[...] Wii-Mote Control Prompts Demand That Manhunt 2 Be Adults-Only in North America - GP [Posted by Marxi Julien on Tuesday, June 19th, 2007 at 1:50 PM.] Click here to read more | Source [...]

I'll have to pick up another copy with my pre order in case it happens.

My personal opinion is that Manhunt 2 should be AO, but like the article said, it would hurt sales. I just want see an end to parents groups/half-wit politicians making overseeing ERSB committees and bad-pun ratings systems. Perhaps actually using the AO label would give the ESRB more clout. It could also stop any "violent game being marketed to children" propaganda in their tracks.

If only we could convince retailers to carry AO games. They carry plenty of violent movies too.

But anyway, isn't the M descriptor "17 and up" while the AO descriptor is "18 and up"? Pretty pathetic, if you think about it, that such a fuss is being made over a one year difference.

@Daniel

So your going to buy 2 copies of a game if it gets a higher rating.... does that make any sense?


Where are they getting the line about castration from? I would really love to see a source for that one.

Long term, I wonder if there is a way to start changing the image of "AO" games so they are not, as was said, the kiss of death.

I could see the removal of the always rather silly "M" rating helping there. Or changing it's scope.

Getting the smaller retailers to change their policies would be another step. One might not be able to convince wallmart, but gamestop might be receptive.

It's funny. I've never played Manhunt (or any other FPS for that matter... besides FEAR) but all this hype that Manhunt II is getting is making me want to buy this game just to see what they're complaining about.

I guess it's true when they say... all press is good press.

JB, Manhunt isn't an FPS. It's a third-person sneaking game (think Splinter Cell, Thief, etc.)

Frankly, I doubt that if the ESRB decides on an AO rating, it would hurt sales of the game. I don't really understand the distinction between M and AO anyway (aside from retail implications) but suffice it to say that I think the first Manhunt was deserving of an AO rating and there's no reason to think the sequel is scaled back, so it probably deserves one as well.

I lurk the blog here at GP (very nice stuff), and based on the stories I've read here, and elsewhere, I think it should be the parent's job to keep an eye on what their kids do. Assuming M games can only be sold to 18+ (I think. Maybe it's 17), then nobody below that age should have the game, unless a parent buys it for them. Therefore, the system works right up to the parent. See below.

ESRB rates ==> Retailers sell only to 18+ =/=> Parent gives game to child

I don't think we need watchdog groups to tell us that GAMES are the problem. The way I see it, parents need to step up to the plate. Would you let your child see an R rated movie? Then don't let them play an M rated game.

Seeing as the game is supposedly being created only for adults, it's not unreasonable to rate it AO. What's unreasonable is that game stores refuse to carry AO titles. If the industry doesn't take the ratings system seriously nobody else is going to. How can we say these sorts of things aren't for children, but then pretend as if the adult entertainment market doesn't exist? It's hypocrisy, and it's time to change it.

So the UK has banned it, and the watchdog groups are panicking... and yet none of us have actually played the game OR even seen much in the way of videos.

I can picture mentally what the game will probably be like, and if it's in any way accurate then I would give it an AO rating, no question. But you can't just start making demands about a game that you haven't yet played.

As far as retail outlets go, Manhunt isn't exactly a mainstream title. It is aimed at a niche audience, an audience that will actively seek out the game. If it isn't on Wal-Marts shelf it might hurt sales a bit, but to say it's the kiss of death is probably an overreaction in this particular circumstance. Very few people will be impulse buying Manhunt on a whim, and there will be plenty of access to the game if the fans know where to look (boutiques, music/video stores, online).

dude.. the wii has been printing money for a while now.

"An “M” rating is more like a wink and a nod than an effective safeguard. The industry appears to be going through its paces, but as the FTC’s most recent data show, these games are still being marketed to children."

What? I'm sorry, but since when has it became the retailer and the ESRB's job to make games that are specifically for ADULTS unavailable for children? Whatever happened to a thing called "Parental Responsibility"?

"Just thinking - why wasn’t there a big deal around Resident Evil or Scarface for the Wii? The graphic decapitations and assorted shocks in RE or the profanity and violence filled Scarface seem pretty adult oriented."


No offense meant, but this argument (which gamers make all the time for some reason) makes us look pretty ignorant. It's pretty clear that to the average thinking person, onscreen decapitations are a far cry from physically acting out garroting somebody or slitting their throat. Resident Evils violence is passive, Manhunts is (supposedly) very interactive. There's a big (*big*) difference between aiming a pointer around on a screen to shoot a virtual gun at zombies or mobsters and the methodical multi-motion sequences re-enacting a brutal murder that Manhunt gleefully advertises as it's defining feature.

You also have to take more into account than just the existence of the violence. The context is just as important: Resident Evil is you versus the zombies in a Hollywood style adventure and the stylized, over-the-top violence is a staple of the horror genre. Manhunt is based on snuff films, movies that are meant to depict real-world death, and the violence is as gruesome and painful as they can make it, intentionally trying to disturb and offend the viewer. Both of these are valid artistic uses for extreme violence, but they require different considerations when rating. Personally I can't stomach the very concept of Manhunt, while in Resident Evil I'm always going for head-shots.

Once again, I'm not going to say that Manhunt definitely deserves an AO rating, because I've never played it. But arguing that it doesn't deserve one is equally pointless, the definition of "violence" is not that black & white.

Apologies to Joshua for picking on his post here. You're not the only one to say something like this, but hopefully by responding to it others will read it as well and put a bit more thought into the situation before they make such poor analogies.

This is a losing situation either way for the ESRB. If they rate if M, they will be called on for not "protecting teh children." If they rate if AO, it's essentially the kiss of death, sales wise.

Manhunt 2 Told Us It Was Hardcore...

With the (still planned) upcoming release of Manhunt 2 for the Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation 2, and Sony PlayStation Portable just weeks away, the time has come for the outrage and the bannings over the content found within developer Rockstar's...

I'm probably gonna get crucified for saying this, but I sort of understand where they're coming from, and I agree -to a certain extent-. It's a little bit...odd to wield a shard of glass to cut someone's throat with a wiimote, and I can definettly see what they mean by "active participation". It makes me vaguely uncomfortable, to be honest, to be able to not just smash the B button or whatever to kill someone, but to swing the controller instead. Now, that said, I somewhat agree with the AO rating. If that wasn't, as GP said, a kiss of death, it may well be warranted. Not because the game is marketed to children, but because it's...I dunno, a little weird.

Of course, I have no problem with copious and frequent Lancer bayonet kills in Gears of War, so color me hypocritical. I do think, however, that this game might be getting a bit too close to the borders of good taste.

Don't ban it, don't censor it, but give the proper information so consumers can make the right choice for themselves. Maybe slap a non-obtrusive but visible
"This game not intended for people under X years of age" on the front for games like this, just to get the point across to the willfully blind parents and cashiers out there.

Just my 2 cents.

An 'AO' rating means nothing. The game will still sell well enough to kids, adults etc. Parents will still ignore their children and claim ignorance when said child kills. Besides, what parent allows their child to be 'un cool'? Bad karma all around for Take Two as they suck up to the m$ tit over GTVI download content to the tune of $50 million. Reap what you've sewn Take Two, REAP IT.

@Shariq Ansari:
I agree with a few of your points; M and AO should be merged/changed. The retail industry should figure out a kid-friendly (in that it prevents kids from getting their hands on it) way to sell AO games.

I'd suggest a 15+ rating for things like Half-Life (shooting, some blood, but nothing over the top) and an 18+ rating for this. I'd like to see them both in the same store, and (eventually) be able to buy them both. R movies are sold next to G movies. Why not sell 18+ games next to (roughly) 15+ games?

However, the changes that would require to the industry won't happen overnight. Guesstimating, I'd say at least several months would be required. Until something like that happens, I think it's the parent's job to monitor what his kid watches. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying how it is.

if you're going to rate this game AO, rate all the versions AO, not just the Wii version...

Now that that's out of the way, this is bad news for the ESRB. If they do rate it AO, then the parents groups can basically do whatever they want when they don't like the rating. Bully 2? AO. Left Behind 2? E. The next Bible Game? M for mandatory purchase.

I guess you can say we knew all this controversy was coming. There are certain things that you are going to be able to do in Manhunt 2 which some people may not find appropriate. Additionally I can see that the Wiimote does add a deeper level of game play which is not going to be suitable for any children. However, this game is not made for children and I think Rockstar isn’t trying to market this product to them. This game is for the more mature gamer (as are most of Rockstar games), and it is up to the parents to prevent there games from getting into the hands of their children. As for me, I will own and play this game on July 9th. I truly feel sorry for all the gamers that will be missing out on this fine piece of art. Regardless of how gruesome it may be, Rockstar is making it, and one way to look at this situation is that all this controversy may be intriguing the minds of some gamers who otherwise may not have known about it. This could be looked upon as free advertising, not the black Tuesday that was mentioned in the article. Of course this does mean that there will be a lack of sales for the product, but Manhunt 2 wasn’t designed as a game for everyone in the first place.

The people making this game are pathetic. Simply marketing a game on its shock factor...

Using a Wii control to physically act out the extreme violence?

These developers need help, seriously.

All I see AO as is a way to legally ban games. These watchdog groups don't want games rated properly, they want them removed from existence. This is a bigger issue in my eyes than the rating of a stupid looking game. This is censorship at its finest. They know how to make games go away, and this is their step in creating their ideal world.

On the side, I am sick of R*/Take 2. They make their fame and fortune on controversy alone.

If Take Two really wanted to clean up...

They'd hand distrobution themselves, completely online transactions, thus bypassing the major retailers.

Of cource the game would be like $90 to cover shipping costs and other kinds of crap.

But they would've effectively gotten past the ESRB and the retailers that won't stock games that are either unrated or AO.

Why are the rantings of some laughable watchdog group bad news for Rockstar? By that example every rant and email by Jack thompson should also be portrayed as horrible, seriously bad news for Take-two.

Anyway, if this was rated AO in the States we would all know about it. It would have been a too juicy piece of news to not be leaked.

If they want to have this game set as AO, they're asking to pretty much ban this game from sales. There are two main reasons why AO games are very rarely seen.

1) No console maker (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) will allow an AO rated game to be published on their console. They will effectively pull their support for the game, and it will not meet their console certification requirements.

2) No store in America, that I know of, will sell AO rated games. Even when GTA got rerated to AO, they pulled all copies off the shelves until the game was re-rerated as an M rated game.

What this group is asking for isn't a proper rating, but an effective ban on the game. This is what we call censorship.

A few thoughts on this issue:

As many people have said, no one has yet seen this game in action. I remember a lot of hooplah about how Bully was going to be a
Columbine simulator," and it didn't work out quite that way. Of course, a reasonable person can infer that Manhunt 2 is going to be waaay over the top; after all, Nintendo wanted it to be, so that their console wouldn't be type-cast as a kids-only system. Let's all just sit back and let the ESRB do its job on this one.

The difference between AO and M is a subtle one, but there is a good case to be made for not merging the two. AO, like NC-17 is a necessary straw man for the ratings board. Major retailers can say that they are protecting kids by not carrying whatever the strongest rating is (be it AO or NC-17), while ratings boards will only very rarely have to rate anything at that level. Most movie companies know when they are making smut, and just don't rate it. I think Manhunt could probably sell just fine without a rating, but they'd like to see if they can get the ESRB to rate it M so that it could be sold in mainstream stores.

There should be no difference in rating between games controlled by a joystick, a light gun, a traditional controller, or a wii-mote. I've played the Wii; the motion controls are fun, but in no way do they approach actual simulation of what's happening on-screen. Pulling two white sticks toward one's torso doesn't any more simulate strangling a human being than moving two joysticks on the PS2, or even playing tug of war, or flossing your teeth, or anything else. I remember when people were up in arms about the hyper-realism of Mortal Kombat (the original). Now it just looks silly. The "realism" of wii-mote controls are perfectly analogous.

I have no intention of buying this game and no opinion about what the rating should be. I just wish people could argue intelligently and logically about what actually is, not about what they fear might be.

I hope 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.

This is why AO should be removed as a rating and have M changed to 18+. Retailers wouldn't ban the sale of M rated games even if AO wasn't a rating, they would lose too much profit. If the retailers didn't want to carry a certain game, fine then dont carry it. I'm also sure that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo wouldn't be willing to sacrifice all their M rated titles so I'm sure this would work. The AO rating is just a tool used to censor content in games, how about we try to take that tool away from them.

I also think it would work out in terms of getting the politicians and anti-game activist to calm down. Hey look at us we are increasing the age of the M rating, happy now that its only for 18 and over?

I keep hearing this "AO is the kiss of death" claim, and yet I tend to think that we don't really have enough examples to prove that, either way. If this list is accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AO_rated_computer_and_video_games

then there have barely been two dozen games to ever receive the rating. When GTA:SA was relabeled as AO, it was already well past the initial surge in sales...but we didn't see a sudden revocation of the game from the market. But with the exception of GTA:SA and the "director's cut" of Inidigo Prophecy, virtually every game on that list is sexually explicit (and most are PC games or hentai dating sims).

That certainly shows where the bias lies with regards to violence versus sexual content....and remember, GTA only got an AO because the Hot Coffee mod on the PC version unlocked a sexually themed mini-game left in the code. Inidigo Prophecy also only got an AO rating for the download-only version that reinstated the sex scenes to the game.

Manhunt 2 would be the first game receiving an AO for extreme violence, if that were to occur. How that would impact sales is a matter for debate, since most retailers weren't carrying AO games because, for all intents and purposes, they contained sexual or in some cases pornographic content. Also at debate is how successful Manhunt 2 would be with just an 'M' rating. I mean, was the original Manhunt that big of a commercial success? It was banned in several countries too, as I recall. I doubt Rockstar is all that concerned; to them, this is just a way to develop media attention, anyhow.

You know I almost agreed with the CCFC people ... until I read the line, " ... still marketed to kids." Anyone who uses this arguement loses every shred of credibility. TTWO and R* have taken a huge hit on when and where they can advertise. No kids shows, after 10 PM, etc. Only in trade mags are they free to market to children. These restrictions are bordering the level of restriction handed to alchol/tobacco companies.

Manhunt2 is still marketed to kids? Burden of proof lies with the accuser, please provide some or STFU, CCFC.

And yes, I can gather they meant that kids will want to play this game, but realize that this is natural. Kids want to feel like they can watch adult movies, etc. I did, you did, and your parents did. Every generation has its things hidden in the mattress. It's a part of growing up, and this is, in no uncertain terms, the strict domain of parents. The ESRB, retailers, etc. all try to help out, but at the end of the day, where are these games played? In the home. Left-handed censorship of ideas (and an AO rating is very clearly just that) is an invasion of a parent's home, plain and simple. I would very much like the CCFC to stay the hell out of my right to raise my (future) kids as I see fit. Guess what, I wouldn't let any kid play this game either, but I recognize that I have no control over other people except in the case of illegal or imminently dangerous situations, and a video game (no matter the implied 'realism') doesn't fit either of those cases.

The real debate we need to have, as gamers, is whether or not the Wii-mote controls actually are realistic enough to warrant concern, in the case of pantomiming the brutal acts of Manhunt? Too bad the real debate gets lost in the activist parade ...

Personally, I used to fashion swords, guns, etc. from anything and would brutally 'slay' my younger brothers (or be slain in turn). And those games included using real-life items as weapons, bats, golf clubs, etc. So because the game is pseudo-realistic on a screen, does it mean more? I'm inclined to say that it doesn't because my imagination is still more vivid and I can distinctly remember 'beheading' my 'adversaries' many times. I'd think the Wii-mote is very similar to this type of play violence.

The difference is, of course, the subject matter, which I think we can universally agree is far to strong for most kids in Manhunt 2. Now, maybe there are some kids that can understand the right context? But who is best suited to know what an individual kid can understand?

The difference I referred to in my last post would be pertaining to aggression, attitudes towards physical violence, etc. Until the watchdogs can find and replicate studies that find a causal link between Wiimote simulations and increased actual aggression (as compared to playing with a regular controller), they're crying wolf as far as I'm concerned.

I understand both sides of this debate, however I think there's being too much dismissal of the context of the control issue. Maybe that's an unfair assesment but its the reality of the situation. This isn't a game like Twilight Princess, the entire point of Manhunt 2, like its predecessor, is murdering people in the most gruesome manner possible. Using the Wii-mote to enact and simulate this has to be taken into consideration as it is part of the entirty of the context. If Manhunt 2 gets an AO rating for the Nintendo Wii version it will do so because of the context in which the controller is used. I've never played the first and I'll likely never play the second, in large part because I don't like what the games are portraying. I do think that if Manhunt 2 is going to be as violent as they say, with the only purpose of the game being controvesy and gore, then all the versions of it should get an AO rating.

@ WizarDru

Thrill kill was also a non-nudity game that was coming out of the PS.

But after the first few scenes were shown to the esrb, and it got its AO rating, poof, it was no more.

I have to disagree with you Brandon, I don't think the CCFC really has any understanding of what games are.

I think the controller issue is being appropriately dismissed, especially concerning the complete lack of objective evidence presented by those claiming the game should be rated AO on the Wii. If the purpose of censoring games such as Manhunt is to curb whatever violence may be inspired by the game, doesn't it make sense to establish a link between the specific style of gaming employed in Manhunt and subsequent violent acts? Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, but simply banning a game just because it offends your sensibilities - or the sensibilities of what you perceive to be the average person - is absolutely unacceptable. And let's make no mistake here; considering how the current ESRB system works, an AO rating would in essence constitute a constructive ban.

Twilight Princess, Red Steel, Medal of Honor, and Call of Duty had you slashing individuals with swords, beating them with blunt objects, grappling with them, shooting them with a variety of weapons, and tossing explosive devices at them.

This is madness!

who wants to start an angry e-mail campaign against the ESRB and the CCFC?

Unfortunatly, that would be a waste of time. Like the CCFC would give a darn what we have to say. Also why should write angry letters to the ESRB? Just wondering.

I think it should be totally okay for the game to get an AO rating and that it should still sell well to its respective adult audience. Why should the game developer fear the AO rating due to retailers unwillingness to sell AO games... the developer can sell the AO game on their own website or at internet retailers like amazon.com etc

I think it is wrong for developers to try and modify their game vision to avoid the AO rating to get the M just to be able to sell more

I think it is a myth that AO will sell less than M for a game that is clearly intended for very adult audience

CCFC - ccfc@jbcc.harvard.edu

ESRB - http://www.esrb.org/about/contact.jsp (no e-mail provided)

BBFC - General - contact_the_bbfc@bbfc.co.uk
Feedback - ithelpdesk@bbfc.co.uk



ESRB has a flawed rating system, why not let them know about it with a flood of e-mails? I hate censorship and the ESRB can effectively kill a game just by rating it AO. Its not right.

I'd say E-Mail all the politicians you can find, as well as the CCFC with mass mails URGING them to look into the real facts and not just the watchdog groups that will scrounge up anything and everything to get a little spotlight.

I'm registered on the Democrats' blog on their website, so I'll make a post there this evening. I go by "Foxwood".

@Terrible Tom:

I agree, but if they don't parents are gonna ignore the rating anyway and buy it for little 6 year old Jimmy Whines-a-lot just to shut him up...

[...] If you’re already tired of the Manhunt 2 discussion, read no further.  However, a recent Gamepolitics post, in which the head of the CCFC called for the game to receive the kiss-of-death “Adults Only” rating, got me thinking… what on earth is the distinction between Adults Only (18+) and Mature (17+)?  Is the ESRB really arguing that there’s a meaningful difference between an 18 year old and a 17 year old? [...]

I see the CCFC failed to take my advice (http://alinktothefuture.com/2007/06/18/an-open-letter-to-the-ccfc/).

That said, what on earth is the distinction between "Adults Only" and "Mature"? Is the ESRB really arguing that there's a meaningful difference between an 18 year old and a 17 year old? That's pretty absurd.

Seems like a good argument to abolish the AO rating entirely.

@ cusman

Interesting points. Manhunt 1 was hardly a best-seller, and it was on the shelf. So will an AO rating, keeping purchases to specialty stores or the internet, necessarily hurt sales, if Manhunt 2 is well and truly intended only for adults?

In practice, however, I am of the belief that an AO rating has been reserved for pornographic games, despite its intent to the contrary. And as such, an AO rating has a chilling effect at best, or at worst - left-handed censorship.

However, the ESRB is well within its limits in assigning such a rating, and I will trust their judgement. Perhaps an AO is warranted. I wouldn't know until I play it, or see scenes from it first hand. Personally, I don't think it will be given an AO, since most of the 'content' I hear about is speculative, or hyperbolic word-of-mouth from critics like the CCFC, and gamer press is little better. I will wait until its rating by the ESRB, the game's release, and it's review by GamerDad. Then I will feel informed enough to pass judgement. Or I'll buy it outright because it's a big, stinking deal, like everyone else.

@"A Link to the Future", Geoff
Are you really arguing that there's no meaningful difference whether or not you are eligible to vote, or be drafted, or purchase pornography and firearms, or be held accountable for your actions as a legal adult?

For the sake of argument, why not bring the MPAA into too? "R" movies are suggested for people 17 and older, while "NC-17" movies are intended strictly for people...17 and older(!).

If you believe the ESRB, its ratings and descriptors are intended as more than just abstract age-cutoffs to blindly accept. I think it can be confusing when we focus too much on the numbers instead of the meanings behind them.

I totally agree with abolishing the NC-17 rating as well but thats not my concern right now. The ESRB has a greater effect on me.

I don't have a problem writing a professional essay, letter or other response its just that this is a blog. I wouldn't dare send out a essay or a letter as crude as my posts here but they would certainly convey the same message without any appologies. There has to be a method of having our responsed heard instead of located in unread e-mails or in a giant bag of unread mail to a politician. Maybe a few of us could get some kind of media attention many of us probably couldn't.

Serrenity-

If you have any ideas on how we can have well though out responses heard and not fall opon deaf ears then I'd certainly be willing to listen. I mean so far non of my e-mails have been responded to, and if I get something in the mail from a politician is a generic thank you for your letter response that they send to everybody.

I’m talking about 14-16 year old gamers who quite possibly THINK they’re mature enough to play games like this..

I think that if you're old enough and responsible enough to have a job or driver's license then you should be able buy any game that you want.

@Terrible Tom

The idea is to have an organization attached to your name -- a non-profit group, something to that effect with an informative website (ie moveon.org or something similar) to get noticed beyond just a polite thank you.

For example, something like the CCFC -- a non-profit that has some credibility. I know generally how to get one started, but its well beyond my ability to do alone.