[...] The name Pachter should be familiar to anyone who follows the gaming news scene. If not, well he’s Wedbush-Morgan’s resident Nostradamus and he’s saying the latest news involving Take Two and the country across the pond might’ve cost the company millions. Before this whole mess, he was predicting that Manhunt 2 would’ve generated $25 million this quarter, along with another $15 million in reorders. According to him, either Take Two can edit the game to become more in line with UK morals and the ESRB’s M rating or ship it the way it is. Or, they could do something that much more crazy and cancel the game. [...]

Well, the rating was made before CFC ever sent their little 'accusation' that an M rating was a 'nod and a wink', whatever the hell that means.

I think, as the game stands, at least from reports on it, that the ESRB may well feel justified in giving it an AO rating.

I really wish I knew what that extra year soemhow does to make the player more responsible to play these games.

I had my 18th Birthday last week, I dont feel any different...

The problem doesn't really lay with that, if it were up to Take Two themselves, I'd be inclined to agree with you, the problem is, an AO rated game will not even be marketed by Nintendo by the looks of things, their agreement allows only for M rated or below, so, unless I'm mistaken about this, cannot release the game for the Wii as an AO title without special permission to do so from Nintendo.

This could be bad for the company, especially there will soon come a time when they would have no choice but to cancel the game.

Unless they push back the release date, option #2 isn't likely, too.

@Radio Guy
The premise of your question is off. There is a bigger difference between the two ratings than the age suggestion alone, just like there is a difference between R and NC-17 films even though both list 17 as their minimum suggested ages.

If you don't understand the difference between M and AO ratings, go to www.esrb.org . If you simply don't understand the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, consider that the 18 year can vote, buy firearms, be drafted, and is held legally accountable for his actions as a adult.

@Michael
"They need to let manhunt 2 come out the way it was already made. This
is America, a so called free country."

They need to let it come out as such. I want to see Take-Two and Rockstar FINALLY go under because they won't be able to sell any game in any major venue.

Also, the US, a Free Country? Don't make me laugh...

@Stinkin Kevin

NC-17: No one 17 and under admitted.

Yes, it does have terrible wording, but it is literally the same as an AO rating. Minus the whole financial death writ.

"it should be sold in stores and the retailers should take extra procautionary measures to ensure no child is able to buy the game."

I wouldn't have much of a problem with the AO rating if retailers just had the guts to carry an AO rated game. So yeah, I agree with you there.

@ Brokenscope:

It does say that, but all of the ratings on movies and games are voluntary. There's no law against admitting someone who's under 17 just like there's no law against selling an AO game to a minor.

NC-17 is the kiss of death for movies, too. How many NC-17 titles do you see? Studios would rather give an R rated cut a wide release and then release an "unrated" DVD then even risk an NC-17 rating these days.

They should definitely come out with the game as is.
And maybe then after make a wussified wally world friendly version for ma and pa to purchase for little Billy.
But I think sold as is without major retail will sell way the hell better than if they cut the balls off it, just to make all the parents who want their kids babysat by everyone but themselves happy. I say dont change this game at all... This could make a groundbreaking statement in gaming. If this rating pushes T2 into changing something, then the rating board will think they can control the limits to all creative freedom that is released. I say release it to all the retailers that still believe in freedom of choice, and watch how all this negative contoversy will be nothing more than a hype machine to get more people than previously expected to seek out a vendor. If T2 stands down then obviously other developers will follow suit, and tiptoe around their ideas that they feel might push the envelope a little too far, and in return the game may not see mass market sales. And in return for all the gamers, alot of watered down games that were too afraid to cross an illusive line.
(My 3 Step Message To T2)....even though their probaly not reading this.
(1) Release it in the true form of its creators vison.
(2) Watch it sell better than previously expected.
(3) Reap the benifits of paving the way for yourselves and other developers, in showing that no one other than their soon to be fanbase can make or break a game.

But when all is said and done, I guess if Nintendo bitches out, then were all fucked.

One last thing that I dont want to get too far into. Is how games obviously dont get the same treatment as movies.
The only way a movie gets 18 and up is for very strong sexual content. And last time I checked Manhunt 2 only has very strong violence. Wich would only permit an R rating for a movie. Wich is 17 and up, the same as Mature. Just like Saw,Hostel,and The hills have eyes series were rated 17 and up for their graphic violence,
so should be any game that poses the same attributes regaurdless of the way its viewed.

@Tom

I have seen NC-17 movies sold at retail chains, I Have not seen AO games sold at retail chains.

Also when did I claim that either had the force of the law behind them?

Also, target, walmart, best buy, circut city ect ect can out last the games industry. Sure they lose game sales, but they could lose alot more if watchdog groups start screaming that they stock "porn games" and "adult entertainment". Even if its not true they stand to lose alot. It wouldn't work if the industry did that. Gamestop might give in since game sales are really all they have, but no one else.

@ Brokenscope

I was just clarifying for people who didn't know that the rating system is voluntarily enforced.

I would argue the opposite to your second statement. Taking the movie industry as an example because it's most relevant, they have outlasted any number of retail chains. Hell, some of the big box computer stores are already on their way out but the games industry is here to stay.

And I'm not suggesting that they stock "porn games" or "adult entertainment." As far as I'm aware, if a game fails the Miller Test it'll be slapped with an "x" or "xxx" just like a movie. I'm suggesting that the organizations who take as their mandate the defense of the Entertainment Industry and Entertainment Industry Merchants step up to the plate and work to remove this blanket ban of anything with an "AO" or unrated cover.

This shows the problems in a system where distribution channels are monopolized by these huge chains. If Wal-Mart stores allowed local managers more leeway in choosing what to stock rather then enacting a blanket ban this wouldn't be nearly the issue it is. If these stores looked at the submitted media before decided whether to sell it or not then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

I see what you're saying about the lost sales from supporters of the watchdog groups but I do feel that the purchasing power of gamers, en masse, would be as high as the segment of the population that would actively participate in a wathdog group's similar boycott.

Why is GP talking to Pachter and not some real respected VG analyst out there? How many times has Pachter made an ass of himself? The guy is constantly wrong! There are some genuinely smart business analysts out there, Tony Gikas, Shawn Milne, Terry Heath, Mike Savner, and many more...They just happen not have a loud mouth like the buffoon that is Michael Pachter...

In any case, where's option 4) the game will be re-rated and go on to sell a ton more than originally anticipated because of all of the free publicity?

@Radio Guy
"I really wish I knew what that extra year soemhow does to make the player more responsible to play these games.

I had my 18th Birthday last week, I dont feel any different… "

you can now be held entirely responsible for your own actions. no more hiding behind mommy's skirt if you mess up. that's the difference.

Take Two is a business. I expect them to recut the game for a lower rating, for the sake of making more money.

Though not like they'll recover any losses with the upcoming GTA, as Brokenscope suggested.

ok, there is NO censorship going on. T2 is allowed to release the title in any way they choose. They willingly submitted their title to ESRB to be graded. It was given an AO rating. Its Wal-mart's and Gamestop's company policy not to carry AO titles which is in their legal right to do so. Its not the ESRB's fault, its not R* or T2's fault. They still have the option of releasing it through independent resellers or through their own online shop.

Its also hypocritical to be behind the ESRB when government legislation wants to set up their own watchdog program and then complain that the ESRB is complete crap the moment they do something you don't agree with. It would be one thing to criticize their actions if they started rating content based upon developers or publishers instead of actual content but this is clearly not the case.

R* pushed the envelope with all their eggs in 1 basket and had no contingency plan in case their violent game doesn't make the grade they want. What they should have done is either go into this with supporting evidence and been ready to defend their material or they should have kept a solid line of communication open with the ESRB so they could have made the necessary changes before the last minute.

Theres a reason T2 is doing rather poorly and its because of mistakes like this. If you rock the boat then you better be ready for when it tips over.

"Though not like they’ll recover any losses with the upcoming GTA, as Brokenscope suggested."

Unless GTA4 ALSO gets a nice AO. Which would not surprise me in the least. And would make me laugh even harder.

[...] Read the full article here.  [...]

Maybe Rockstar could just start pioneering nothing but AO games. And build on the the reputation even more as the most boligerently violent offensive game developer.

All envelopes get pushed eventually, why wait???

I honestly think Retailers such as Best Buy and EBgames will still stock the game as an AO rating. Its not like its a "debby does Dallas" type game. Its a pretty mainstream title, its lost revenues for the retailers if they dont stock it and leave it up to the "mom and pop" stores to do so. I think Manhunt could bring in a new time that AO games are allowed to sit beside MA games. It would also shut up people like Jack who complain to many games are being sold to kids, our industry is willing to make a game AO and were all OK with that. Come on Rockstar don't bow to preasure be the guinepig that brings in an era of AO mainstream games.

I think this entire situation is getting blown far, far out of proportion.

No other AO-rated game has had even REMOTELY the level of anticipation for its release that Manhunt 2 has had - disregarding GTA:SA, of course, because it was M at the time of its release. Because of this, it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell how the market will react to the rating: will it hurt sales because major retailers (likely) won't carry it, or will it sell just as well as (or only slightly worse than) it would have with an M rating? And how can we be sure it won't be carried by retailers? As has been mentioned in another thread, retailers don't have a hard-and-fast policy banning AO games: it's handled on a case-by-case basis. And even if they don't carry it consider this: the effect of the in-store impulse buy versus the carefully-considered purchase is something to be considered, but people can just as easily buy impulsively online. This is 2007, people: buying games online is hardly a rare occurrence.

As for the difference between 17 and 18, I'm siding strongly with Radio Guy. I just turned 18 on Sunday - three days ago - and I feel no different than before. Remember: 18 is essentially just an arbitrary age defined by most governments as the age of adulthood - a necessary one (they have to define it somehow), but an arbitrary one nonetheless. And while I strongly agree that the ESRB has got its age definitions right, they by no means applies perfectly to every single individual. To say that the day one turns 18, one suddenly goes from unable to handle extremely sexual or violent content to being able to handle it (as a few here have been doing) is absurd. And to say that at the same time as saying that it's UP TO PARENTS to know their children well enough to know when they can handle mature content - well that's just plain hypocritical.

Just watch, this whole furor over the rating will be old news in a week, after which everyone who was going to buy Manhunt 2 before the rating was revealed will procede to go and buy it anyway - even those who are, technically, not old enough. There's no reason this game won't make Take Two plenty of money.

Well, if I was a kid and read news about games online, I'd prolly already have a Wii and would definately get this game just for having it. To me, the game just went from "meh, never liked Manhunt 1" to "what is it about this game that makes it AO?". And we all know that we never once consumed a piece of entertainment that was not meant for us at the age we are/were....

Although this will likely hurt Take 2 in general sales from impulse buys in retail stores, I'm wondering how the game will do in the coming months. It will be interesting to compare the sales to say, the Postal movie, which is a banned movie (afaik?) and will probably sell like hot cake when it hits dvd, just because of the negative press. How many kids buy games like Manhunt on impulse anyway? Maybe I'm overestimating the game consumer, but I always thought that they were the more informed consumers of the digital entertainment lot.

Time will tell if all this "oh my, an AO rating for a 'normal' game!" press will lead to more sales than the AO rating itself will hurt store sales.

I'd agree with Silver, certainly, I see more people looking at the screenshots on the back of the boxes than going through the names of the games on the front of them.

I really with people would stop giving Pachter so much attention. He has been wrong (and sometimes very much so) far more often than he's been right and he's still taken by the gaming press as some kind of Nostradamus. He'll be wrong about this one as well, just watch.

BmK-

According to my high school I had no Frist Amendment Rights as a minor. They are lucky I didn't sue the shit out of them on numerous occasions. But then again it was in the south so you can't expect much.

I can't agree with silver, even as a child I didn't buy on impulse. I rented on impulse and bought on research ever since I could save and use money for video games(around age 6-8). And even today 15 years later I still refuse to buy on impulse. I don't know many people that will buy off impulse either. Maybe everyone I know is different though but I'd like to see some hard facts before we make any assumptions.

Dexee-

They can't release AO games on consoles. Im sure they could release it on the PC as AO but as far as consoles go they will have to get a special thumbs up from either Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. And even if they said OK we'll let it slide then retailers wouldn't sell it so that will criple sales.

I cannot even begin to reply to everyone on points I agree or disagree with, however I will start with this:
"ADULTS ONLY Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." And/or.

Read that again please. This covers Manhunt and most of the first person shooters since Quake and before. Any games labeled as M have been far too lucky in this regard and long before now should major chains of retailers been forced to open their shelves if they wished to make money off the product that adults wanted to buy. This isn't a new problem. Think about it. The Playboy game was AO, yet many retailers who would not sell the game still allowed you to buy the magazine it was based on with ACTUAL nudity on the shelves wrapped with a cover and sealed in plastic.

This is merely another example of flaws in the chain of our media consumption. Rating systems need to be adhered to and leveled so that it is not a bunch of material of the same weight gets treated different. An AO game needs to be an AO game every time. The movie that said AO game is based on needs to be the equivalent rating. Movie theaters, retail chains, all media industries, and the public need to make the steps necessary to balance current and future inconsistencies. If laws exist or are passed somehow in areas to exclude areas from a type of material, fine. If you don't like it, then you stay active, show your support for changing those laws, or move. This will never be agreed upon however. No one will merely back off. The envelope will continue to be pushed forward by all of the industries concerned, the same as those who feel violence goes too far will continue to march or otherwise support people who march for them.

The problem in the case of AO is that you have a lot of informed people. AO is a label, and labels conjure images in the heads of all who come upon them. 'Adults Only' has the implication of adult sexual content, although that is not what the rating definition says. You need to change the perception of the label, not the label in this case. Why? The effort required to change a misconceived notion that a game with AO has sexual content and/or extreme nudity would be fruitful in forcing blatant problems in ratings to be publicly examined. Instead of pushing titles through under the rating radar and making mad cash, the industry would have a vested interest in education as much as sales. The retail industry owes a lot of blame on this as well, since they want to appear innocent and otherwise clear of controversy while at the same time, capitalizing off as many profits as possible. Games represent one of their big money makers, so allowing more games and better educated consumers into their aisles would in the long run benefit more people. More education would allow more delivery channels to be known about and force competition to dictate public policy rather than the opinion of some people against the freedom of choice.

I'm glad I'm in a different state entirely now. =) Although I was about going back to talk to my art teacher. And that process involves being interveiwed by a few administrators to get a little name tag, ect so I could always rub it in their faces when they said I even if I did manage to graduate I wouldn't even come close to making it to a decent college or find a decent job unless I changed my life(reffering to converting to christianity).

They hated me, tried to get me arrested for my art on a few occasions.

I do think minors should have more freedoms. I know the lack of them caused me a lot of hardship and took almost half of my in school time away from the classroom and into the office reading the text book while being chewed out. No wonder my old state ranks among the worst consistantly.

Personally, I think we have this biased, skewed post-colonial point of view of when one reaches maturity and is capable of making their own decisions. I remember hearing of a time when children were married off and living on their own at 14-16 years of age ...

Now, it's not uncommon to be 27 and still living in your parent's basement. I think we, as a society, are coddling our youth and ourselves too much. Setting unrealistic expectations of society and adults, and placing way too much power and faith in a small group of people to make the majority of the decisions for us, we end up with someone like Bush (who has vetoed more bills than any other president...ever) who does what he wants and in his own "Vision" of the world.

We all use the slippery slope argument to gain credibility for whatever issue we want to forefront, on both sides of the video game debate; so instead of that, I'm going to use a different argument--censorship that effects all of us, not just minors, is a step in the direction of Big Brother; Ironic that the UK would be the first to take that step towards a thoughtless society.

===
I have to admit, I don understand how the BBFC, if it has no political underpinnings can declare something banned. To me, that's like the Baptist Church banning Disney--it inspires a response of, "That's nice, here's a pair of scissors, go run through traffic for a while..." from me. How does the BBFC have any authority over the sale of a game if it's an independently run organization? Does anyone have any insight on this, cause I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding on my part, but still -- I'd like to know ....

The thing about this that I don't get, is why would T2 announce it? The ESRB gives the AO fairly regularly and no one heres about it because it is rerated before the ESRB says anything. This announcement says to me "We wanted an M. oh well we can live with AO."

People are so stupid, this will merely increase sales. Take Two is laughing all the way to the bank.

@Serrenity:

I agree with you on the age issue. Things have become nutty to put it mildly. Teenagers are getting prosecuted with felonies in some cases for consensual activities with their significant other barely older than themselves. Not to mention you can smoke your death and die for your country before you can even legally have a drink of alcohol or get into a club serving it in some locations.

Orwellian societies are not the answer, but as you say we get closer every day to that unfortunate reality. That is why I have said before how guilty I feel for being an American right now. Our actions overseas are deplorable and in some cases unforgivable, not to mention the horrors we commit internally.

I wondered how the BBFC could ban it until I read up some. Since the developers voluntarily submitted the game to them, and due to the Video Recordings Act revisions of 1985, they seem to be legally bound to submit to that rating. I imagine based on some of the content, they were not eligible to have the game rated by PEGI and wanted a rating on it to get it sold in certain chains. It is a legal agreement they are entering into to accept the rating for easier sale.

I may be misreading the law but I imagine Rockstar was damned either way in Great Britain due to the limits people there have allowed to be made on personal freedom.

O.K serious question for the gamers here.

Does anyone here believe that Rockstar's actions with the whole San Andreas fiasco and Manhunt 2 destroying the gaming industy and causing more censorship to happen?

Are gamers starting to get sick and tired of Rockstar pushing and testing the limits in this type of political climate where games are constantly under the mircoscope?

Should the gaming industry punish Rockstar Games for causing these problems if indeed Rockstar Games has in fact effected the game industry and gamers in general in a such negative way?

I just want to see what the average gamer things about Rockstar games right now.

So is Rockstar Games a postive, neutral or negative effect on the gaming industry?

I am speaking of America specifically here though it applies to other countries indirectly. I think limits have to be pushed so that our choices are kept open. I don't want the government telling me I can't buy horror movies 15 years down the road because of landmark media cases surrounding Rockstar controversy and vice versa. I also don't want the industry to cave in to the demands of the moral police and turn over. If game content becomes dictated by what others feel is acceptable, the rest of your media is next. This is the reason why the Klan can rally here in NC if there is no violence. Free speech gives them the right to air their MORONIC and hateful views of people, the same as it gives us the ability to rally when we don't agree with a decision our President makes.

There have been slippages before. Night Trap is a good example. The controversy of today can be used by those against freedom of expression, of course, but only if the rest of society allows it. If a bunch of close-minded morons are elected that make laws that we hate, what then? It is up to us to stay educated, and make efforts to elect those we believe will accomplish a lot of what we feel must to make society better. Telling the country that adults cannot buy a game they want easily enough to continue to desire it is a brick of many in a wall of censorship. Soon it will be the Internet even more, including postage perhaps on email, and go from there. It is not paranoia but a grim truth.

The same people who fight games today fight the Internet, movies, television, and more issues that we now think we have a choice about. I recall clearly that many stores did not sell the Atari 2600 Mystique games, and those that did had them under the counter. Retailers can decide how they sell the material if they do, same as then, but don't allow the choice to buy out of our hands. Many adults can decide for themselves what is acceptable, as most of us are smarter than the bad parents and delinquents that help frame this issue so negatively (some of the same people AGAINST violence in the first place).

Rockstar games themselves I have no problem with, they are following a market trend, my annoyance is at the market trend itself. I've stated before that if the Anti-Gamers would just leave the genre alone, it would have died out or been well on the way to dying out by now, it is the Anti Gamers themselves who keep the whole 'GTA' style game on life support, and that really narks me.

Thing is, when computers first came out we all marvelled at the fact they could do things we'd never dreamed of, I remember playing Zero-G 3D Pool on my Spectrum etc, somehow this machine that can make fantasy into reality seems to have recently become more and more focussed on making reality into fantasy.

@BmK:

I typed my reply before I saw your note.

I think we have to include censorship in this choice on whether it is good or bad. This rating is important and will change things, what we will surely find out as time goes on. The game being banned in the England and Ireland alters the societal-media timeline as well. I think Rockstar is doing something that society still wants. If enough of society changes their mind, then let Rockstar stop.

To me, this falls under the acceptable mores associated with media. We are not having live executions thankfully, nor do we televise lions tearing people to shreds (except on the news), so we have no reached the debauchery of Rome IMO. Is there a line of acceptability? Probably. I don't feel we have reached it quite yet so therefore we must plunge forward and continue discussion, study, and most importantly public awareness with respect to videogames. If society as a large pile decides these games disappear, they will vanish in large enough concentration that their continued existence will be experienced by few.

d'oh. missed a close tag . sorry!

As for impact on the [Manhunt] franchise, it seems that the violence level is sufficiently offensive to warrant a UK ban and a US AO rating. That can’t be good for the longevity of the franchise.


what a dolt, AO is for sexual content.

I am bothered by the game using the image since it lacks any respect for the family. The parent obviously did not grant her permission to use her child's image in the game, no matter where they image came from. Case closed. For example, a game using real clips of serial killers or murder victims to me is off limits. There is a victim's family still remaining that has to remember that act each and every time they come across it. For me, that is the line. Now, if the game had gained her permission to use the image to raise awareness of crimes against children with a portion of proceeds to have gone to a juvenile crime fund or organization, that would be her/the father's call.

The fictional characters in the games that gather so much attention (GTA, Manhunt, etc) lack family to offend or emotionally damage. For those who are offended, that is a problem they have to sort out especially if they are themselves responsible for subjecting themselves or their youth to said content. A parent or individual should always retain the right to stop their personal trauma from becoming profits for some company IMO.

I really want this game now. I want to see what makes it so different from Manhunt 1 where you'd drape a man's head in a plastic bag and beat the crap out of him as he drowns in his own blood. I don't get off on that kind of thing and now it's purely out of curiosity. I'm on a tight budget and wouldn't have bought the game had everyone just glossed over it. I would have assumed it was just like Manhunt 1, a decent but repetitive stealth game that relied too much on shock value.

So yeah, all these bannings have ensured at least one more copy being sold. No idea if it'll have the same affect on other gamers.

"This game is so violent we're going to give it an AO rating"

"Whoa.. why? What happens in it?"

"Not telling you. It's so bad it's been banned in several countries"

"Let me get my credit card"

@ Dragon Bomber

My issue is not with the mother being upset, but rather that she waited almost 4 years to decide she was upset, or to go looking for something to be upset about. Look at the release date: Sept. of 2003, It's 2007 now. Four years of that particular image being out in the public view, and she waits until now to make a fuss about it. To me, that says she's not actually upset and just looking for her time in the lime-light. If she was truly upset, it if was something more than a thinly veiled money-grubbing attempt, she would have made it an issue a while ago, not 4years after the release of the game, and 13 years after the actual incident occurred.

The ludicrous-ness of the situation is what bothers me--she waited till it became a mainstream issue to make it an issue.

@Serrenity:

I saw the difference in dates. What I don't know and therefore cannot comment on is WHEN she found out that the image was used in such a manner. If, as the story linked to states, the picture sits upon a "notice board" inside the game the mother may have been unaware of its presence. If she knew about it for some time and did nothing, I don't think her argument of it doing emotional harm and being "below contempt" accurate. We can't assume she played the game herself or saw the picture herself. We also cannot, from the article linked, know when she approached them about the picture or just decided one day to make a press announcement to which the distributor responded (pulling the game).

If I see other articles clearly describing the full facts of the matter perhaps I can better reply. I won't assume she "waited till it became a mainstream issue" without that data. I instead assumed that the developer did not approach the mother for her blessing to use the photo and at some point she discovered this. These points weren't clear, but siding with the unfortunate death in either event, and replying from there won out over thinking about where the rest of the info was. Death/abuse to children is one of the biggest things that rile my feathers so I sometimes overreact.

Sorry in my book manhunt is a M range game unless there is player interaction to rape or details of limb removing and other forms of torturous torture.

there is a upside to this if theres enough demand for it it might can break the curse on AO.

It would be nice if it would be accepted half as much as R rated movies.

http://www.destructoid.com/bbfc-responds-to-destructoid-editor-regarding...

Zippy, judging by it being rated AO. I'm pretty sure there's some horrid use of dismemberment, among other gruesome murder methods. I have a vivid imagination, and I'd describe what I could see in the game judging by some reviews of the old game and by this AO rating, but I think it may scar some people. It is something that make anyone vomit if witnessed in reality.

@N8n8baby

look at other posts from the other large thread. However, the final outcome may be interesting...
The game should also be gold or going gold within a week. R* received the AO rating a month ago, so they must've been doing some things to prepare for the announcement, or they are still fumbling things around trying to pick the best option to go with.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172830.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestne...

Sony doesn't allow AO games either.

And n8n8baby beat me to it.

Well, I guess option 2 seems more likely now, and the game will be delayed because of it.
They have to recoup back some losses or at least try to. I guess they'll be asking the ESRB what they could do in order to get an M.

Yeah, I would also write Nintendo, Sony, and so forth to show your displeasure as well. I think that was a major thing left out of earlier posts AND replies. The whole "AO games don't get released" for our systems. I know I didn't even consider that since I was pretty sure that both Playboy Mansion and Leisure Suit Larry for PS2 were AO. The problem of choice is even worse than I thought. LOL

Wow.

They have the rating because other systems under the umbrella of "games" allow AO titles. There are 23 AO results on ESRB that include the platforms of Mac, PC, CDI, 1 DVD-based game, online, and 1 PSOne title Thrill Kill (which was cancelled but exists in ISO form). I should have remembered Thrill Kill. I would have saved myself a lot of typing had I recalled how many titles actually were AO.

Well, now that sony and nintedo confirmed that they will not allow AO rated games on there consoles, rockstar has no choice but to edited down to an M rating... really, appealing probably won't work out, seeing as the game seriously does seem to be rated AO, and the appeals probably won't change the minds of the ESRB, the BBFC, or any other rating groups

However, if i were them, i'd have the orginal version ported to the PC and released as the "Manhunt2: Uncut" with it's orginal AO rating... probably advertise it as "the game so controversal that not even sony and nintendo will let you play it"... that last part just being a cheap shot at sony and nintedo out of spite; especially Nintnedo since they went to Rockstar and ASKED for the game...

Nintendo and Sony = fail. Especially since you're able to play movies on the Playstation, and adults do play the Wii. Bah, and of course, they just gave anti-video game people a whole boat load of ammunition.

Sony, Nintendo, and the that don't carry AO games really need to grow a pair.

Peter Suciu-

No one forces anyone to make any game. There is a team of artists at rockstar that wanted to make this game, or agreed to. Yea many M games are truly for adults, you fail to raise any good points in your arguement.

Its completely unfair in my opinion because the ESRB ratings, the agreements Sony, M$ and Nintendo makes developers sign, and retail store's policies are all unfair. There is nothing fair in terms of the AO/M rating. It should be ONE rating because Mature games are ment to be for ADULTS as are Adult Only games.

Do you think God of War 1-2, GTA 3 VC SA, or any other such game that was assigned a M rating was for children? Nope it was obviously targeted for Adults in which age most likely averaged at around 33.

Brandon-

Yea they do...

Sony, M$, Nintendo, Walmart, EB games, Best Buy, and Circut City are just big corporations bullying game developers that release products either for their consoles and stores. They use the faulty ESRB rating system to effectively control the content in games. The ESRB obviously understands what power they have so maybe some of their employees feel the need to give it a harsh rating vote thus forcing the developer to work on watering down content in their game to allow it to pass for a M rating. (from my understanding they have panels that vote and all those votes must be the same) They also understand that a game ment for consoles can't receive a AO rating because they are not allowed on consoles. So what is stopping an employee at the ESRB that thinks that video games are harmful to children and even M rated games are marketable towards children or even that violent games shouldn't be around at all to give it a harsh rating simply to prevent it from being sold. Nothing really because there is no way to tell if a certain employee would do that or not. Thing is you can't trust someone else not matter how "average joe" they are to decide what is right and wrong for you if they have a tool to force people to water down their content in their art to make it more socially acceptable to them.

Thats all the AO rating really is for console games. PC it just means it wont hit the store shelves, but consoles it IS the kiss of death. And no one wants to spend 3-5 years on a game that isn't even going to be released so of course they will try to give it a M rating. They also don't want to waste millions of dollars that someone entrusted them to make a game with that could be profitable.

AO is just a tool to bully developers into censoring themselves. Game Developers are victim to the ESRB, Sony, M$, Nintendo and retailers abusing their policies. I strongly believe ALL games are art even if the developers disagree, its still art. It may not be art that you enjoy but that is based on opinion. Fact is games are many, many art forms rolled together into one product and art+art+art+art doesn't equal anything that isn't art. Wonder what would happen if someone told Dali to stop painting things that some people feel are strange, scary and offensive. He'd probably push you off a tall structure and watch you die from internal bleeding as he snacked on a bowl of fresh cherries(and probably spit the pits at you while you squirmed and screamed for help assuming you wern't already dead). Well maybe he wouldn't but I'm sure he would tell you to go make your own art if you don't like his.

Agh, I can't stand it sometimes. Maybe if the PS3 continues to fail they will make it a save-console for AO games. Maybe... but I doubt it. But then again considering high price, lack of sales, lack of games it wouldn't be a bad idea to not only push the sales up but to motivate developers into making games for it. It certainly would be a good first step to changing this censorship problem the industry has.

"Someone mentioned they should release manhunt 2 because America is a “free country”? Look where ya free country is getting you, people getting shot and having the murder being linked to games basically all the time."

By who, "professionals" such as Jackass Thompson and such? Yeah, no proof, no proof at all.

and Terrible Tom - Holy crap, you said what I couldn't, heh, I said that those companies need to grow a pair and all, and you put why.

Speaking of which, when San Andreas was rerated AO temporarily, it was on the PS2, hmm, hypocritical much? Heh, and speaking of which, I noticed it in the Virgin Megastores while it was, I guess that they are one of those few companies that have the nuts to carry AO games.

Just to be clear...

Anyone bringing up the freedom of speech issue, or bitching about corporations, you are hypocrites.

This is a market shifting to look after its interests. What? Do you want the govt to come force Nintendo to let the game come out? How is that any different than activists groups trying to make games illegal?

Do I agree with sony and nintendos standpoint? Nope. Do I understand why? Yeah. Do I support their right to make said decision? Hell yes.

The interesting thing is, if the market for an AO game was big enough, and showed its muscle by boycotting. Everything would change, because these companies will mold to whatever stance that will get them the money. That is freedom there.

We arn't asking the government to step in, we are asking the companies to stop using the AO rating to censor game developers.

Although I dont like the idea of any game being blacklisted because of AO, I do stand behind the ESRB and their decition. Sometimes violence can be excessive enough to warrent being adults only. I can think of many instances where simulated violence can overstep the M rating. However, none of us have seen the games content and therefore we can not know why the ESRB decided on the AO label. There is one thing I do know though, we need to see AO games out there.

Even with M rated games, the community (everyone else) still views games as "kid stuff" and that is the reason they get up in arms about "violence in games being marketed to kids." They think of it as:

Game = Kids Entertainment, therefore, Game+violence = kids+violence.

What we need is more AO games, thus shattering the myth that games are for kids. I would not want anyone under the age of 18 to play Manhunt 2 under even adult supervision. Sometimes there is too much violence in a game. But I will be damned if at 22 I am not allowed to play anything I want. I want more AO games to break the steirotype that games are for kids and also for there to be something out there that is for me and not "little Susan and Billy".

As for Nintendo, they have their image, and they know what it is. If they choose not to support a game that is too violent then that is their perogative. I fully support them not wanting to trim out the pigtails and grow up. I will support their decition to be little nancy children with their heads in the sand. I will never agree with it, but I will never try to take it from them. However, if I ever heard that crap from SONY or Microsoft then we might have a problem. But they would have their right to choose too. That is why this country (The US of A) is the greatest, because we will not ban a game that has not yet caused a problem (Zing against the UK, sorry guys).

In summary: More AO games, less kids+games distinction, less crybaby bullshit from Nannystate groups that can't take care of their kids.

(Oh, and the nanny state groups. when your kids drop out of school and die from drug OD, it is your fault. You screwed up, no one else. Stop pulling this bullshit on us! If you don't like it and want your country to take care of you and make decitions for you then move to the UK where you wont have to deal with it. They banned the game, so go there. Your anit-American lustings are not welcome here. Think what you want, but leave us out of it.)

/run.endrant.exe

AO. I see...personally, i dont think the AO rating is going to stop people.

GP, please do a poll asking viewers if they will still buy the game even if it is rated AO. Ask if they will go out and find the game regardless of the rating.

I fail to see what this AO thing will do.

1)Its going to be banned from some stores because of the AO rating. Fine. Those that want it will still probably get it.

2)This does prevent retarded parents from getting their kids this game. So thats kind of a plus. Then again, retarded parents also know how to use the intraweb, and will probably be dumb enough to get their kids the game anyway. Id love to see that happen.

3)Politicians are also retarded. What happened when the US government did the Prohibition act? Need i say more?

What i dont understand here, is how often history repeats itself.

80's and the new heavy metal corrupting kids scare. Proved False.

Look alike problem: Video games corrupting kids scare. Will be proven false.

Prohibition in the 1920s–1933s didnt stop anyone from drinking. They later passed the Volstead Act to allow the manufacture of alcohol again.

Look alike problem: The banning of Manhunt 2 in some countries and the AO rating given to it in the US.

As you can see from my brief history lesson. It has happened before. It was called something different, but the problem was the same to what we see now. Its just funny that we see people going blindly into another history repeats itself file.

What a waste of time.

@ GoodRobotUS

Valid points sir!

It seems to me though, that the governments of the world that are banning this and are against this are really just trying to find scape goats. Just like what happened to punk. Make no mistake about it, its a history repeats itself argument. :D

I keep saying it, but its true.

For instance, the whole Q_Q over M rated games being directly advertised to children bullcrap. I just noticed, and the main reason i came back here, was to post a finding.

Im sitting on aim about to log off, when lo and behold, i see an ad at the top of my aim buddy list. An ad about room 1408. This movie i believe is rated PG-13. However, it is and probably will be a graphic and disturbing movie. For young people anyway. ESPECIALLY people under 17.

AMIRIGHT?!

I spy yet another double standard!

The situation is worse than I first thought it was. At first I believed that the adult only rating was correct.

While I still think it IS correct I did however not know that Sony AND Nintendo both do not want AO games on their consoles.

Now, aside from the ESRB, aside from the UK ban and all that: I take *serious* issue with Sony and Nintendo prohibiting AO games *alltogether*.

It essentially means there will *never be* any kind of adult only games. Nada. Nothing! ZIP!

I personally could care less about those games, but them being generally forbidden or banned is such a serious flaw and problem, it's beyond me, really, how this could ever happen. It's like we're going back to the sixties with VHS tapes and whatever other recordable media, where porn movies were not to be sold or copied. It's like going back to the stone ages of media, taking away the adult publics option to freely chose what they want to play or watch.

It should be up to me whether I want to play a porn game or not. I never bothered to go looking for such games, but at some points I've always wondered why I've never seen games go any further than the greasy fingers of Larry Laffer. I guess now I know. Unbelievable, and it must be opposed! It *must face fierce opposition*. Otherwise things could narrow down even further in the near future. Politicians already have tunnel vision on this, and need their visual spectrum of freedom broadened quite a bit.

A lot of people that are ok with the AO rating and claim its not censorship(or psuedo-censorship) usually don't understand that Sony and Nintendo don't allow AO games.

So if Sony and Nintendo says no AO games that means no one can buy it anywhere. Unless Rockstart just releases it as is on the PC no one will play the AO version of it. Well not unless Sony or Nintendo actually decide to allow an AO game to be released. I can't see Nintendo doing that(even though they started with gambling cards and sex hotels before video games). Sony is more likely to go for it but I don't think its likely.

I do think if Sony decided to allow AO games it might help sales of their overpriced sytem and also attract more developers to Sony. That in turn might motivate some retailers to allow AO games behind the counter or in special bags that you can't see through.(or however they want to deal with it)

Mysticgamer
Heres the rub its based loosely on historic themes thus gets a pass,if manhunt was set in ancient X er...bad example if it was set in ancient rome(hehehehe) there would be lil fuss abotu it...altho it could be that 90% of what Kratos killed was not "human".

Terrible Tom
Yes and no,there has been no game to break it yet becuse most run away from the AO zone, I hope rockstar can de stigmatize AO and adult gaming some,it would be nice if the world wakes up and makes a rating level for mature games and make it where kids are protected from them but adults can have access to them that is a mature way of dealing with the problem taking away everyones “steaks” because kids can’t eat it is a path to a sad gray world.

Manhunt 2 looks like a good game i dont see why they think they need to bann it.

This is the doom and gloom I see...or it is an opportunity if I am correct. In any event, I am deeply worried.

Gold will go way up, maybe to $1,500 an ounce or higher because the dollar will fall for years. The dollar will keep falling and here is why:
The U.S. cannot sustain 800 bilion a year trade deficits. We cannot export our way out of this mess. The only answer is a sharply lower dollar to drive manufactruing home and to lower the trade deficit. The dollar has much farther to fall. What you are seeing is a long term effort (it will take 20 years) to get the trade deficit back under 1% of GDP. We are currently running a trade imbalance of nearly 6% of GDP. No nation can do this. The IMF would be stepping in to help any nation if its trade imbalance went to 6% of GDP becuase its currency would collapse! The U.S. is different, but still, we cannot sustain a trade deficit of this magnitude. People must understand that when we buy an item from say China, we pay in dollars. The Chinese company we just bought from them goes to an Exchange Bank in China and converts those dollars to Yuan. The Chinese banking system (Chinese Government) is now sitting on those dollars. They can either 1, buy oil, 2, buy Treasuries, 3. buy U.S goods, 4. buy U.S. Corporations, 5. other. Over time if we (the U.S. ) continue to run a trade deficit we could simply be completely bought and controlled by foreigners. Warren Buffet has explained the situation as being like a rich Texas farmer who loses a small piece of his land year after year and never notices for a while. When he then notices, tragedy sets in because he no longer controls his land. So in sum, we need to get the trade deficit way down. This is why the Fed has abandoned the dollar. It wil be going down for the next 20 years. That is how long it is going to take to correct this imbalance mess. Bottom line: Lower, much lower dollar will equal higher inflation and higher GOLD prices. Much higher!