Gamers greeted Friday’s surprise announcement that Manhunt 2 would receive an M rating with a mixture of glee and raised eyebrows.
Fans of the series, of course, were relieved that Manhunt 2 would see the light of day, and sooner rather than later.
Game violence critics, to put it mildly, were not pleased. Dr. Susan Linn of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood immediately called for a government investigation of the process which led the ESRB to downgrade the game from a sales-killing AO to a marketable M rating.
Jack Thompson was up in arms too. But then, as far as video games are concerned, when isn’t he?
Beyond the critics, however, GP was struck by the amount of skepticism in the gaming community. In comments to our Manhunt 2 story, some longtime readers were openly cynical:
The whole timeframe stinks to high heaven… Its gonna sell several times the number of copies than it probably deserves.
I think R* deliberately made a more explicit cut, hoping to get an AO game. That way they could market an M rated version… I find the whole thing distasteful…
I wonder if they originally submitted an “edited” version, got an “M”, and then cranked it up a notch to see how far they could push the ESRB before getting an AO rating…
I’ve come to the conclusion that Rockstar and the ESRB having been playing us in a tag team publicity stunt… Add the Halloween release date and I firmly believe they’ve been yanking our chains all along
Many GP readers took an opposite position, of course, supporting Rockstar and the ESRB process. But even at Kotaku, GP thought he detected a hint of skepticism in Brian Crecente’s coverage:
It’s official, it was all a publicity stunt. OK, maybe not… I suspect this wasn’t much of a surprise to Take-Two and the Rockstar folks. Why else would they have continued to display the game and give press hands-on time with it if it wasn’t going to make the cut.
What I’d really love to know is what exactly they cut to make the rating drop. I suspect it will be one or two levels that were easy to dispose of for little or no expense.
In discussions here, GP correspondent Andrew Eisen neatly summarized the possibilities:
Theory 1: The whole things a scam! Manhunt 2’s content hasn’t changed at all. Take-Two and the ESRB are in cahoots to placate the industry’s critics.
Theory 2: Rockstar did something simple but drastic like fading to black during the killings.
Theory 3: There was only one kill or sexual situation that earned the game an AO in the first place. Maybe all Rockstar had to do was remove the testicle trauma or put some underwear on a bordello girl.
Theory 4: Rockstar intentionally put in some truly over the top and obnoxious sex and/or violence that they never intended to have in the game. It was included solely to have something to cut out when the ESRB balked.
And then there’s the Strauss Zelnick factor. Take Two’s new chairman has an extensive and highly successful marketing background. He has described his aggressive approach to selling thusly:
The strategy is to have a direct relationship with customers and to offer them compelling, high-margin products that they want but don’t need through every channel known to man.
Did the AO controversy add buzz to Manhunt 2? No doubt. Will it spur demand for the game when it releases on Halloween? Can’t hurt.
Could T2/Rockstar have manipulated the process? While some observers saw the ESRB dishing out a bit of Hot Coffee payback to Take Two with the Manhunt 2 AO, could Zelnick and company actually have been playing the ESRB like a fiddle?
Or, is it all on the up-and-up?
Be sure to vote in our GamePolitics Poll…
