Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Manhunt 2 Ban Fallout, Game Rated AO By ESRB 384

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Manhunt 2 Ban Fallout, Game Rated AO By ESRB

Comments Filter:
  • 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?
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2007 @11:40AM (#19580867)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • 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 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.
  • Re:So wait. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sciros ( 986030 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2007 @12:44PM (#19582187) Journal
    Kids play violent games WITH EACH OTHER from early childhood. Cowboys and Indians? Cops and robbers? People aren't naturally pacifist, nor are tendencies towards violence somehow developed after puberty. For children to be interested in violence is FAR more natural than for them to be interested in watching people have sex.

    So, yeah, it IS more suitable.
  • 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).

  • 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 amuro98 ( 461673 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2007 @02:11PM (#19583783)
    That's not quite the problem...

    When you say "Adults Only" to most Americans, they're going to assume "porn". Even the ESRB says that the "AO" rating is intended for games with nudity and sex in them. Most retailers will not carry porn, and by association, "Adult Only" games.

    Personally, the ESRB's ratings are rather confusing. Consider the main ones: E, E+10, T, M, and AO.

    E is everyone, no restrictions. Easy.

    E+10 is for ages 10+. Ok.

    T is for Teenager...which is 13-19 technically?

    M is for 17+.

    AO is for adults, and in the US, that means 18.

    The difference between "M" and "AO" seems too narrow - especially when you consider the vast range that "T" covers.

    Note that you can easily get movies that are technically rated "AO" from the video store. They're simply called "The Unrated Version". Why is it that the government has no problems with retailers selling or renting unrated versions of movies that were rated R in theaters to children, but gets its collective panties in a bunch about "M" games - many of which aren't nearly as bad as some "R" movies?
  • by HTH NE1 ( 675604 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2007 @02:15PM (#19583849)
    More like a distinction between you being a witness to an execution and having you manipulate some switches, turn some keys, and press some buttons and/or pull some levers in order to perform an execution.

    Unless it's on the Wii, but then we don't tend to execute people by swinging an axe at their necks anymore.
  • 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?"
  • Rated AO-K. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HTH NE1 ( 675604 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2007 @02:51PM (#19584375)

    Well, it IS on the Wii.
    Then there may be a reason to rate the Wii version differently than other platforms, assuming that the more brutal aspects of the game even uses the unique gesture aspects of the Wii controller to mime the violent acts on screen, controlling them in real time.

    In a statement, BBFC director David Cooke said the board was unable to approve the game because it was "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."
    So the endless run of WWII games are M-OK because they use guns and have the occasional sniper scenario? (Are there any WWII games rated lower than M?) What about stealth games like Splinter Cell (I've never played it)?
  • Re:Um. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by psykke ( 870031 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2007 @04:59PM (#19586385)
    Original Manhunt was terrible as a game, and I don't expect this to be much better. So good riddance.
  • by ShaggyIan ( 1065010 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2007 @05:44PM (#19586981)
    Porn movies don't bother to go through the ratings process. That's why NC-17 exists. Porn got into the "how many X's can I put on this box?" wars.

    NC-17 is a death knell for non-porn movies. It basically limits you to niche independent theaters and video. Movies like Hostel edit themselves down to get down to an R rating. Mainstream movies do that all the time, because the earnings potential difference is huge. In addition, they can make even more by releasing the "Unrated" version on DVD.

    AO sucks for games because it cuts out virtually all retail channels for purchase. It becomes internet only, which requires a credit card and more direct intent (few impulse buys). There have been repeated attempts to make the AO rating legally binding, but all have been struck down (so far). Doesn't much matter though if the store refuses to carry the title.

    Those ratings also affect the advertising for both movies and games greatly.

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Working...