of control (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ESRB is out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:ESRB is out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:ESRB is out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:ESRB is out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone have a link?
Parent
Re:ESRB is out of control (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 BBFC [bbfc.co.uk] are the British organisation that refused to give a rating to Manhunt 2 in the UK. They are also the organisation that commissioned the survey you're thinking of,
"Video Games Research to improve understanding of what players enjoy about video games, and to explain their preferences for particular games" [bbfc.co.uk] (PDF)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
END COMMUNICATION
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless it's on the Wii, but then we don't tend to execute people by swinging an axe at their necks anymore.
Rated AO-K. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:ESRB is out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Manhunt 2 - Rated so it can only be purchased by adults or with parental permission in extremely few stores.
The thing here is that an AO rating basically means it's banned. Stores aren't going to sell it. If a movie is given an R rating then who cares, every movie theater will show it anyway. That's why the AO rating is the kiss of death. Everyone keeps comparing the game and movie rating system, well
Re:ESRB is out of control (Score:4, Insightful)
NC-17 is a kiss of death for theatrical movies because they aren't porn. They didn't just lay down a few grand to get a girl who knows how to fuck on camera, find a room somewhere and capture the fun on video. If a movie is being made, and they're going for an R rating, that's still mass-market. In all likelihood it's a multi-million dollar venture, and they expect a return on that - a return they can't get with NC-17, simply because theaters won't show NC-17 movies. Hence, death.
"Owning NC-17 movies" these days is a bit different than it used to be, thanks to the "DVD special edition" phenomenon - a movie can get released to theaters with an R rating and then sold in stores with both R and NC-17 (or unrated) cuts as alternate purchasing options - the "restored footage" becomes added value. This is a strategy that could potentially work for games, but it would probably be difficult to make it work.
AO is pretty much the same. There is no practical difference between an M-rating and an AO-rating in terms of the definition: 17+ vs. 18+, one whole year. M-rating is just the version of AO that gets sold in stores. It's like AO exists separately only so it can be shunned - to make M-rating look tame by comparison.
Parent
In that case... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In that case... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:In that case... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Any Legal Objections? (Score:2, Insightful)
Rather than selling it at a retail level, utilize the free PR to mention that the game will still be sold but is only available for online download.
They put in a disclaimer, you must be 18 to download this game, jada jada jada, and then sell it.
No Steam available on the console. (Score:2)
For the blocked people (Score:3, Funny)
Re:For the blocked people (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
Parent
They should just go all out (Score:5, Funny)
Having played violent video games and used Word, one has caused me to become violent, and it wasn't video games....
What's the problem with the rating? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As yet there's still no proof that games in any way negatively effect a persons mentality in a violent manner. For every bit of so called evidence i.e. "columbine killers played games, games must be to blame" there's plenty of equally unfounded counter-evidence, for example, since Grand theft autos original release in the US, car crime in the US has dropped drastically, perhaps people are happy comitting their crime virtually? Or how about the guy in t
Violence is a serious matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
The trivialization and glamorization of violence is something that we expect only fully developed adults to manage appropriately, young people lack the necessary life experience to know better, specially children, that learn by mimicking.
A Plea From an Adult Gamer (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:A Plea From an Adult Gamer (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Games like this do affect people (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I play tetris for a particularly long time, I dream tetris. But it doesn't make me go out and stack blocks.
I support the idea of restricting games to adults. The problem is that I think most people over 18 aren't partic
Excessive regulation. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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?"
EB refunded my money on Manhunt 1, Box OPENED! (Score:4, Informative)
Well I was absolutely horrified. The set up of the game was so vile and disturbing to me that I could not bring myself to play it.
I brought it back to EB, told them that they shouldn't even be selling a game like this and that I wanted my money back. The manager quickly agreed and gave me a full refund.
Head office must have sent advance warning that any open-box refund requests should be quickly granted on this game. Curious to know if they're going to take a position this go-around and not stock the sequel.
Why the fuck? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is different how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So wait. (Score:5, Funny)
You must be from the US
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So wait. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:So wait. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. I also remember the shitty list of candidates we had. I wouldn't be so quick to judge. That election just plain sucked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many people do you know who have killed other people (aside from soldiers or police officers or something like that)? How many people
Re:So wait. (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot!
Parent
Re:So wait. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, yeah, it IS more suitable.
Re:So wait. (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly as the article pointed out, from everyone I know who has seen it, the game is much more toned down from the original in many ways, which got the M rating here despite being a interactive snuff film.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ratings stifle creativity. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the US system of movies, there's the R rating (for 16 years and older) and the NC-17 rating (for 17 years and older). These are roughly equivalent to M and AO. If a movie is R, you can see it in the