Where Politics And Video Games Collide

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.