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.

Digg!

Comments

on the one hand, crap, 25% is a big cut to it's market.

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...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

Yup, I've refused to jump to conclusions about this game because I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, it sounds like an AO game, so I don't really have a problem with it, my concern is the BBFC and their banning of it, that's something I'm planning to take up with them though.

Huh. Interesting. I hadn't read this before.

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 empty people will bemoan the decision as corporate censorship.

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.

It serves to purpose to the public for the ESRB to have the AO rating. The difference between 17 year olds and 18 years olds being able to buy the game is non-existent. I dont know about the rest of you, but the day i turned 18, i underwent no ground-shaking metamorphosis. 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.

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.

@unclecaveman

"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"?
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

How long till JT decalares victory?

[...] Well, it’s official. What do you think of the decision? Link [...]

Well, the free fame bought for it by Thomspon and co will ensure that it will sell wherever it appears on the shelves, so kudos to Jack and the 'Ckicken Likkin' crew, the sky may not be falling, but rather than a rather obscure game that wouldn't appear in the mainstream, you've created a 'must buy' for anyone not allowed to play the game by insisting that the game recieve the rating that it had already recieved.

Way to go guys, If I ever start a gaming company, I want these people on my advertising team.

@Tom

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.

I think I'll throw my two cents in for fun.

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.

@Ryan

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.

My analysis of the situation

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.

[...] UPDATE: That didn’t take long. Hold firm, ESRB, hold firm. [...]

@Ryan

"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. ;)
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

"How long till JT decalares victory?"

What, he hasn't already?

Give him 12 hours. Maybe 8.

@Jabrwock

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...

I've no problem with the AO rating, we can't really say 'Kids don't play Adult Games' and then complain at an Adult Rating. The problem is, the Anti-Game crowd use what is called a 'ratchet' mechanism for introducing censorship, they screamed for an AO and the game ended up AO (In fact, it was AO BEFORE they screamed, but that won't matter to them). You can be certain that the next time round, they'll be screaming for outright banning, it's a ratchet, once you can lock yourself at one level, you start aiming for the next one.

It'll be interesting to see how things develop in the next few months.

Is this going to set a precident? GTA4 better be M.

Sorry, just thought this required clarification. The Ryan who posted regarding the change between 17 and 18 year olds and the Ryan who posted "My analysis of the situation" are two different people. I am the second one. Sorry for the confusion but I just thought I should clear it up. I didn't see the first post, it was likely posted while I was writing mine. I'll go by Ryan T. if anybody wishes to adress my post.

@Theory?

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.

Wow. This story commentd up fast. The game probably deserves the AO. The big question issue is not just retail. Target, Best Buy and Wal-Mart won't carry AO and they account for a substantial percentage of game sales. THere's also the platform consideration. Will Sony and Nintendo allow AO content on their systems? Historically, they haven't.

@Ryan.

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).

This is just a theory, but with all this attention this game is going to sell out incredibly fast, and then the major retailers are going to suddenly decide to stock it.

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.

That is what happened to....I think it was 25 to life. There was some crappy cop game that the politicians rallied behind last year. The developers even told the politicians that it wouldn't have sold as well as it had if they hadn't given it so much attention.

@Kirk

@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.

I don't see what the problem is. Given what this game is about, isn't it obvious to anyone that only adults should play it? So rate it adult only, go by the book, that's fine by me. Just don't come whining to me when some kids get their greasy hands on it through some other ways, 'causing some kinda ruckus. It should be their parents responsibility to keep them away from this.

Here is some Manhunt 2 footage. Not that violent as far as Manhunt.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AHO529esQ5U

Just one more thought on the "will GameStop stock it?" question...

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.

Can anyone verify if Nintendo is going to allow it to still be published to the Wii?

My beef with this is that someone goes to point out that an AO rating is akin to an unrated version of a movie, comparing t&a and violence.

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

This'll be a cult hit now. Obscurity and controversy makes b-rated chop schlock horror movies into cult classics with a following.

@Dexee

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.

HA HA HA HA too funny. Serves em right. You can be a good game with violence or you can be a game that uses it's over the top gonzo brand of violence to "beg" for "im"mature people to buy it. Manhunt and Manhunt 2 are both the later type of game.

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.

We really have to stop comparing movies and games. While both have artistic merits its the interactivity of games that diverts them from comparison.

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.

Good point Ryan T. I didn't think profile. Plus since Gamestop has already taken orders (c'mon does anyone think that Gamestop will give back money!?!?) That can be a good logic to a larger release if the game stays AO(doubtful).

I've got my money on the game being brought down a notch by R* to get a M rating.

Something to keep in mind...

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.

This is the only thing I've ever agreed with Jack Thompson on(Other than Rap) I think the game isnt a good idea period.

Yeah I didn't read the whole wall so I don't know if everyone is still arguing about the game/movie comparison... but a movie doesn't need to be porn to get a NC-17 rating. Look at hatchet or the August Underground trilogy. It's pure violence.

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.

@Ryan
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...

*le sigh* OK, can I ask a couple things?

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?

@IMRavnos

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.

ESRB's definition of the AO rating:
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"

As I said in the last news post: (reworded for current info)

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.

"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."

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).

Remember, a retailer has no requirement to follow precedent though, their decision to not have the power of law, so if Walmart decided to stock Manhunt 2 and yet not to stock other AO rated games, there's nothing really that anyone can do about it, you could try crying discrimination, but because Walmart pay for what they stock, it is their own property, and therefore their decision what to buy and sell, at least, that's the way it works in the UK, otherwise you'd not be able to move in Tescos for all the different brand names.

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.

[...] The ESRB has issued an initial rating of AO (Adults Only) for Manhunt 2. Um.. really? Come on this game is the bloodiest and most evil of them all. And thats why we love it! Source | gamepolitics See the trailer Here [...]

"there are no Walmarts in the UK"

Wow. There's a place on Earth that isn't covered by that parasite?

*DOUBLE NEWS FLASH*

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.

*DOUBLE NEWS FLASH*

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.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Code Avarice's Paranautical Activity make its way back onto Steam?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
quiknkoldif that makes me petty, then I guess I'm one petty sob10/22/2014 - 8:48am
quiknkoldwell I'm sorry Conster, Having my skull smashed in when I was 14 made me skeptical to apologies when it comes to Bullying regardless of the platform its given. I guess Bullies beat the sympathy out of me.10/22/2014 - 8:47am
ConsterOn an unrelated note, I'm missing a "heck if I know" option on the poll.10/22/2014 - 8:33am
ConsterIf someone offends a bunch of people on twitter, they should apologize on twitter, and not accepting said apology because it's "only" on twitter is petty.10/22/2014 - 8:22am
BillThe first link is 4 days old, I didn't see it until today.10/22/2014 - 8:19am
BillJust posting them for the record since they have become part of the GG narrative.10/22/2014 - 8:17am
Billhttp://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/21/Incredibly-GamerGate-is-winning-but-you-won-t-read-that-anywhere-in-the-terrified-liberal-media10/22/2014 - 8:14am
BillOh yeah, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/17/Supporting-GamerGate-Does-Not-Make-You-a-Bully10/22/2014 - 8:14am
BillThere are now two pro GG articles on Breitbart today, one by James Fudge's favorite "quotes out of context" writer Milo. Amazingly Milo claims GG is winning.10/22/2014 - 8:13am
quiknkoldhavent seen any apologies from the "Other Side" except from Boogie, and he made a video, and I saw him give his apology and I accepted it.10/22/2014 - 8:03am
Michael ChandraWhich usually is "the guy is an ass and I don't really believe it, but fine, benefit for the doubt THIS time and no second chances."10/22/2014 - 7:58am
Michael ChandraI'll accept his apology for something that, no matter whether a joke or serious is way out of line, just as much as I accept apologies from others.10/22/2014 - 7:57am
Michael ChandraRefusing to accept an apology that is done through the same medium and does not sound horribly half-assed is just plain childish.10/22/2014 - 7:56am
Michael ChandraPeople on 'both' sides of the debate have screwed up and apologized without such acts. Where's your criticism on the other side?10/22/2014 - 7:56am
E. Zachary KnightReason posted the second part of their GamerGate story: http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/22/gamergate-part-2-videogames-meet-feminis/10/22/2014 - 7:51am
quiknkoldagain, I dont accept any apology when I cant see their face when they give it to me. He needs to do a video, or do something positive like charity or whatever.10/22/2014 - 7:15am
Michael ChandraBut that's the case with every apology, isn't it?10/22/2014 - 5:57am
Michael ChandraDon't get me wrong. The guy from Gawker screwed up, and he acknowledged that and apologized. Whether people believe him is a second thing.10/22/2014 - 5:57am
Michael ChandraTranslation: "We screwed up but are denying it by saying we don't support groups that bully despite us doing exactly what such a group wanted us to do."10/22/2014 - 5:51am
InfophileAdobe: "Adobe sent Ars an e-mail that said, "Please read our Twitter response to this matter.""... You do realize Twitter isn't the best platform for an official response, right?10/22/2014 - 4:23am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician