This video contained so many levels of stupid I can't even begin to comment. Did anyone else notice that the audio cuts out right at the end?

LOL Less than a paragraph in and it's already being called a 'Video', says it all really.

Godamarky,

THEY didn't say the game was marketed to kids, The key word is "Critics"

The CRITICS are the ones who are referring Manhunt 2 as that.

SO what are they saying is violent, the kid playing the game or the game itself. They keep saying "downgraded its rating" as if the game is exactly the same for both submissions to the ESRB.

They could have used better sources and looked at the ESRB and how they rate games.

In the end, just another example of shoddy reporting for shock value.

Aren't reporters supposed to research a topic? I thought that was considered the standard.

I'm actually a little pissed about them using some random 17 year old. There had to be a better person to use as a counter-point. Did they even try to ask the ESRB about the game? Oh, wait. That would require effort.

E. Zachary Knight hit the bulls-eye.

Edward R. Murrow is spinning in his grave.

This news article plays up the sensational angle while misconstruing some facts that nearly half they mentioned is actually less than half, about 42% if my memory serves (and it probably doesn't at this hour). Also, referring to any M-rated games as "for kids" is irresponsible on their part as well, as is not getting anyone in the game industry on screen. Aside from this games issue, I have never heard of Senator Yee, so I am not sure if he is prominent either.

Its sad to here about parents that don't recognize an Mrated game from another...

This news article's nothing I wouldn't have expected. And I'm not totally convinced that it was sensationalism for sensationalism's sake (can you say repeating consonants?). The way I read it, the network gave a stripped-down, digested version that leaned a little in Yee's favor. But that's to be expected. The TV media doesn't care too much about us right now, so of course they'd be in favor of Yee and what he was doing. If you ask me, though, they could have spent a little more time with the kid, asking him if he thought video games cause violence.

Well, that was remarkably free from bias. Suprising really. Still, it proves that a 17 year old kid is a little bit smarter than Mr.Yee.

BlackIce,

Just because Leland Yee has a Ph.D AND is a politician does not mean he is more insightful and informative than your average person. Yee has a liberal agenda and he'll push it every single time he can, and the audience he caters to believes in the liberal "nanny state" concept as well.

Maybe you already know that, but some Ph.D's are "book smart common sense stupid" types.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand I do agree with Yee in that the ESRB needs greater transparency so people can understand how they come to the ratings that they do; although I feel this way about the MPAA as well to be honest.

On the other hand I understand that the industry is making great strides on the retail front to make sure minors aren't able to purchase, without an adult anyway, age inappropriate material.

I guess I'm glad they don't have a good wmv plugin for linux firefox... I saved myself getting a stupidity headache...

@Commander Toad
You made a good point about how TV news is heavily biased against video games and gamers.The dirty tricks that old media is pulling are getting more outrageous as the days go by.New media (games,internet) are a major concern to old media corparations.Old media has lost a large amount of market share in the last few years.18 to 30 year olds are not watching as much television as they did 10,20 years ago.When it comes to it,it all about the money.Thus increasing the bias that a local news broadcast can give.Take a look at newspaper biz,local and national newspapers have lost a lot buisness over the last decade because the internet has gobbled up most of their marketshare.The lost of that marketshare eventualy resulted to smaller paychecks to local papers and local TV stations.This leads directly to the anti-new media bias that we been seeing lately.

@lumi

Your long comment directed to commander toad wasn't needed.

(I think i've lost the plot again - bloody memory)

A 17 year old should be able to play any game he/she wants to IMHO. Nothing magical happens to you the second you turn 18. No maturity faeries fly through the window at 12:00 midnight on your birthday and sprinkle maturity dust on you making you suddenly and miraculously mature while a minute before you were not.

@ BlackIce

O...kay...not sure why you had a problem with my post. I'm pretty sure everything I said was factually accurate.

For a what precisely?

Umm...ok. Going to give up on trying to type all that out again.

@lumi

I'd love an Edit option.

Still, when was the last time anything was enforced in Britain? (Sodding country.. it's only just started to warm up! We'll be in a Neuclear Winter next..)

@BmK

The problem with that is that there is no problem. As soon as anyone important sees that however, you'll be labeled a Liberal Slimeball.

@BlackIce

Funny you mention that as Liberals, at least today, are the main offenders when it comes to nanny-state type legislation trying to place more restriction on youth under the guise of protecting them from supposed harm.

For the love of cute fluffy kittens:

- They are called video games not videos. When you call them videos you give the impression that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

- Manhunt 2 is not a game for children. It’s recommended for players 17 and up. It says so right on the box. Can you not read?

- When asked about the re-rate, the ESRB did not say, “Trust us,” it said, “Publishers submit game content to the ESRB on a confidential basis. It is simply not our place to reveal specific details about the content we have reviewed, particularly when it involves a product yet to be released. What can be said is that the changes that were made to the game, including the depictions themselves and the context in which those depictions were presented, were sufficient to warrant the assignment of an M (Mature 17+) rating by our raters.”

- It’s not a big deal that the 17-year-old kid in this video was able to buy an M-rated game. That’s not against store policy and follows the rating’s recommendation. Maybe if the kid was 14 you’d have a point.

Andrew Eisen

@BmK

Politics is a very strange world that never makes sense. It's Latteral thinking in Spades.

@E. Zachary Knight

Sounds like an interesting book. I'm also a fan of Michael Crichton, or at least i was back in the day, so I might pick it up. I'm not much of a reader of fiction any more though.

Yeah great point counterpoint, a state-senator elected by the people vs. some 17 year old kid. What's next: Hawkings debates an 8 year old about the origin of black holes? Yeah this whole thing was done in a pretty biased manner, I really don't like seeing bias in reporting and I generally go with the attitude that news people try their best to be objective (I thought Star Jones, despite sounding extremely out of touch and even openly admitting her own bias, did make an effort to give an equal amount of time to both sides and present as much factual information as possible) but this was rediculous. Oh well, what can you expect from some shitty local news station?

@BlackIce
"Know thine enemy"
Yee knows alot, he just ignores it to get him elected, push his own agenda. He doesn't seem quite as crazy as JT....

@lumi:

I don't believe we need to enforce a regulation. The rating system is a voluntary guideline to make suggestions. It should not be the retailer's job to know if an unattended kid has parental permission to buy a game. It should be up to the parent to know, and to discipline their kid appropriately if they disobey them. If they don't do that, they can live with their mistakes. It's not the job of the retailers or anyone else to act in loco parentis.

@ Mr. Blond

Going to have to agree to disagree on part of this. I DO believe retailers should be held accountable. To do otherwise would basically remove the teeth from the rating system.

Despite the fact that parents SHOULD be the only necessary line of defense for filtering the media that their children consume, it would be unrealistic that they could do so without any help. They should be able to assume that their 12 year old child isn't going to be able to go out and buy an M rated title, just as they should assume that they can't just go out and pick up a bottle of vodka or Marlboro Lites. (Note that I said BUY, not OBTAIN...I know that those things can all be obtained by alternate means).

I DO believe that there are mature games out there that younger children probably shouldn't be playing. Not necessarily because I think they're going to go shoot up a school (video games == NON-factor...bullying, on the other hand, I would attribute 99% of the cause of school shootings to, but good luck on ever seeing effective legislature even considered to address that problem, but I digress...), but because it may simply be something they aren't ready to deal with, emotionally or psychologically. I know when I first saw a scene from a Nightmare on Elm Street movie (I was 7 years old at the time), it scared the everloving crap out of me for weeks.

Some kids eat that stuff up, and at an earlier age. But not all of us. It's a case-by-case issue (hence the need for responsible parenting) but we do need to have some sort of standardized guideline to work off of (the rating system). And if we don't make an attempt to enforce our rating system, then it really doesn't mean anything at all.

When I have children (and I definitely plan to one day), I'm certainly going to be paying attention to what they read, watch, and play, and determining for myself what I think they're ready for. But I sure as hell better not catch some kid at a retail counter selling him something he's not old enough to buy by the ESRB rating if I'm not there with him to verify the purchase.

I wonder why a video game publisher or the ESRB has never sued a news outlet for libel. This seems like a good opportunity and it would show the media that they can't get away with inaccuracies (or lies, if your more cynical) in their reporting. I'm not saying they alwasy get the facts right when it comes to other issues, but at least they have to make an effort.

@BlackIce
It's not about who knows more about games it's about who knows more about convincing other people he knows more, Yee knows enough about convincing people he's right to convince (presumably) at least 51% of his constituents of that assertation. The 17 year old kid on the other hand is a 17 year old kid. Anyway, it's also worth pointing out that the way the article summarizes the video is somewhat misleading, the kid doesn't even really provide a counterpoint at all, if anything he backs up what Yee was saying, all he essentially said was "I thnk a lot of people will want this game," and "I managed to buy a violent video game that my parents didn't want me to have." Nowhere does the video even imply that the ratings drop was due to Take Two doing a recut of the game, it acts like the ESRB just decided to drop the rating out of some malicious hatred of society.

Quick side-note to BMK and BlackIce in particular but it's really a general thing that's been buggng me for several different articles and several different people are guilty of it:
In today's political climate censoring video games is not a "Liberal nanny-state" agenda. And also it is not a "Conservative moral-preaching" agenda. It is a "get stupid people (the majority of the American public) to vote for me so I can have a job" agenda, so can we all please stop bringing up random partisan dribble be it random, out of context Bush-bashing for no particular reason or the whole "Democratic pussies want the government to decide what's good for you" thing. There may be a few times where it's appropriate in the context of an article but frankly I have yet to see it. None of us here like Yee's (D) stance on video games any more than we like Swarchenegger's (R.)

Again, its upsetting to see most of the people in this country believeing this bullshiat.

Any gamer would and can point out, as many of you have, that all these points are WRONG that this ad addresses. Its TERRIFYING to see the majority of people in Cali NOT upset about this ad and all its false points.

I am truly scared.

i'm getting sick of two common misconceptions:

1) the MPAA is a government organization
it is a self-governing organization exactly like the ESRB. only difference is it has been around longer. it was created for exactly the same reasons.

2) violating the MPAA ratings (aka selling R-tickets to minors) is illegal.
while it may get the ticket-seller fired, it is not illegal. the MPAA ratings are there as guidelines of appropriateness.
when i was a young teen, i loved horror movies and my parents signed a waiver allowing me to rent them from the local video store, if it were illegal they'd be in jail.

It is so stupid all the problems that this game is making for everyone. Sure its violent, but who cares, kids see more violence on TV in a few months than they will see in the same time playing this game. It doesn't matter what you do to prevent these kids from buying these types of games. They will eventually find a way to get their hands on it. Weather it be pay someone to get it for them, or burn their own copy from the internet. Yes the game is very violent, and the harder everyone tries to keep it out of the hands of todays youth. The harder these kids will have to work to get their own copy. Who cares just give it to 'em their just gonna get it any way. "I know that I will."

On a second note, you can't blame the industry itself for persons under the age of 17 buying the game. How about asking the retailers themselves? They're the ones who sell it.