It's Official: Manhunt 2 Rated Adults Only by ESRB
It's Official: Manhunt 2 Rated Adults Only by ESRB
June 19, 2007
This just in from Take Two Interactive, publisher of the embattled Manhunt 2:The ESRB has issued an initial rating of AO (Adults Only) for Manhunt 2.
We believe the process of rating videogames 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.
Beyond that, T2 isn't talking. It is unknown exactly when the AO was assigned to Manhunt 2, but it would have to have been less than 30 days ago, based on earlier comments by ESRB president Patricia Vance.
GP: For a video game publisher, the economic impact of an AO rating cannot be overstated. It means that major retailers like Wal-mart, which by itself accounts for about 25% of retail games sales, will not carry Manhunt 2. There is an appeal process available to game pubilshers who wish to dispute rating assignments.
Comments
And the internet is hencforth set ablaze ....
Before the whining gets too bad, I'd like to point out that WE haven't played it, so we can bitch about ideals all we like... until we've played the game and know WHY it was rated AO our opinion is no more valid than the pixel-antis who want to abolish it.
Flame on!
As has been mentioned, this doesn't definitely mean the final game will be rated AO. They can make edits if they want to.
And honestly, I'm not sure if I want to see TT fight this too much. The audience that wants to get the game will have avenues of getting it. Being rated AO might even score it bonus points in certain circles - 'it's so shocking EBStop won't carry it!' And if TT fights to have the rating brought down, it puts them in a very dangerous position in which watchdogs might accuse them of wanting to make the game easier to sell to minors.
ESRB likes to do its part to keep offensive games off the shelves as they see fit. The employees arn't really qualified to rate games, or movies, or anything for that matter.
Its a organization that knows very little about what they actually do and are often extremely biased toward giving video games harsher ratings than say a more legitimate organization would a movie.
None of can honestly say that we didn't see this one coming. When the original Manhunt came out even mose game reviewers said that its level of violence was just too much. If the sequal is even more bloody than the first how could the ESRB retain credibility and not give it an AO rating? I'll grant that this is supposition on my part but we need to look at the big picture. The game is not, I repeat not being censored. The government isn't saying that the game can't be sold. While some may be irritated that they have to order the game online now, retail stores have the right to choose what they will and will not sell.
Keep in mind too that Rock Star will likely appeal the rating. Though to be fair I'm more than a little agreived that they decided to make Manhunt 2 in the first place. Mainly because its just more bad press for the gaming community.
My only other complaint is that if this came out in movie form would it be NC-17, R, or XXX. I think it should be a level playing field.
Too much power resides in the arbitrary decisions of CEOs at Wal-Mart and the like, and not enough in the hands of the people, the people the ESRB are supposed to be providing a service to.
Let's ask the MPAA to rate it then. I'd agree that if it was a movie, it would be rated R.
"ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."
I think its clear that Rockstar have made every effort to make Manhunt 2 THE most violent and bloody game ever to be released - I think an AO rating was to be expected, particularly following the BBFC's decision to ban the game altogether.
I hope the decision to ban the game in the UK is reversed - it is never right to censor a form of expression - the AO rating, however, will most likely stay. R* brought it on themselves and have to hope that the hype generated for them by Jack Thompson and others will be enough to make the game a success in spite of the loss of shelf space in the major retail outlets.
Yes, the ratings usually err on the side of caution. If they didn't, the ESRB would catch way more flak than it does these days and might not even have stayed around this long. The government would love to rate (censor) content; the ESRB might do so as well but to a much lesser degree, and we should be glad to have the lesser of two evils.
Oh the ESRB doesn't play the game they simply reveiw a collection of its content, so much of what they are rating is forced to be taken out of context. So anyone who argues that we havn't played it yet doesn't have much of an arguement because the only people who have are the testers at Rockstar.
Anyway, I just can't believe the dramatic turn around in support for the ESRB, just because the ESRB isn't doing what you guys want it to do.
They have a better basis for making a decision then anyone here does.
Hostel 2 was so violent it wasnt funny. HOWEVER, a 17 year old person can get into theaters to see it. Whats 1 year?
Double Standard alarm goes soi soi soi soi soi soi.
I got to ask how would you suggest they play a game that is 100+ hours?
or a game that has no ending?
When Jack Thompson uses his argument against GTA that players can run around killing hookers and EMT's, he fails to point out that its the players option to do those things. RockStar isn't holding a gun to peoples heads that forcing them to make those decisions, how do you even rate a game based on what someone MIGHT do?
You are really sounding like a pro-Thompson troll. Fine, you want them to have to play through every minute of the game? Of a game that's over 20 hours? Just to get the same level of verbosity in content rating that movies get, when people whine when they get over 3 hours long?
Get over yourself, alright?
Video game developers/publishers submit examples of all the worst content in the game, that they know of. With the sole examples of GTA and Oblivion being the 2 games that "slipped by" with lower ratings, due entirely to content that either was meant to be pulled and made 100% inaccessible(hot coffee), or was in fact nothing but a texture mesh which is shared between both genders, with the only difference being the model used(the male texture gets stretched over the female torso), to which they put internal censoring in(ugly as sin bras), which required modders to remove in order to "Access."
I'm sorry, your entire argument falls flat. the MPAA wouldn't rate this game any higher than R, if it were a movie. As a movie, it would be no worse than Hostel, because it would then be non-interactive. And you know what? An R rating for a movie, means nothing once it hits DVD and any Tom, Dick and Harry can rent it, or even send their kid to rent it from a video store.
This isn't porn, you know.
And as for the content being taken "out of context"? How, exactly, is it taken out of context? Is using a chainsaw to cut someone's head off less violent if it's in an open field full of flowers, than if it's in a dank basement corridor? Can it be less violent to smash someone against a power box, with glorious intent to kill them violently, if it was meant in "self defense"?
Then again, maybe you don't see any difference between.. say, Heavy Metal and Hustler? Or Venus and a sex doll?
There was a time when the MPAA was a new invention, and it took them a while before they found what was and was not "acceptable". Back when the MPAA was dealing with the "new media" of film, they originally gave The Wild Bunch an X rating for violence, and rated today it would be a tame R. A Clockwork Orange was rated similarly.
Now look at the ESRB, a fledgeling organization and dealing with the "new media" of cutting-edge interactivity. You can't expect everybody to be experts at such a new craft. There are all new challenges when rating interactive content, and the level of interaction (such as motion control) is a challenge nobody has ever had to consider before.
Are you saying that you're more of an expert than they are? What makes you more qualified than they are to rate Manhunt 2? Or is your answer just "I haven't played it, but it should be M rated"?
Are you seriously suggesting that somehow the MPAA is more qualified to rate GAMES? They rate movies, that's what they do, that's what they're good at. They are no more well versed in interactivity than you are, and like it or not the more "realistic" interactivity is likely the reason for this AO rating.
I get the feeling you have an inaccurate vision of the ESRB and "the real world" in your head. Maybe you're young and naive, maybe you're just the type of person who has to "fight the power!", I don't know. But this isn't just a black and white issue. Game ratings are subjective, certainly, but somebody has to make that decision... and like it or not the ESRB are the most qualified people we have for the job.
Again, as I said elsewhere, the people who want the game here in the U.S. can still get it. The manager I spoke with at the EB Games I was at earlier this afternoon said he would still sell it at his store regardless. The rating is just there to drive home the point it is not for kids, plain and simple. AO need not be NC-17. It is not the kiss of death. If people want the game, they can find a way to buy it. This will help to silence the critics as there won't be any doubt who this game was made for. And if there is enough demand, then other rteailers may change their policy.
It most likely deserves the age rating (and at least youll still be able to get it!) but its bad news in the way that most stores wont sell it.
Meh, fuck walmart. People should be TRYING to stop walmart from carrying thier games/movies/music/whatever, just so that the people who want to buy said product will finally start giving their money to a better retailer. You don't see any Nine Inch Nails music in walmart, and it certainly isn't hurting Trent Reznor's pocketbook. So like I said, fuck walmart.
This is business. Overreact much?
Nobody is banning speech. Nobody banned anything. The ESRB put a rating on a game. Now retailers can choose to do what they will with this game, and if they choose not to carry it then you buy it somewhere else.
GameStop is probably giddy right now, because they're going to get all of Wal-Marts customers :)
This company sucks. They have YET to release a good game, seriously. I've tested each one and they all suck harder than the last. They just want money at this point. God forbid they should lose money on a game that's already available on other platforms and sold in said retail outlets.
The Wiimote, whether you think so or not, is definitely a worthy factor to consider when rating this game. The system has a much broader target audience than the Playshit 3 and the Xbox 3sucky. An audience that ranges into a very young demographic. For an example, see the new Mario Party commercial where a bunch of 12 year old girls are having a slumber party bouncing on their beds playing the game. That's not to say those same girls would have ANY desire to play Manhunt, but that's far outside the point. The point here is, there is a different level of interaction and a much broader audience to consider.
The ESRB was facing serious pressures, the game got banned in the UK, it'll probably be banned in Australia, what do you want them to do? They have the parents to answer to, not Jack Thompson, not Rockstar, their actual clients, the parents.
So sorry that this is something that offends you guys, believe me I'm on the side of justice, but I'm going to have to side with the ESRB on this one. Perhaps instead of just instantaneously getting mad that you won't be able to get the damn game in a store, you should take an objective look at the matter and realize that this is a bit bigger than some Jack Thompson hullabaloo or whatever you may see it as.
If anything, they probably added more gratuitous violence to the game and more bloodshed, just to push it over the top. If you set out to break records, you want to remain on top as long as possible. It's going to take a LOT to beat a game that was crafted to be as vicious as this one, so it'll wear its AO crown with pride.
Newsflash: Gamestop refuses to carry AO titles too.
If the game had content that fell into the ESRB's "Adults Only" guidelines, good for them for rating it "AO." Consistency is the best any content ratings system can hope for.
If Rockstar sells the game with the AO rating, good for them, too. It shows they are willing to stand up for the content they are creating, and not buckle under the pressure from mainstream retailers to edit their vision.
If a few more high-profile "adults only" games like this start to sell through, it might even help the general public start to realize that video games are not "kids only" after all.
Source?
A local gamestop was carrying the re-rated AO San Andreas, you just had to ask for it at the counter. They may have been breaking company policy, of course, but I have my doubts that they wouldn't take full advantage of the situation to get the extra customers.
on the other hand, maybe this is what's needed to break the stigma that AO games = porn that seems to have gripped the marketplace... which really is the only real reason that Walmart refuses to carry AO games...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_conte...
Apparently this isn't the first game to get the AO due to violence... The Punisher was originally going to get an AO and they had to tone it down to get an M rating.
The cup half full people will quickly realize there's a supply and demand hole here and think of ways to exploit it.
If I was Rockstar Games, instead of bitching about this, I'd start looking for alternative avenues to sell the game right about now. I'm pretty sure the game wasn't about to set the sales charts on fire anyway, but if Rockstar Games makes some smart decisions within the next few weeks, they could easily salvage any lost sales from Walmart and other corporate hypocrites.
There's nothing more powerful than marketing a game with "they done tried ban this mfing game, but the man failed. Here's where you can buy it." Then sell it $5 less than the competing game. Add retailer incentives for selling the game, and you'll have independent retailers flogging to the game. I'd freakin' sell it, if I had the capital to warehouse a few thousand copies. Have a steady stream of add-on / dlc content (for free) and keep on selling.
In short, the Mature rating says all that needs to be said about a profane piece of software. The AO rating is a punishment to the developer; A scarlet letter for the whole industry to take notice of.
Perhaps there should be this line in the sand for developers. But the ESRB, which primarily functions as a public information outlet, should not be the ones who draw it.
"Uhh, there’s a sex scene. I’m sure that has something to do with the AO rating, not just the violence. Everybody is making it out like the violence is the only thing taken into account. When I see animated sex, complete with full on nudity and pelvic thrusts, then yes, I would say that deserves an AO rating. "
Do you have a source for that? I've only seen nudity in the "concept art"...
Or were you talking about the "Hot Coffee"?
Way to go guys, If I ever start a gaming company, I want these people on my advertising team.
The ESRB has been doing this for years now, it's not a new organization. And if anything, they are pro-game industry, being that they are funded by the ESA. If Manhunt 2 doesn't deserve an AO rating, which we all admit we have no idea if it does or not, then what does? At some point there is a game that deserves AO, or otherwise we might as well toss out the rating if we are never going to use it.
@nobody in particular
This is not censorship. The game can still be published and sold. ESRB has no responsibility to the sale of the game. You could blame Sam Walton's legacy for refusing to sell AO games, but nobody blames them for not selling porn. It is each retailer's choice to sell the products they see fit to sell. They could decide to never sell another Take Two game, regardless of rating, and you can't say a word about it.
So maybe when you go to 7-Eleven or Circle-K, you ask for Manhunt 2 along with your copy of Playboy from behind the counter, as opposed to going to a mainstream retailer.
For starters, all of you whining about how the game got an AO: It's bound to be a completely gory game. Frankly I'm stunned the original got an "M" to start with. When you set out to depict blood and gore in a game, you're producing something that you know at the start isn't for any kid who cannot handle what they're seeing in the correct light. As a safe bet, that category consists of EVERYONE under 18.
For those of you whining about the incompeence of the ESRB: You do KNOW who rates these right? They're supposed to be averages joes with NO ties to the commercial side of game industry, watching material and making judgements based on their own set of standards.
and for the one brilliant mind accusing the ESRB of banning free speech: The ESRB isn't banning anyting. They're doing thir job and putting a label on a game. They, nor the government, has a say in what the retailer chooses to or not to sell. Grow up.
For what it's worth, I'm almost certain that Rockstar will make a fairly decent sum of it, just for the fact that the game was rated AO. Fans of the original will go out of their way to find people selling the sequel.
With all that off my mind, I don't think I'm gonna buy this one. The original was a trifle too graphic for me to complete anyway.
Perhaps, but from a legal standpoint there is a difference. 18 is generally considered to be legally "of age". Under 18 is still a minor by the law, granted that it doesn't always make sense but that's the way it is.
I'll say this again as well. No one is censoring the game. Stores have the right to refuse to sell a product based on its content or place of origin. No one is saying that the can't be published or that it can't be sold. I'll trust that the ESRB has given it the correct rating and see what happens. However its more than a little disengenuous for TT to be complaining about the rating. After all because of their own undisclosed content the ESRB got set back five years or more and had to stand up to ridged scrutiny.
Fact: The ESRB has distributed exactly 1 AO raiting in the past for violence (note, I’m counting violence ONLY, with the absence of sexual content) nearly 10 years ago in Thrill Kill for the PS1
Fact: The adults only rating is meant to be the worst rating imaginable, with games receiving this rating in only the most extreme of circumstances.
Fact: R* designed Manhunt 2 to be the most violent game ever created. Hell, read their OWN descriptions of the game. Even if Manhunt 2 could be surpassed in terms of sheer violence, the attempt means an awful lot.
Ok, taking these 3 facts into account, let’s do some reasoning.
Scenario 1: ESRB issued an M rating for Mh2. This sends the following message to the entire world:
“We will not issue the AO rating for violence alone”
Bellyache at me all you like, it’s really that simple. I have a fairly good idea that the ESRB didn’t want to send that particular message.
Scenario 2: ESRB issued an AO rating for Mh2. This reinforces their basic premise behind the AO rating. They say in their own description that it’s handed out only in the rarest of circumstances, and these circumstances fit. The ESRB rated this game the only way they could, without losing all credibility attached to their rating system.
A lot of people here are angry that the “censors” got exactly what they wanted. In a way, I guess they did. Manhunt 2 is going to have quite the uphill climb now that it has this rating attached to it, but I don’t see it that way.
Wal-Mart isn’t going to sell Manhunt 2 now, and neither are a couple other mainstream retailers. But what does that stop, exactly?
Does it stop:
A: You (who, as long as you are 18, can purchase the game Online or hunt for it elsewhere?)
B: The casual gamer (Who probably wouldn’t buy Manhunt to begin with (the sales were lousy on Mh1) If the casual gamer wanted the game, they can hunt for it just like you can.
C: the Under 18 crowd
The only correct answer there is C. They are “censoring” this game by doing the exact thing the rating is supposed to do, stopping minors from purchasing it. There is nothing going on here that hasn’t been possible all along. When the censors have truly won is when the games can no longer be made, or can no longer be sold at all. What you people don’t seem to understand is that, had the ESRB not issued this rating, the would have been perceived as fundamentally weak. It would be open season on them, and I promise you, the ones who replaced them wouldn’t be as nice as the ESRB has been in the past. The ESRB needed to issue this rating in order to survive, and it was also (probably, again I havn’t played it but it sure sounds like it) the right rating to give.
"To define a 17 year old as Mature, but an 18 year old as Adult seems redundant if not an absolute reverse of the truth; since one can in fact be an adult and be nowhere near mature."
No different than saying you're not old enough to die for your country, vote & run for office, be automatically tried as an adult, etc, but you are once that magic day occurs. Or for some states, drinking & looking at boobs when you turn 21...
I completely agree that just because you're an adult doesn't mean you're mature, but the line gets drawn for simplicities sake. Imagine having to argue before a judge every time you want to do something that requires a license, or certain level of maturity... as if there wasn't enough red tape. ;)
What, he hasn't already?
Give him 12 hours. Maybe 8.
This review says there is a fight scene that takes place in an adult movie theater with a movie playing in the background, among other pornographic scenes:
http://www.gamesradar.com/us/wii/game/news/article.jsp?sectionId=1006&ar...
It'll be interesting to see how things develop in the next few months.
Actually a few things... First, so far, it's been said that Manhunt 2 will recieve an AO rating, not just Manhunt 2 for the wii... so unless we hear that the other versions of the game get an M rating, that would mean that only the content was really considered for the rating, and not the wii. Second, the ESRB's decision to make the game rated AO was all on it's own... Considering when the game is coming out and what was said by Vnace in the other GP article, i would wager that they decided on the rating a couple of weeks ago. News of "protect the children" groups demanding an AO rating of the game as well as the UK banning the game didn't come out till earlier today. Unless the ESRB takes to the UK's rating group (which i doubt), they would not be buckled under any pressure to rate the game anymore then they normally would.
@Terrible Tom
Have you seen anykind of game footage of the game? cause if i recall there only trailers out, trailers of which do not contain nearly as much footage as what the ESRB is usually given. Meaning, the ESRB and other rating groups are the ONLY poeple around who can say what the game should actually be rated... you have little to no basis for saying it does not deserve an AO rating and that the ESRB is wrong. Hell, considering the UK went as far as Banning the game, i'd say the violent content of the game is pretty damn extreme.
And ofcourse, as the ESRB has shown wiht the game the Punisher (before it was edited and resubmitted), that they are willing to give the AO rating based on violent content if it warrents it; it's not a rating that is only reserved for games that contain a lot of sexual material. The ESRB has an AO rating for a reason, because their is such thing as content thats more extreme than what falls under the M rating. If you want to whine about the AO rating, don't whine to the ESRB who are just doing their job and trying to remain consistent with their ratings, whine to the retailers that refuse to carry the game which hurt the sales... i mean, if AO was carried by retailers just as M rated games are, i'd imagine you probably wouldn't be whining right now.
You are missing the point. It isn't just a few major retailers. Try all of the major retailers. I only saw one store sell an AO game (Fry's Electronics had the AO version of Leisure Suit Larry) and I doubt that will occur this time. AO is the equivelant of a brick and mortar ban of the game. As well as a online ban (Wal-Mart.com will not carry it). Finding a website...a trusted website... that would sell the game would be a HUGE pain.
I do agree with you though that we shouldn't be upset about the AO rating in general. The only problem I will have is that some parent organization will try and claim credit for "putting parental pressure on the evil ESRB".
Ultimately though, we should be upset at the lack of availability for an AO game (this inhibits the game from being sold period).
Personally i hadent planned on picking it up, but after all the mud that has been slung about it and its banning in Britain or atleast refusal to be rated it seems more like an exercise in my rights than just some video game, and that makes it worth getting.
@Kirk
That’s a reasonable point, I was perhaps overly general with my initial analysis. But, I still think that it will largely be an “if you build it, they will come” type of scenario. Anybody who wants Manhunt 2, and who was willing to pay 50 some odd dollars on the game to begin with, will probably be willing to find where it is sold.
I also think you are missing the big picture. In the past, it’s been difficult to find AO games, this is true, but I somehow doubt the fact that this game is somewhat large in profile than any other Adults Only game ever released will be lost on a lot of retailers. Rest assured, it will probably be easier to find than you think it will.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AHO529esQ5U
They have been taking pre-orders for months. Imagine the awful PR when GameStop tells all gamers that they refuse to honor those pre-orders due to censorship.
I can't imagine them being that stupid.
So how come I can go get a copy of Hostel (Unrated) at Wal-Mart, but won't be able to get Manhunt2 (AO)?
It's the same thing, after all!
This is just another example of the lovely hipocracy we have ni the US
Since it just barely received the rating a few hours ago, I doubt Nintendo has even made a decision yet (unless they had already knew it would probably be AO).
Nintendo were the ones that approached R* about putting it on the Wii. Nintendo wants it on the Wii. That leads me to think they're probably secretly happy that it will be such a controversial game... it certainly helps Nintendo get away from the kiddie image that people associate them with.
I'm no prissy when it comes to violence but it can go too far and as far as video games go we all know that most parents are partly RETARDED and do stuff like buy their 13 year olds San Andreas because little timmy really really wants it bad. This is the ESRB doing what it was designed to do, keep filth from childrens eyes and ears.
To prove my point, anyone under the age of 18 comment here if you played San Andreas or Manhunt.
In movies you are a passive observer, and while your andrenaline may go up and down during particularly frightening or exciting scenes it is not the same as playing through the scenario as a participant.
I've got my money on the game being brought down a notch by R* to get a M rating.
Retailers who do not stock AO games will not 'cave in' because of demand, it doesn't matter if it's the most popular game ever or if they have a million pre-orders for it... if they let Manhunt 2 on their shelves, they have no choice but to open the doors to a mountain of porn games, too. They do not care if a game is AO because it is too violent or if it's because there's too much sex.
And still, this shouldn't be AO... the only reason for it is the motion sensors, not the game footage itself.
Still, I don't care what it's rated because I'll be able to get it regardless. I would just rather pick it up in a store instead of wait on and pay for shipping, etc.
The difference is that 18 is the "age of majority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Majority
I'll paraphrase for you: until you're 18, whether you like it or not, your parents still have both legal control over you and a legal responsibility for you. So unless you're legally emancipated like Macauley Culkin (who at this point is way past the age of majority), your parents legally control your access to this ultraviolent media.
Not that I see why it matters to you, since you're over 18...
1. Have we seen this game yet? How can we say it doesn't deserve an AO rating if we haven't seen it.
2. Is this for all versions, or just the Wii version?
3. Didn't the ESRB say that it officially rated the game BEFORE all these people got mad for the wrong reasons?
Well, I'm never one to favour Censorship, mainly because it suggests that people are too stupid to decide for themselves, if a game is awful, it won't sell...unless it's been censored.
But, I do, however, agree with you that the whole 'slash and stab' genre of game is getting far too long in the tooth now, the only reason it has perpetuated beyond the sensible 'fade' point is because of the attentions of censors, and the extra profit that such attention brings. I'd like to see a shift in the market back toward more cereberal games, it's a position I've often stated, certainly, Eastern Europe is starting to produce Space Trading and Empire Building games of exceptional quality, whereas the American Market seems to be relying entirely on Spore as it's 'original' game.
So, I don't agree with this censorship, but, personally, I'd prefer they'd just leave the entire Genre alone so that it can fade a bit and make room for other styles of game.
ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
MPAA's definition of the R rating:
In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them. An R-rated film may include strong language, violence, nudity, drug abuse, other elements, or a combination of the above, so parents are counseled in advance to take this advisory rating very seriously.
Now NC-17:
In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them. An R-rated film may include strong language, violence, nudity, drug abuse, other elements, or a combination of the above, so parents are counseled in advance to take this advisory rating very seriously.
So as far as whether an AO is directly analogous to an R or an NC-17, it's up for grabs. There's a big difference between the implied definition and the actual definition. So far as most parents are concerned, NC-17 means their kid isn't going to see it no matter how old he may be. Same for an AO game (assuming the parent is sufficiently educated about the rating system). The fact that most retailers won't carry an AO game might be simply a market decision because history has shown most AO games are... well, crap! You look at the list of AO titles and the vast majority fit the community standard definition of porn in areas those stores service (which stores get in trouble for even if it fits into the gray area). The leftover games... well, it's so much better to have a blanket policy than spinning the business rule to "we'll sell games rated AO if they were rated on violence instead of sexual content"
I'm glad it’s AO, I hope Nintendo OKs it, and I hope this ends the final debate of "we need to protect our children". Fuck off… it’s AO. If you’re too stupid to know what MATURE means, maybe an ADULT ONLY rating will get these stupid politicians to abandon the age old "must protect the childrens" ploy. I hope rockstar stands their ground and doesn't appeal the AO.
That's an interesting point, and a probable explanation why there's an NC-17 rating AND an X-rating for movies.
Of course, the other way to look at it is that they can stock whatever they damned well please. If they want to stock AO game #27 but not AO games #1-26, that's their right as a retailer. In fact, that's exactly what they do right now with small-market game titles. Unless they feel it's worth the shelf space, they won't put the game in their store... publishers often have to bribe them just to stock a particular niche title (you get X copies of Halo, but only if you're willing to buy X copies of Grabbed by the Ghoulies).
I'm not saying that means Walmart will or won't consider stocking it, I don't have the faintest idea on how the operate and there are no Walmarts in the UK, but just pointing out that if they wanted to, they could.
Wow. There's a place on Earth that isn't covered by that parasite?
Sony and Nintendo do not allow AO games to be published. Retailer policies are irrelevant in this case.
I assure you, your time is better spent on Pac-Man:CE anyway. That's should be AO because it IS crack.
Sony and Nintendo do not allow AO games to be published. Retailer policies are irrelevant in this case.
I assure you, your time is better spent on Pac-Man:CE anyway. That should be AO because it IS crack.
Well, They just guarenteed i buy this game now ;o)
I'm not quite sure what your point IS, but I'm under 18 and have played both of those games. SanAn was pretty fun, but VC was better. Manhunt was just useless violence, without too much interesting gameplay.
And I agree, it will be interesting to see what happens with Nintendo on this one. Maybe they will shift policy.
Just because retailers choose to sell Manhunt2 does not at all mean they have to allow any other AO rated games. The retailers have the full right to choose exactly what they want to sell and who they sell it to. If they want to make an exception for Manhunt2 but refuse all other games, that is their right. Publishers and gamers can whine all they want about it being unfair, the power is in the hand of the retailers. Unlike laws, retailers can make adjustments and exceptions to their company policies all they want.
Ya'know i'm actually wondering if atleast a few retailers may make an exception for Manhunt2... i mean, the whole reason i think they have that no AO rated games policy is because AO rated games usually have sexual content that goes beyond what those retailers are willing to carry. Manhunt2 however, if it doesn't have sexual content any worse than any other M rated game, would get it's rating based off of it's violence. So i would wonder if atleast a few retialers would take that into consideration in determining if they would be willing to carry it, or if they are solidly against AO ratings no matter what the reason... we really don't have any past to go off since any game that would have recieved an AO rating for violence was edited and resubmited for an M rating.
@JBourrie
Well, Gamestop could still choose to honor the preorders, but once those are out of the way and they get rid of any remaining intial stock of the game they have, the stores could just cancel any resupply of the game... honor the preorders and THEN stoping selling it.
@Ryan
It's true that those who want the game will find a way to get it, but the problem for publishers is that a majority of games sales are more like impulse buys or customers who only halfheartedly want the game. Those kind of poeple may not be willing to go looking for a game that they can not find in their local Wal-mart... I recall asking why wal-mart of all retailers made up the most sales and i believe the responce someone gave me was because many of the games sold are bought by poeple who just say the game and bought it on impulse or poeple who are just to lazy to look anywhere else to buy a game.
@Dexee
@n8n8baby
I don't recall any cases of Sony or nintendo forbidding AO content on their systems, though that could be because many games that would get an AO rating are edited and resubmited to be knocked down to M rating... not to mention the only current AO games out there are the sexual ones; though GTA wasn't exactly banned from the PS2 after it was rerated to AO, whihc means atleast Sony is willing to make exceptions... and also that this game is probably AO for violence not sex, which could make a difference. However, i kind of doubt Nintendo would refuse the game at this late stage in the game. Nintendo is often seen as being a rather kid friendly company, an image which tends to push away many M rated developers which in turn, turns away the older audience. As it is, the Wii will only be getting a handfull of M rated games, unlike the other consoles which get many. This is why Nintendo went to rockstar in the first place, to attract more developers and get rid of "the nintendo is only for kids" image... Stopping Manhunt2's release (especially only a few weeks before release) may seriously damage their chances of attracting more developers. Honestly, if i was a developer(especially a really good one who could make a lot of money on any console), i would be rather turned off by that kind of news.
I mean, video games cost millions to make... the last thing you would want to happen would be to complete the game only to have it turned away from the console because the game is too violent... Sure, Nintendo does have a few M rated games on it and they might say that they would only do it for AO rated games, but with their current track record, that's not the message that the publishers and developers are gonna see... their just gonna see "nintendo is a kiddie company that doesn't like violent games"... they'll just say screw it and go make games for Sony and microsoft
Considering that footage shows only one violent back attack and a shotgun shot from close range, while trailers and such imply a much more violent game, I'd be willing to bet that that's only the tip of the iceberg there, and is not much compared to what the ESRB has probably seen while they were rating the game. Again, we are in no position to judge what this game should be rated because we have not seen what the ESRB has seen.
The ESRB has it exactly right.
But AO games SHOULD be sold in most retail stores.
I'd argue we NEED this rating for special circumstances, but the fact that AO basically means "BANNED" we need to fix the AO problem before we start effectively banning games aimed appropriately at adults.
-GamerDad
How can you rate a game that you havn't played. I'm not saying you need to play through the entire thing but I fail to see how want to rate a game and only reveiw a movie displaying its content that isn't even reflecting anything besides parts that people might find offensive.
And even that isn't my main beef with it. The fact their entire rating system is flawed and they are just average joes that think they can do a good job rating a video game.
I'm slowly loosing faith in the game industry's ability to stand up for artistic expression. I personally havn't seen any results even worth mentioning, I feel like my money would have served me better if I would have given it to Ron Paul. At least he keeps busy and tries to get things done.
Rockstar is awesome, not many companies would have the courage to even try to release such a game. People need to be pushing the envelope and I just wish someone was there supporting them and also trying to fix the way games are rated. Sure my ideas arn't the best but I can't honestly say the way it works now is any better.
Not only does the game industry have to worry about politicians and anti-game activist there is also pseudocensorship in the process of assigning ratings(which seems to be our own fault) and of course lets not forget the fact they seem to be afraid to do anything about it because they fear its going to make it worse. Fear is for the cowardly and the weak. I'll fight alone if I must.
With you 100% on that, actually, the important thing here I think it to get people to accept that Adults play games to, and like those little 'card games for couples' you can get from XXX-shops etc, Adults like to play a little differently to Children.
I think you've hit the nail on the head that the problem, really, is with the AO rating itself, it's not represented well enough, the problem isn't that retailers 'market to kids', so much as retailers (and anti-gamers) don't understand the concept of marketting video games to adults.
2001 GBA license agreement, in section 4.3:
And I'd almost bet money the Wii license has the same terms. Take 2's current license with Microsoft (SEC filing, scroll waaay down), section 4.4 reads in part:
Haven't been able to dig up Sony's yet though.