August 24, 2007
For Rockstar, things are suddenly looking up.Manhunt 2, saddled with an Adults Only ESRB rating in June, announced today that an edited version has received an M (17+). The new rating will enable the game to be licensed on console systems and sold by major retailers.
A Take Two press release has more details, including a comment form Sam Houser, Rockstar founder:
Manhunt 2 is important to us, and we're glad it can finally be appreciated as a gaming experience," said Sam Houser, founder and executive producer of Rockstar Games. "We love the horror genre. Manhunt 2 is a powerful piece of interactive story telling that is a unique video game experience. We think horror fans will love it.
Comments
Why would Rockstar spend the time and money creating two versions of the same game, especially running the risk that the first version they submitted would get a suitable "M" rating?
http://www.gamepoliticsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2909
funny how quickly R* got that edit done... almost as if it was really easy to do...
hmmmmm
"Manhunt 2 is back with a capital M"
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Cue Mr. Thompson to harass someone over the release.
As such, NOW I'm curious as to exactly what got changed in order to move the rating slider back a notch. I wonder if there's a way I could find out some exact specifics on this. It's not as if playing the game on its own in its now-current state will provide answers, so my curiosity remains piqued on the issue...
Who to contact to find out, though...
The real irony is, the game wouldn't be set to be half the seller it now is if it wasn't for that Press Generator and its relatives.
I think R* deliberately made a more explicit cut, hoping to get an AO game. That way they could market an M rated version as "the Man didn't want you to get this game". I find the whole thing distasteful and won't support R* ever.
You could e-mail Rockstar and Take Two or perhaps hope that someone will interview them regarding this topic but I think the best way to find out would be to wait to see if they release an AO or Unrated PC version through online distribution. That way we could find out for ourselves.
I highly doubt your theory. Manhunt 1 pushed the envelope a lot and some complained it should've gotten an Ao rating, for manhunt 2 everyone expects Rockstar to push the envelope further and that's what they did, rockstar pushing too far doesn't seem that unlikely of a scenario.
That's fine, but I think such a high profile game getting AO for whatever the reason called a lot of awareness, and certainly sparked a lot of debate, as to the rating itself.
Add the Halloween release date and I firmly believe they've been yanking our chains all along
"If the ESRB rated it before and it got an M I think we would have heard about it before just now. We probably would have heard about it as it got rated AO."
Not necessarily. The ESRB just commented that it's "normal" to have multiple submissions in order to achieve the target rating the publisher is looking for. They didn't comment on how many submissions R* made prior to the AO rating that R* was venting about.
Then again, they might just have had two versions on the shelf, and just submitted the "gorier" one first to see if it would pass. Oops, AO, ok, submit the "toned down" one after we get to vent about AO ratings...
Not a bad idea on that second part- I imagine that since they got the go-ahead to put the game on consoles now, they'll probably be a bit more receptive to putting some form of the AO version on PC at a later date.
Still, if it turns out they'll answer my question, I'll see if that route works too. Maybe I'll get lucky.
"I’ve come to the conclusion that Rockstar and the ESRB having been playing us in a tag team publicity stunt. It benefits them both."
This is turning into a conspiracy theory. ;)
I doubt they were in cahoots. R* already got the ESRB in enough trouble. I think it was R* baiting the ESRB for a publicity stunt is all...
With all this free publicity Manhunt 2 will sell enough to warrant Manhunt 3 (which will undoubtedly be for the next gen consoles).
The ESA is a conspiracy. I've been to their secret meetings, they dance in black cloaks, and their blood orgies are unforgettable. You haven't lived until you've seen Patricia Vance and Michael Gallagher make love in a vat of rabbits blood while they conspire media domination
Hell, turn off your tv, and stay away from newspapers while you're at it.
Just maybe... R* is playing you all for suckers and planned this whole thing to go down just like it did and frankly, I'll bet a box of donuts that the edited content doesn't amount to very much at all.
donuts WITH ICING!!!
"Why would Rockstar spend the time and money creating two versions of the same game, especially running the risk that the first version they submitted would get a suitable “M” rating?"
Easy, by making a small handful of easily editable scenes "gorier" than MH1, which was facing calls to be re-rated AO. They know the ESRB won't go easy on them, and will likely rate them more harshly than ever, so they just crank it up a notch in those few scenes (increase blood, more disgusting sounds, no blur, longer scene duration, bigger knife, slower, deeper slicing, no fade to black, stuff that's easy to do in header defines).
A quick discussion with the ESRB to discover that it was in fact those scenes that caused it, and they just go back and enter "gorelevel=4" instead of "5", and recompile & submit. Piece o' cake.
If what you say is true (and I doubt it is), then Rockstar effectively acted as a con man. The ESRB has come out of this with criticism from both gamers and developers, meanwhile the anti-gamers will completely ignore the fact that rockstar edited manhunt 2 for a lower rating, like they always do.
This situation wouldn't be so bad. Id be totally ok with this because its raising awareness of the struggles game developers face with the AO rating. I'm sure many people learned more about how consoles don't allow AO rated titles.
It is completely normal for game developers to submit the same game numerous times. I'm not sure the legality of the ESRB commenting on how many times a game is submitted but I'm sure its the standard practice for games trying to meed the rating requirement. I guess its possible it was rated M before it was rated AO but I think they could have edited it down and released it while the media storm was at its peak. I think if they were looking for maximum sales it would have been best to get it rated M, push it to get it rated to AO and then after you get the media's attention just fall back on the M and release it while everyone is still running around like chickens with their heads chopped off. Its kind of settled down now and people aren't as uppity about it so I think if they were only looking to trick the people the time has already passed.
Yuka - It will probably take a little while. They want the M rated one to sell pretty well then they will drop the AO and perhaps if we are lucky an expanded unrated one on PC. Although for your research on why the game was rated AO you would probably rather have the original AO rated game for PC to be released.
"I am neither that smart enough, nor that stupid enough"
So while it may work out in the end, i highly HIGHLY doubt it was intentional. I think the skeptics in this topic are being a little ridiculous.
It would've been way to risky to attempt such a marketing strategy, they could've risked a much more horrible outcome than what happened.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach to me as far as an unedited PC release goes. Exactly the one I'd make given the situation, really. Fair enough call- I'll see what happens with the PC version. Still, if I find a way to contact the right guys on the issue, I'll do just that in the meantime.
Pretty much they had a version of the game, thought "This might be AO, but you never know...it might be M too. If it's passed as it is, great; the shock value will sell it. If it's rated AO and we have to change a few parts of it, the publicity from the change will sell it."
It was a win-win for Rockstar as long as the game eventually comes out. Not exactly "artists trying to push the envelope".
-P
amazing o_0
Hopefully there will be a directors cut or something on PC.
However if they did leave it in, it could potentially be hacked. Remember the hidden code for R* other game....
So if they did use some kind of gorelevel thing, they would have to delete the code for the higher gore stuff, or use some preprocessor commands and probably a custom compiler to ignore the higher gore code from compiling into the binaries.
but if the gore gets unrealistically high (e.g. 50 gallons of blood per person), wouldn't that call for a M-rating rather than an AO-rating?
Good for Rockstar and T2 that they were able to work with the ESRB to bring a title back into the category under which they wanted to market it. Would not surprise me to learn that the actual changes were relatively insignificant in so far as they actually affect game play.
In all seriousness though, if Rockstar did sneak something like that in there and made it unlockable by such methods, it would be a HUGE slap in the face to the ESRB.
They claimed it would be too difficult to edit and they'd have to scrap and start over and the game may not even come out and if it did it wouldn't be this year
who else remembers them saying this?
its fishy!! damn fishy.
Personally, I have no problem with there being two difference versions. It isn't a unique idea to release two versions
It's a shame the AO version can't be done on consoles, but hey, that was the console makers' choice.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software