GP Exclusive - Audio of Today's ESRB Manhunt 2 Press Conference

GP Exclusive - Audio of Today's ESRB Manhunt 2 Press Conference

November 2, 2007
GamePolitics has audio from the ESRB's just-concluded press conference on the Manhunt 2 hack controversy.

Due to some hardware issues, we didn't record ESRB president Patricia Vance's statement, but we pick up just as San Jose Mercury-News reporter Dean Takahashi is asking the first question.

All media questions - as well as Vance's replies - are on the 8-minute mp3.

Enjoy...
Posted in

Comments

Thanks for the download Dennis!
"There are a lot of people reporting on this issue who are unsophisticated and not familiar enough technically with what's really going on here..."

Yep, she's right. And there will continue to be.

Good clip, but one thing that bothered me was (I think) at the beginning, where she said she didn't know enough about technology to explain what the hackers did. I've never programmed anything in my life, but even I know what a boolean variable is.
nice
Brilliant!

This should shut up the jibber jabbers. Of course, sadly, it won't.
Thanks for the feed. I will have to listen to it when I get home.
All due respect, what a stupid comment by Takahashi:

“I wonder why they allowed this to happen again. I would think if the just deleted whatever material was there that they had to blur out that it would not have been possible to do this type of thing.”

Dude, if you delete every stealth kill in the game, it’s not Manhunt anymore.

Vance’s response wasn’t much better. She basically said that hackers will find a way. That doesn't address Takahashi's comment or explain the reality of the situation.


Andrew Eisen
I can see... er, hear... a few places where you-know-who could ignore half of what is being said and yell "LAWSUIT!"

The message is still clear, though -- the ESRB knew what was there, and considers the use of third-party hacks to be the fault of those using them, not the manufacturer of the game.
Good lord! Croal doesn’t get it either! Again, all due respect.

At least Vance had a decent response this time.


Andrew Eisen
@bakaohki

Yes because the DMCA applies as you need to illegal modify your console to make it work.
@Paul Kerton
Exactly. Now try explaining that to a certain someone from Miami.
@ Andrew Eisen

Vance admitted that was a question for someone far more technical than her. She handled it the best she could--and obviously used [and reused] some fallback statements to those questions.

-----

To those who wonder the same thing as Takahashi, here's a bit about how 3D modeling and gaming works, based on our current programing standards...

Be aware, I'm not a game or 3D programmer. Just a techie who has a basic barebones knowledge of how 3D Video works.

Layers:

[Object] The character
[3D Models] The "Shape" of the Characters - Including Floors/Walls
[Texturing] The "skin" of that Character
[Animation] The action of the Textured 3D Model
[Lighting] - A (complicated) filter of how light-sources act
[Shading] - This leads to the change in color, as well as our shadows
[Special Effects] - The blurs, the particles, the pretty glowing orbs

Under this basic model, you can sometimes combine Lighting and Shading to just overall "Shading". To fully delete the scenes in question, one would have to go as far deep as removing the [Texturing] of blood and guts, the [Animation], and the underly script that controls the [Object] doing this. Bare minimum.

This leaves a few holes and pits.

The pit is a model or FUNCTION() will sometimes be left "orphaned". The FUNCTION() is coded, but it has no script that wants to call it. Yet the FUNCTION() has to be reported to the ESRB or Removed--once removed ,the game has to be recompiled AGAIN. That's a lot of time and money.

The holes are what to do with the scenes that suddenly skip the death scenes. Is it still the same game and story you want to tell? Even if it is, how do you keep the video and gametime fluid? That requires more planning, coding, animation, texturing, lighting, shading, filtering and compiling all over again . Again--that's more time and money.

Rockstar obviously feels (based on their press releases) that the mood of the game would be seriously affected by removing the death scenes. This means they had to choose a way that would keep the story--and the scenes--with the least amount of work that will go into compliance. They did that by adding a [Special Effect] - a simple blur filter. Minimal compiling needed--all they did was add a filter that goes over textured and shaded animations. There's no fault in this, and it's Rockstar's right to try to do the best they can to tell a story--and sell a product with the most profit.
This for the most part is the same thing as a wall hack in an FPS game. You simply change how the render acts.
It simply wouldn't BE Manhunt anymore if the kills were cut. Hell, they put filters in appease the nimrods. At some point, you blame the parents for letting the games get into kids hands. That my friends, is where it ends.
@Saladin

It simply wouldn’t BE Manhunt anymore if the kills were cut.

That's pretty much what Vance said in the interview.
i'm a game programmer (kinda), and i think that rockstar really wanted to not stir up all this controversy, they would have decided to omit the AO content back when the game was just getting started, before it was too late to easily remove the content like what silphion said
TheBird,

Well, according to Rockstar and Take-Two, they truly felt that the original submission deserved an M rating.

Andrew Eisen
@TheBird

In other words, they wanted to stir up controversey because they didn't material months, maybe years, before the ESRB rated it? I mean really...they're not psychic. Yeah, they probably knew they were pushing the envelope, but the guidlines are vauge.

"Violence" can apply to Looney Toons, Fable, Halo or Manhunt. It's the arbitrarily determined "level" of violence that makes the rating...there's no way to know what rating it will get until it's submitted. And by then, the game is basically done, and you're in the situation that Silphion described.
i hope this interview will end this so-called Witch-hunt because all these people who trying to get their name out there because of an issuse, all their doing is pointing fingers with out "seeing" or "hearing" the real cause of the this matter.
~A deer dance... and inventation to peace.. with war staring you in the faaace. With a helment.. feirce~

for somereason i always think of that song with these mondern day whitch hunters on the prowl.
Uh huh.

Right.

She goes to a press conference about a specific hack done by users, a hack the ESRB has been investigating, and she doesn't know enough to give any kind of specifics.

*coughBScough*

This sounds a lot like Mr. Gonzales' "I can't recall" defense. Or the new AG nominee unaware of what Waterboarding is.

It's a defensive tactic that gives you a quick out on any tough questions, even though you look like an incompetent fool for not coming prepared.

My bet? Rockstar made the change and forgot the make it hard to remove it. Rockstar did enough for the ESRB to label it as being the Hacker's fault, but not enough to not look partly responsible in the public's eye.

Why don't we consider, for a moment, that maybe not everyone attacking Rockstar and Manhunt 2 are evil douchebags with their head up their bums? Maybe they have a valid point!

Or is that too complex a thought for Game Politics?
@Wraithfighter:

You are right. Be sure to consider, however, there are limits on what one can do in a short amount of time. See my above post about 3D Modeling.
Making something hard for a hacker to remove doesn't mean it is impossible...
As for people who attack R*, a lot of people do, just that you may be mixed in with the silly lil bandwagon as the long-time haters never generated enough noise.
Forgot to make it hard? It's just in an INI file for Christ sake! There's no way they could accidentally over look that. This shouldn't be that big of a deal, except for the attention whores with an agenda.
@ PheonixZero

There are a LOT of things contained in .ini files. Anything in them can be removed. But they are needed to configure game parameters and renderer parameters (lots of other things too). If you don't have .ini files, you have to recompile the game every single time you make a change. You think 5 years is a long time to wait for a game?
but it's not even the filter that got them the M rating. I believe that there was a castration scene that was removed. And also looking at the file structure of the game (I was looking at it on a site that had the hack posted) level 13 is completely missing.

Assuming that the game was lowered to M because of some silly render effect I think is irresponsible and ignorant. It's obvious that there was a lot more removed (a lot more offensive things) to obtain the M rating.

Post new comment

By posting comments on this Web site you agree to abide by the Comments Policy.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This image is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. The letters in the picture are all UPPER-CASE.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 07/24/08 at 01:45pm
Dark Sovereign: A fitting metaphor lumi
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:21am
lumi: their own. Looks like they're arguing with ghosts...
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:20am
lumi: Ooh, and to prove the validity of their arguments, they've deleted all the comments from the gamers/outsiders, and just left
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:20am
lumi: Wow...there's worse invective and vitriol on that first feminist site's comments than in most gaming forums I've read...
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:19am
SimonBob: You guys can read the feminist blogs? One of 'em has over 1400 comments -- my browser locks up when I try to load the page!
Posted 07/24/08 at 10:49am
M. Carusi: That's probably the message to describe hardcore feminism in general. :P
Posted 07/24/08 at 10:35am
Tom90deg: Meh, it seems like most of the comments are "I'm right, and it you don't agree with me, you're a girl-hating masonogystic pig!"
Posted 07/24/08 at 10:30am
M. Carusi: Those comment walls on the feminist blogs complaining about FP are generating some hilarious content.
Posted 07/24/08 at 08:48am
E. Zachary Knight: @ lunatic, What you see is what you get. Once a comment gets pushed off it is gone forever.
Posted 07/24/08 at 07:39am
sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
Posted 07/24/08 at 05:42am
sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:13pm
GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
Posted 07/23/08 at 08:05pm
LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:07pm
gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:15pm
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:07pm
GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm
lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm
lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:32pm
Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:31pm
Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Login or register to post shouts