banning supports one simple ideal on how the industry should be.. which isn't very supportive to begin with..

At most.. if the game is really that bad.. no one would buy it, but the ban is to prevent people from buying it. Maybe it's a ban for the people and not for the game?

"We are still exploring our options for Manhunt 2, but how does banning our game support the industry or further the development of the medium?"

In much the same way as keeping environmentalist extremists from blowing up oil rigs further the environmentalists cause: by avoiding them a bad representation when the lines of common sense and respect are crossed.

I don't think it necessary to ban games for 18+, but not all gamers over 18 want to play ultra violent ultra sexxy games.

I find it a shame that the over 18 gamer is stereo typed as a person who loves blowing stuff up.

I am 26 years old and I find more enjoyment playing Sly Cooper than I ever will playing Halo or Unreal.

What I would like to see are games with more sophisticated stories and game play geared toward adults rather than games with extra gore and nudity geared toward adults.

Banning a game can not be supportive of the game industry by definition.

As much as I will likely never play Manhunt 2 because its content doesn't interest me--and I do feel it should be kept out of children's hands--I cannot and will not ever support banning a game or any other form of expression.

Rockstar is spot-on with their letter and I agree wholeheartedly. Anyone who supports a ban does not, as far as I'm concerned, support free speech. The two are diametrically opposed.

@chadachada
Please don't dumb down GP with "first post" crap.

I think many of you are oversimplifying the issue here. In fact, I wonder if any of you actually read the article by Rob Fahey. It's true that he supported the ban on Manhunt 2. He also said that he was deeply uncomfortable with the BBFC's decision. He also points out that the BBFC is pretty liberal when it comes to these things. They didn't even blink when the Hot Coffee scandal broke and, unlike the ESRB, didn't re-rate GTA: San Andreas as a result.

So what is there in the game that would cause the BBFC (who apparently doesn't even mind simulated sex games) to refuse rating Manhunt 2? We don't know, and that is a problem. But Fahey's larger point is that Rockstar was going full tilt to push the envelope and cause controversy. Is there anybody who seriously doubts this? Do we really think Rockstar are such angels that they wouldn't court controversy in order to garner free publicity and potentially higher sales? And for what? It does something for the cause of free expression, I suppose, but it also stirs up a furor where there need not be any. And it reinforces the stereotype that videogamers are a bunch of adolescents being outrageous for the sake of being outrageous. And that's why Rockstar has been irresponsible and juvenile, even if not legally wrong.

@Xantar, Exactly.

The argument that Rockstar may be damaging the industry as a whole is actually misleading.

T2 owns a number of brands that sweep the spectrum of genres. EA owns a number of brands that sweep the spectrum. There are a large number of companies out there that produce a large number of games and other software and those games sweep the spectrum of genres as well.

When you zoom out and look down on "the industry", you find that Rockstar is actually in a minority of companies that "push the envelope". But as with many things in life, it's their "shouting" (controversial titles) that gets them singled out. In fact, many blame T2, while they, as mentioned, own a number of brands that sweep the specturm of genres and ratings. And while they blame T2, they are misleading people into believing that Rockstar's products are all that T2 is responsible for.

As many have pointed out in the past, popular speech doesn't need protection. It's the unpopular speech that needs Free Speech and Freedom of Expression protection. Yes, there are a few companies that produce material that many find only appropriate for adults. Rockstar is one of those. And, yes, they are pushing the limits. And, no, I, as an adult, don't want to be forced to play "Furry Cutesy learns their ABCs" (made up generic name) simply because someone else may find more adult themed titles inappropriate for themselves and therefore inappropriate for the rest of the world.

The argument was also pointed out that the rating systems made an appropriate choice to effectively "ban" a game and that since we don't know what was actually in the game, we shouldn't be able to disagree with that.

My response is this:
John Bruce "Jack" Thompson sued T2/Rockstar over Bully. In his complaint, he stated that HE must be allowed to review the game and determine whether the game was appropriate or inappropriate for EVERYONE ELSE'S children.
I submit that the rating systems, by effectively banning any game, thereby denying review by individual consumers, has done the same thing. By not allowing consumers to make their own decisions for themselves as to what is or is not appropriate for themselves or their own children. The act of setting an effective ban on any game is the passing of a judgement (as opposed to merely informing consumers of content) and therefore tells consumers that they are not capable of making decisions for themselves.

Perhaps content in any specific media can be deemed inappropriate by a consumer for themselves or their own children. But no consumer has the right to dictate what is or is not appropriate for someone else or someone else's child. And that goes for any interactive or non-interactive, fiction or non-fiction, form of media that exists.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@Xantar
I don't disagree one bit. I think Rockstar pushes the envelope just for the sake of being controversial. That, in my mind, is dispicable (and further reason not to buy their products, especially Manhunt 2).

"Irresponsible and juvenile" describes them perfectly. However, I support their right to make whatever game they choose. I prefer to use (or not) my purchasing power--rather than a ban--to express my disapproval.

@ nightwing2k
Agreed

The average gamer thes days is in 18 to 30 years of age, and unlike in the past when it was a refuge of the more nerd-esque persona, it is now a wide spread and widely enjoyed phenomena.

Banning anything in the industry is likely to harm people, and shows a supreme distrust in the PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO MAKE THEIR OWN FUCKING DECISION ABOUT BUYING THIS GAME.

this isn't a 'fair treatment'. This isn't 'moderate'. This is just banning to make a statement.

lightmatter and Nightwng2000 have expressed my feelings better than I could myself. So I'll just quietly echo their sentiments.

[...] Ok, maybe that’s not such a controversial statement. But when Rob Fahey came out in support of the BBFC’s decision to refuse classification for Manhunt 2, he drew a response. Also joining in the fray is the Entertainment Consumers Association blog GamePolitics which posted the reply letter and whose comments section seems to entirely support Rockstar (you will see a comment from me as one of the few dissenters). [...]

Golf clap for Rockstar. Way to grow a pair and stand up for yourselves.

@Stinking Kevin

Certainly reasonable people can disagree about what Rockstar's motives are in creating their games, and I do respect your points. I tend to give them less benefit of the doubt than it seems you do. I think it's disingenuous to automatically applaud Rockstar for standing up for their freedoms as many of the commenters here have been doing (do you really think money has nothing to do with it?). And although Rob has not personally played Manhunt 2, many other game journalists have, and they have almost universally opined that if there was ever a game that pushed the envelope far enough to get to this point, it was Manhunt 2. I also think it's naive to think that programmers and artists in a development company have some kind of inviolable creative vision that's free of the influence of marketing and financial interests. But I do understand and respect your point that this is not an accusation to be made lightly.

I'm not sure I understand where you think Rob Fahey misunderstood the Hot Coffee scandal and the ESRB's position, though. What are you referring to specifically? Reading through the article again, I don't see him betraying ignorance of the ESRB "a number of times." He only mentions the ESRB by name twice. The first was to say that Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating in the United States which was a de facto ban, and that is correct as far as I can tell. The second was to say that the BBFC, and presumably the ESRB, did not find that Manhunt 2 does not represent worthwhile insightful commentary which is not correct because unlike the BBFC, the ESRB did actually give the game a rating and theoretically allowed it to be published (even if only on the PC).

The only other comment Rob Fahey makes is that the ESRB is a voluntary organization and that unlike in the UK, government censorship of videogames does not exist in the United States. And that is correct.

What exactly are the misconceptions about the purpose and practices of the ESRB that he betrays?

@Xantar
I have only one thing to say, since every videogame company is out there to make money, of chourse there is a money insentive to release the game. But the fact that R* is standing up for themselves (unlike with the Hot Coffee screwup) is a positive turn. Just because they want to make money does not mean that they are not right in their letter. This new guy at the helm of R* is at least stepping up to the plate. This is a change for the better and that is what people are supporting.

@ R*
Keep it up!

Xantar, your comment that the BBFC didn't do anything about San Andreas missed the point that they already rated it 18, and other sex games get rated 18 in the UK, so there was no reason to push it upwards, where "upwards" was a total ban. The fact America (and few other countries) re-rated it on that content is besides this point.

Also, you said government censorship - the BBFC is a body elected from the industry, which carries out a portion of the law to make media compliant. There is no politicians involved in their decisions directly, there are laws allowing a banned rating, this is the government part, but it isn't government run.

Rockstar are fair to make the point that banning it outlaws it to all adults. Because of it we cannot even make our own judgements on whether it should be rated highly or not, and anyone claiming they can, or that it is good for any kind of industry (this is a creative artistic industry as any other is involving money, don't push that it is all business), just cannot make those points with any kind of proof (nor can I say its a good game, frankly that is besides the point).

The BBFC banned Carmageddon remember? That game, the absolutely over the top and silly one where pedestrians could be run over in comical ways and races could be won by destroying opponents. If that had held up, imagine what other games we have now would be banned? Burnout and other racing games? GTA and other sandbox games? If SCI hadn't appealed, the BBFC might well have had a hard time with future ratings. Even Rob says this.

Rockstar is right this is not a good thing in my opinion. The BBFC has provided little evidence about the ruling, and I am glad Rockstar finally made a comment on it all, since this could change what happens to games in the future. Rob Fahey's original posts, the more factual parts, make these comments too, before he goes onto how he wouldn't play it himself and calling names at Rockstar.

I have no desire to play Manhunt 2. The content does not interest me in the slightest. However, that is MY decision as a consumer to make, and it is offensive that these companies (and in the UK, government) are taking that right away from me.

However, I do not blame the ESRB. Perhaps an AO rating is appropriate for the extreme content. (And honestly, the difference between M and AO is an entirely different discussion) The blame lies with the console manufacturers and retailers that make the rating an effective ban. Especially as the content in question appears to be no more explicit than what can be found in an R rated movie.

@ Xantar

I don't think that rockstar is being controversial to gain publicity in the slightest. They have simply identified a niche market (the 'violence porn' market as it is sometimes refered to) and created a videogame to cash in on this market. As there aren't really any more games in that genre, manhunt 2 has become the essential item in that category by default.

Beleive it or not, not many people want to play Manhunt games because they think they are 'sick'. The vast majority of my friends have said they would never touch the games, and are quite disgusted by my own interest in them. Doesn't sound quite like the 'controversy made it popular' argument you are putting forward.

Rockstar aren't idiots, they know exactly who they are targeting, and are simply giving us what we want: Grade A honest-to-God gore.

And as for the violence being unnessecary, I would also have to disagree on that point. While I can't speak for Manhunt 2, I am a big fan of the original and can expain how I feel that the violence worked in that game, in hopes that the context will be somewhat similar. The violence wasn't nessecary game-play wise, but was needed to set the tone, the atmosphere.

Imagine if you will, Resevoir Dogs without the ear-cutting scene. The plot would remain bassically the same if Mr Blonde had been shot before he started torturing the cop. But seeing Mr Blonde torturing (and almost killing) a man for his own sick pleasure changes his character completely. He's no longer just in this for the money, he's in it for the fun. And that makes you feel uneasy, something that couldn't have been accomplished otherwise.

I think Manhunt 2 should take a leaf from Resevoir Dog's book and have the camera pan away during the more violent executions. Because, really, you don't NEED to see them, you just have to know that they're there, for the atmosphere's sake. That should (hopefully) get a 'M' rating over in america. Don't know if it would help things here in the UK though...

i'm lovin the new rockstar. That company needd better leadership and it got it.

Hi again, Xantar

I believe that Hot Coffee answered an important procedural question which no one previously had thought to ask: When publishers are called on to submit their game's most controversial and potentially objectionable content to be rated, are they supposed to consider "artifact" content, which no player is expected to ever see, as part of the "game"?

Common sense (and certainly RockStar) might answer "no," but the ESRB determined the answer is "yes."

I feel this was the one honest, practical question at the heart of the deceitful political controversy. This question was answered when the ESRB decided to re-rate GTA:SA. An important precedent was set, and labeling the entire affair as "a ridiculous storm which threatened to shatter teacups across the USA" dismisses that importance with prejudice.

Fahey also "lauds" the "rapid self-censorship" of the game in the United States, which I interpreted as meaning the ESRB's "AO" rating should automatically be taken as due cause for banning a game. That may be the way it works out, for console gamers at least, but it absolutely is not the stated purpose of that rating, according to the ESRB.

Most of all, I was put off by the comment you mention, saying the ESRB is "presumably" of the opinion that Manhunt 2 does not offer "insightful commentary." I feel a quick visit to the ESRB website should prevent anyone from "presuming" the ESRB makes any judgments whatsoever based on the subjective quality or "insightfulness" of the commentary that may be interpreted from the games it rates. There are no "SLAPS" considerations here -- the ESRB only denotes and assigns age-appropriateness suggestions to individual narrative elements it determines to be worthy of mention.

I'm glad that T2 and R* are finally speaking out on behalf of the rights of artists, content devs, and Adult Consumers against the console makers and retailers.
They are really the only ones that can, since consumers are to disorganized to have a unified voice.

and Comrade Phantom, if you really feel you need to be babysat by a conglomerate of multi-nationals, you can always set your console to not play AO games. Many people still believe in the ideals of democracy and liberty, and feel that as adults, they can make decisions on their own for themselves and their families, without corporate/governmental oversite.

Communist Russia? lol i live in the year 2007... not sure about you (88?).

Your version of freedom is trying a bit hard. I'll agree that retailers can choose what they stock in their stores, but the 'We won't stock it so no one else can and they can't make it!', is pushing the freedom of choice in a different direction.

As i said, you can choose to set your console to restrict up to any rating you want, and i hope you have the freedom to do this for many years. I hope to exercise my freedom making the same decisions.

@Xantar

That sentence on which I commented came straight from the "Sick Filth?" editorial:

"There are certain parallels for this in literature, of course - Brett Easton Ellis' American Psycho and Iain Banks' Complicity both deal, in very different ways, with murderers portrayed in the first person.
However, the clear opinion of the BBFC - and presumably of the ESRB - is that Manhunt 2 doesn't represent the sort of insightful commentary represented by those works. This is killing, maiming and torturing for the sake of it; this may, in fact, be the game which lives up to the shrill claims of the conservative wing that games are 'murder simulators'"

When you say you don't need to check the ESRB because you already know the game was rated, you imply that the assigning a rating imparts some sort of ESRB approval of the game's "insightful commentary" or artistic merit. That would be a misunderstanding of the ESRB.

Perhaps unlike the BBFC process, for the ESRB to assign a rating to a game implies no judgment of the quality or worthiness of the game's overall narrative message. The ESRB will rate any game that a publisher pays to have rated. The fact that a game's content is given a certain rating by the ESRB cannot be taken as any endorsement of or comment on the quality or intellectual value of the game's narrative by the ESRB.

To me there is a huge ideological difference between assigning a game an age-appropriateness rating and condoning a game's narrative message. I realize this distinction may seem of exaggerated importance to someone from outside of America, where the First Amendment is nigh sacred.

Many "cheers" to you as well, though; thank you for taking the time to read what I'm trying to say.

I think people are forgetting that the ESRB isn't banning anything here. They assigned a rating that they feel is appropriate for the content presented. The console companies are the ones not choosing to allow AO rated games on their systems. Complain to them about it. The ESRB is just doing it's job.

Rockstar's got it right on the money. And while it is technically not a ban, the AO rating is treated as such by the industry at large. We gamers face a very difficult challenge with this one. How do we convince the retailers and, much more importantly, the console manufacturers to change their attitude? That is what needs to happen. Apparently Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft do not believe that allowing AO is worth the risk money-wise. Which leads to public perception. Personally, I feel that the big 3 need to allow AO in order for the industry to 'grow up.' How can this change come about?

@ Josherisms; 'How can this change come about?'

Simple. Rockstar simply has to include a new hot coffee as part of GTA 4's main game, and present it to the ESRB so the game can equire an AO rating. Microsoft could refuse to allow the game, but then Sony would snap it up (due to their dire lack of exclusives). After PS3's start selling like hotcakes, Microsoft would agree to release it to try and steal some of the thunder. Then, BAM! Both of those companies would have changed their policies, and R* can argue a release of manhunt 2 on their consoles.

No idea on how to solve things with Nintendo though, I think they'll remain kid-friendly forever.

@ tempo

The American politicians, who are in turn still heavily powered by conservative social and religious figures. The American public is still generally prudish about sex and violence, which is why adult content can be sold in a German Walmart while staying verboten from the same company's stores in Nashville. They have that power because they can threaten to take their business to other stores that don't carry objectionable content. It's mainly the big-box stores and nationwide chains that have to deal with it, since they make their profits by targeting the largest possible denominator. They have to appear family friendly, or else those families won't want to bring their business to the store.

@ Tempo

The wording says that they are not to sell them to minors. It does not say that they are not to sell them all together. Many retailers probably choose not to sell them at all to avoid any chance that a minor would be able to purchase them.

So if Nin,Sony,MS say no AO and 60-80% of retailers say no dose that not make it a presudo ban?

Devs should at the least be able to make AO games for the systems and the retailers can pick up the slack from there but with the console makers saying no theres no middle ground with that and the issues is stalled until a new rating is made or the console makers break.

As for laws...do you really want fed/states choosing what adults can buy because that is what it will come down to because that is the kind of country we are in, if we were no,the "think of the children crowd" would not have so much power.

@ Phantom
"The American politicians, who are in turn still heavily powered by conservative social and religious figures."

Actually, Conservatives (for the most part) are against censorship, and more for letting people run their own goddamn lives.

@ Austin

Hence why I quantified it with the social and religious modifier. True conservatives and Libertarians follow that hands-off approach, but others (like Romney and Brownback) are clear examples of pro-censorship conservatives.