I will be SOOOO pissed if Soldier of Fortune 3 has to be watered down "for the children".

people should complain less to the ESRB and more to Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Retailers (Wal-Mart excluded since they already censor their music)

there should be nothing wrong with an AO rating, and if it were more widely used, maybe a lot of the other "violence in games" arguments would fall away.

the Big Three need to re-examine how they look at the ESRB.

Yuki
If T2 did that and won ,whats keeping porn game makers from from doing the same,what would keep a truly greustqse game from getting a AO.

I think the ESRB should side in favor of the whole of current culture,first off treat games basically the same as movies that way you wont hit NC17 to often.

Conejo
the main 3 are mindlessly looking at how to maximize profit,mainstreaming is a means to a end,and in order to see that end they have to take a product and rape it in order to make it "consumable" to the majority of the masses,we see this true effect in dubbing more than anythign else,tell me Dubing for movies and anime is not geared down toward the lowest mouth breathing tweens in the region!? (tween 12-20somehting).

Its funny they go out of their way to sale to this demographic when they will buy anythign 2 or 3 times regardless of how bad it is.....

@ Funky J

Yet many places, including Walmart, DO sell unrated versions of films. So not finding AO games in the stores? Considering that the ESRB KNOWS what giving a game AO means - essentially banning it, YES they are at fault.

It's a form of sanctioned censorship, and that's ALL it is.

There is currently a big commotion sweeping through the Fallout community. Players of the original two titles are quite that certain content and choices will be removed from Fallout 3 due to the AO "Kiss of Death."

As an example, in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, you could: take helpful drugs (stimpacks that restore health), take stat boosting drug which were addictive, kill children, get married then sell your wife/husband/cow into slavery, become a slave trader, etc etc.

Each of these "offensive" actions came with severe consequences: if you killed a child, on purpose or inadvertently, you were labeled as a child killer and would receive no help from important NPCs or be attacked out right when you entered a town. If you get addicted to stat booster drugs, you eventually start receiving stat penalties which can only be alleviated by taking more, which became a hindrance, was very expensive, and often led to death.

Many players use games as an escape, similar to non-gamers that use books, TV, music, or work. A key factor to escaping is immersion, which is often successful when giving players lots of choices. If handled correctly, as with Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 (in my opinion), you can enjoy a game without performing horrible acts, or perform those acts and suffer the consequences.

This isn't for Bethesda, though. They have removed harmful drug usage, killing of innocents, and so on. We just have to wait and see how they replace these choices.

Oh, and closer on topic with the article, a thank you letter might be in order for Karraker:

"Thanks for joining the ranks of people who work in the industry that use words that are counter-productive. Please get leave my side, because you make a better enemy than an ally."

@ Yuki

I aggree with Vance. The fact that console manufacturers and retailers won't let AO anywhere near them is not the ESRB's fault. They could help put pressure on the same to allow it, but the majority of the pressure needs to come from the developers and publishers. Right now it is the developers and the publishers who are censoring their games to avoid the AO rating. If there was an all of the sudden flood of AO games from developers who refused to censor their work, then I am sure that at least one of the console manufacturers would take notice and allow it.

With the current state of affairs, this will not happen. It is not the ESRB's battle. They have told the console manufacturers and the retailers that the AO rating is a valid rating. It is the same's responsibility to do with it what they will. So lay of the ESRB and point the finger atthe real culprit.

That goes to you too, Zippy, and Terrible Tom if you are reading.

E. Zachary Knight
They are a middle man none the less,and need to make it know that things are changing and that its coming and to let the consumers know that this is part of how new media grows,as they are they are now they are doing nothing but solidifying the status qoue and thats only hurting them.

Yuki

1) you cannot sue a non-governmental entity on 1st Amendment grounds. The Bill of Rights exists to protect citizens from their government.

2) your argument that you can buy Unrated movies (which are worse than R) actually SUPPORTS my position that we should pressure the game-makers to accept AO and not use it as the auto-fail that it is.

the only games that should be auto-fail in the eyes of the game companies are ones the ESRB refuses to rate.

God, thank you, I've been saying similar things for a long time. The ESRB simply CANNOT pretend that they don't have the power to administer the "kiss of death" to a game by rating it AO. It's all well and good for them to sit back and say "oh, it's the manufacturers' and distributers' problem", but they're a big part of the problem themselves.

"Personnally, I would love to get to the bottom of why retailers will carry unrated movies that would have gotten NC-17 ratings if they wentthrough the MPAA, but won’t sell games with a valid AO rating or no rating at all. That is the real double standard."
Exactly, it a problem with the retailers and console makers more then the ESRB and its ratings. The double standard is pathetic.

I think the problem with the AO rating is that there's no distinction between pornographic content and violent content. While "unrated" movies can safely be sold in average retailers like Wal-Mart, you'd be hard pressed to find anything pornographic. There is a some-what clear distinction between a pornographic movie and a non-pornographic movie. With the AO rating, both violent games and pornographic games get lumped into the same category. Places like Wal-Mart would probably be more comfortable selling games that are Violent AO, but would get torn apart for games with are Pornographic AO, but there's no clear cut way to tell the difference. Same with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. What the industry needs is a distinction between pornographic material, and violent material so we can eliminate this problem.

Marlowe
nicely said.

Wise Guy
This has always been one of my main arguments by lump porn into NC17 you defocto ban NC17 (for thos 2who blindly side with teh ESRB on this issue:due try and explain why its not a defacto ban in this screwed up country of the US)

Chance needs to come not in the acceptance of porn but in the understanding that you can not simply lump porn and NC17 into the same rating and think you can cop out by passing the buck!

VaMinion
the way it works now you need to make 2 version of it to make a profit off it, and with pron being lumped with NC17 in AO its not worth it,if they were to change AO to porn and create a M18+ level for violence then you would see a small change in things.

@ Wise Guy
While you won't find pornography in department stores like Wal Mart and Target, go into a store that sells DVD's (not Blockbuster, but a place that actually sells DVD's and movies and also has concerts on DVD's and a wider selection, and doesn't just stock the most popular shit that will make them the most money in the short term) and you will easily find pornographic films, to cite an easy example I would say the Suncoast Video at the mall by my house has an entire section devoted to it (there's little foam coverings on all the covers save the title.) Now I don't really see the point of having two ratings for violence and sex largely because not all depictions of sex in any medium is "pornography" it could be done tastefully to advance a legitimite storyline and/or show character developement, if we lumped sex in as pornography we'd have to do the same for violence in which case Saving Private Ryan would be on the same level as Saw. Frankly, it should be done just like the movie industry where larger retailers may not have NC-17 or unrated movies but we can count on the specialty retailers to have them, if that was the case we would not have to bother with these "two adult ratings" or whatever.

I agree with Vance to a point. Whether or not an AO game can sell isn't really their concern. What should be their concern, is helping to remove the stigma of AO through a new rating or some other fashion.

@ Zippy

"for thos 2who blindly side with teh ESRB on this issue:due try and explain why its not a defacto ban in this screwed up country of the US"

I take it I am one of the two you are refering to.

I have never said the AO rating is not de facto ban. I know it is. But it is not a ban instigated by the ESRB. It is a ban instigated by the console manufacturers and retailers. The AO rating was created to be a rating for games that are designed for strictly adults. They planned it that way.

So let's recap. Who rates games AO? The ESRB. Who refuses to liscence AO games? The console manufacturers. Who refuses to sell AO games? The retailers. Who has created the defacto ban? I'll let you answer that one.

@ Predetorian

He is responding to this:

"We want to offer age-appropriate entertainment for our consumers but do not want to be associated with material that is gratuitously violent or pornographic"

He does not say they don't want to be associated with AO games. He makes a very broad statement about the content of games. Those three games will all be garuitously violent.

okay, a limey here with a question.

The M rating is what? 17+

and AO is 18?

I mean if i havent got it completely wrong thats enough arguement alone to bring down AO, how much maturity can one gain in a single year? is it really that dangerous to take away such a small timespan? maturity is gained through exposure and understanding of such things, and in that sense, censorship is the exact opposite to its intended purpose.

*Shudders* Thats a scary thought.

We can't have this issue both ways guys.

Remeber the gaming industry was given this rather chilling choice by Congress under the Clinton Administration. Make a rating system so children can't get access to mature material or we'll do it for you.

We need to get away from the prention that the ESRB was an active choice. It wasn't a choice, it was that or government regulation, and they're still trying to regulate things; looking for any flaw in the ESRB so that big brother can swoop in and remove control from us and the industry.

Cut the ESRB some slack. They're in a no win situation here. They come underfire for not doing their job from side and they also come under fire from the industry and other gamers when they actully try to do their job. Its high time gamers stopped screaming to have it both ways.

If you honestly have a problem with things, work to change them instead of just complaining about it. Get into politics, run honest campaigns about the issues you believe in but get involved. That would really put people on notice.

@ Chris

The M rating is defined as "people 17 and over are fine playing this game, but if you as a parent want to let you under 17 kid play it then fine."

the AO rating is defined as "No kid under 18 should play this game."

That is the difference. The AO is a strict age rating whil M is a suggested age rating.

I don't mean to generalize too much here but its ironic to me that developers are complaining when this happens in the movies ALL THE TIME. For an industry that wants to be on par with the movie industry is seems they want to have their cake and eat it too.

This is far beyond the ESRBs inconstancies and more about the political climate of our times. This is nothing more than growing pains and is time and again blown out of proportion. The handful of games this affects are marginal at best imo and fighting for them only elevates the perception that the industry is fighting for "material that is gratuitously violent or pornographic" .

@ Doctor Proctor

Thank you. I agree with you completely. People need to stop complaining and get to work changing things. Change takes work and if you are afraid to work for the changes you want, then you are not worthy of even complaining.

3 Cheers for Doctor Proctor! Standards and practices will change, it is inevitable. How they change determines on who is participating in the process. If you aren't involved, ask yourself "Why?"

E. Zachary Knight
"I take it I am one of the two you are refering to.

I have never said the AO rating is not de facto ban. I know it is. But it is not a ban instigated by the ESRB. It is a ban instigated by the console manufacturers and retailers. The AO rating was created to be a rating for games that are designed for strictly adults. They planned it that way.

So let’s recap. Who rates games AO? The ESRB. Who refuses to liscence AO games? The console manufacturers. Who refuses to sell AO games? The retailers. Who has created the defacto ban? I’ll let you answer that one. "

Yes please porn+NC17=insane ban
NC17+a level on its own= lite ban(with a much higher chance at acceptance)

ZOMG there is a diffrance!
without the step you fall,they can not evolve without the step and thus they fall.

They need to show that they udnerstand the diffrance in porn and NC17 content if they do not they are no better than a goverment program bound to protect adults from maturatiy......

@Zippy:

How do you know that? The fact is this: game developers and publishers choose to develop for a console. It's disingenuous, at best, to build something where you know there's restrictions and then complain when they come down on you. It's not the ESRB's job to say "Well, it's crap that the console manufacturers ban AO games, so we'll rate it M instead".

You want to release an AO Manhunt 2? Release it on PC via digital distribution. Rockstar and Manhunt are big enough names that it'd probably work. And if Manhunt wouldn't, an AO GTA4 definitely would (as much as I'd hate any Rockstar title being the herald of a new age of AO gaming). Will it be as profitable as it would be at M? No. But it'll kick the door open for other companies to do the same thing.

What's that you say? Companies don't want to do that because it'll cut into their profits? That sounds like people who care more about their bottom line than their artistic intregrity.

The bottom line is that the ESRB is rating the games. But the people saying "You can't play this" are Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and the retailers, not the ESRB.

-P

“We want to offer age-appropriate entertainment for our consumers but do not want to be associated with material that is gratuitously violent or pornographic”

Someone needs to show him all the porn DVDs that are playable on Sony DVD players, computers, and TVs.

@Predatorian234

It's all part of his plan...he distracts you with his hair while he raids the education funds to pay for his failed attempt at crushing the First Ammendment. =)

@ The Central Scrutinizer

False. A movie can get NC-17 rating or skip the rating altogether and still be shown in a movie theater. It will not appear at the major chains, but unaffiliated theaters (the "art house" ones) will pick it up if there's an audience. It will still be sold on video.

When the console manufacturers decide to lock out all AO-rated games, it's the equivalent of banning a movie (no theatrical or video release). Very different from NC-17.

Oh, I entirely forgot about the console maker's being able to 'ban' a game from their systems, all I can say is 'long live the PC' heh.

@ Miraba

Is the PC not the "art house"? Is digital distribution not the retailer that sells unrated games?

In the early 20th century movies came out and were only whown in theatre. There were only a few big chain theatres to choose distribution through. Many of these chains were owned by the same companies that made the movies. Eentually, these companies were forced to seperate the distribution stream from the production stream. THere still was a lot of power in owning these theatre chains, but in the advent of tv, they lost some of that power. They were still powerful enough. Eventually a thing calle the VCR came out and a new threat happened. Theatres now had to deal with movies that bypassed those theatres and go straight to the viewer's tv. This was a big universal way to distribute movies.

In the early days of games the situation was much like the early days of movies. Atari owned the hardware and software side of gaming. Eventually, people broke away and started third party development. Eventually the the household pc and the internet would come and become the tv era of gaming. At this moment in time we are in the TV like era. The consoles are still going strong, but the pc and internet are fighting back. We have yet to reach the VCR era of a universal gaming standard, but it will come. Until then, we will need to cater to the sometimes ugly demands of the consoles.

@ Miraba

how is your analogy any different than an AO game getting released for the PC?

My argument holds TONS of water and no leaks :)

DoctorProctor illustrates the points I'm trying to make far more eloquently and succinctly...

@ Doctor Proctor
Well that's essentially what I'm saying. We need to bring this to the big three and retailers, they are primarily at fault, but we shouldn't let the ESRB off the hook. Yes, Vance has nothing to do with the business desisions of the big three or the retailers, but guess what, she's much more involved with the industry and with this particular situation than most if not all of the people posting here, and for her to essentially say "not my decision, not my problem" is a complete cop-out and it is pathedic.

I personally blame Sony, Nintendo and retailers. Sony wants "age-appropriate" games, right? Well, for adults, isn't an Adult Only game exactly for them, adults?
And Walmart, selling uber-vilent movies, but not uber-violent games? It could simply be behind-the-counter, it wouldn't be that hard....

@the central scrutinizer

Then again if they REALLY wanted to be like the movie industry, they would skip the ESRB rating all together or have Regular Manhunt 2 (M rated) and the unrated version of Manhunt 2.

Also consider this.

Saw II gets made and is shown in theathers.
Manhunt 2 is made and it is just as violent as Saw II and is banned.

The game industry wants to be like the movie industry, and part of that means being able to release uber-violent content. So if they can't do that, they have every damn right to bitch about it.

Father Time is right about the esrb being at fault. They should only give
games with strong sexual content the AO rating. The esrb is violating our
ammendment right by not letting us play a game like Manhunt 2 just because of violence. The esrb is at fault knowing that these console would not accept AO rated games and they give Manhunt 2 the AO rating.

ESRB, you do not have the right when it comes to American rights to tell companies like Rockstar games that they need to get a certain amount of violence out of the game in order for it to basically not get the AO rating.

The esrb should be taken to court for violation of our rights.

@Michael

The first amendment applies to the government, not private organizations.

Also I'd like to add that the EESb's rating system may be based off the mpaa's rating system, (well except for E10), but the MPAA's rating system isn't perfect. In my mind anytime you gave a movie a rating of NC-17 purely because of violence (and bad language), you have failed at giving it a proper rating, anytime you have a ratings board that allows for a de facto ban on uber violent games/movies is a failure.

Rating systems are not the end all be all decider for what is and is not appropiate for people. Nor where they meant to be.

A Pg-13 movie MAY be inappropiate for a 12 year old, they gave it that rating because they thought it would be inappropriate for MOST 12 year olds. Could your 12 11 or 10 year old be an exception to the rule? Of course they can. They are meant to be to be rough guidelines for how inappropriate they are.

You know what's funny someone on the anti-game side said the ESRB was flawed and 'beyond repair' (I think it was Hillary Clinton or the president of NIMF). Back then we didn't agree with them but now they don't seem as crazy as they did before do they?

@ Father Time

Wasn't that because they thought the ESRB was being too lenient? We're arguing that the ESRB is powerless to bring change.

@ Father Time

Whatever, you started saying that you blame the esrb and it looks like you cant even defend your own sayings since you find in fault with me.

You people that are talking nonsense to me evidently are not smart enough to know that if the esrb causes a game like Manhunt 2 to not be released in its full version then they are going against the amendment right.

@ Michael

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress (the government) shall make no law. Since when has the ESRB been part of the government?

@ Miraba

The handheld scene is the only market where I see homebrew being a valid option. Right now there is not an affordable handheld option for the homebrew gamer. As far as i can tell, Nintendo has done very little to thwart homebrew on the DS. I know Sony has tried on all levels to block it on the PSP. But there are homebrew handhelds out there. They don't have the power and functionality of the DS and PSP but they are available. Maybe if the Homebrewers would support them more, they would increase in power and functionality.

No shirt, no shoes, no service...

You ever see those signs? A lot of businesses post them, but does it violate the first ammendment? What if my religion dictates that shoes are evil (let's call them the Joe Jacksonites), are they trampling my rights by not letting me express my self?

In a word, NO.

A business has every right to ask things or deny things of their patrons, distributors, suppliers and employees...because they *OWN* it. These signs carry no legal significance though...there isn't a law against going barefoot.

This seems to be a fundamental fact that many of you are misunderstanding. There is no legal weight to the ESRB's system, in fact, it was created for express purpose of making *sure* that there would never be any legal weight via a governmental ratings system. This is what the ESA spends all their time defending, our right to play what we want without government intervention and legal penalties.

Now, as far as Wal-Mart and the big three are concerned, they can do whatever they want. MS created the 360, they decide what gets put on it. If they pass up a game like Manhunt 2 and say "Sorry, we don't really want that on our console", don't they have that right? The same as if a publisher says "I'm sorry, I don't really want to front the money to support that idea".

The same goes for Wal-Mart. It's their money that they're spending to buy these games from distributors, and it's their image on the line if Manhunt 2 ends up getting sold to an 11 year old. We can't force them to spend their money in a way that they don't want, no more than we can force them to allow the Joe Jacksonites to trample their dirty feet all over their stores. To do so would be violating *their* rights as a privately owned business.

So please, stop bringing the First Ammendment into this, that's a whole other issue. As for it being "unfair" or whatever that Manhunt 2 didn't have sexual content, so what? It had the player castrating people with pliers...let me say that again, CASTRATING PEOPLE WITH PLIERS!!! There's also no context to it... You're not a police officer, you're not fighting in a WWII battle, you're not a soldier trying to save humanity. You're an escape psycho murdering people.

I'm 26 years old and even *I* don't want to play something that violent and disgusting. I don't blame the ESRB in the least for rating it AO, to lump it into and M game would be disingenuous because of the aforementioned reasons. If Take 2 and Rockstar feel *that* strongly about it they can realease an M rated console version and then go with a digital distribution model to get out an AO version out for the PC. However, they don't seem to be going that route, and that's *their* decision.

And I'm sure it probably has something to do with that fact that 90% of the people on here bitching about this wouldn't buy the AO PC version for whatever reason...they'll be heading over to Wal-Mart to pick up their M rated PS3 version instead. gg

Once the person buys the console they should have control over what they play on it, not the company that sold it to you. They should stop pirated software from being used on it but they shouldn't restrict content on it. Again this is like having a DVD player that comes out of the box and wont play porn or violent movies. It also won't play unrated DVDs. Its the SAME THING. I don't think Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo should be allowed to do this. They should put a system in which you can customize so parents can control the content on it, but they shouldn't control what software is on it as long as they receive the required amount of money from the publishers/developers.

@Terrible Tom

Ugh...one more time for those just joining us...

If you want a physical store to sell your game, follow steps 1-9. If you want digital distribution of whatever content you feel artistically inclined to create, skip to steps 10-12

1) Developer comes up with idea for a game, needs money.
2) Developer seeks out Publisher to payroll their idea.
3) Developer and Publisher negotiate, this may involve the Developer toning down their idea in order to get the Publisher's support. This is called business.
4) Developer and Publisher will shop their idea around in order to get a console liscence. This means agreeing to a contract with terms and conditions that the console maker dictates. If they say "No AO games" then the Developer and Publisher know this *up front*.
5) Developer creates game and they *voluntarily* submit it to the ESRB.
6) ESRB rates game as they see fit, based on established guidelines.
7) Developer and Publisher decide if this rating meets what they envision. If they're making a DBZ game they would want an E or T since that's the target demographic, if they don't get that *they will decide if they want to adjust the content*.
8) If the desired rating has been achieved then go to step 9. If not, then repeat steps 5-7 until you receive a rating you're happy with.
9) Release game.

10) Creator comes with an idea for a game.
11) Creator learns flash and releases on NewGrounds or creates a homebrew app of some sort. If you wish a retail release, skip this step and proceed to 12.
12) Creator creates game with or without Publisher support, then releases the game digitally via the internet.


The reason that there are hardly any AO games is because most companies follow steps 1-9 and do not desire that rating. Some follow steps 10 and 11, or 10 and 12, but these are usually "unrated" games that are not part of the "industry". If you want an AO-equivalent game so bad then go play some hentai date sim over on NewGrounds.

Otherwise, you have two choices. Make it yourself, or stop complaining because the same developer that you're complaining is being "forced" to water down their game signed all of those contracts and made all those legally binding agreements knowing that steps 5-9 would be necessary.

@Miraba:

"In that vein, was it responsible for Nintendo to have encouraged RS/TT when they should have known that Manhunt 2 might receive an AO rating?"

That's a whole other debate. ;-)

-P

Sounds to me like people prefer giving freedom to the companies rather than freedom to the people.

@Terrible Tom

You know, you're right!!! I mean, why should they get to charge us money for their content! For that matter, why should MS be able to keep me playing PS3 discs on their console? Or use XBox Live on a Wii?

Oh yeah...that's because they *MADE IT*

Of course the freedom goes to the companies. They make the content/platform, they get to decide what, and how, they make it. You want another type of content? Well, you better start learning Flash.

You need to grow the F up and realize that when a company fronts *millions* of dollars to create a game or a console that it's up to them to decide what gets put on it. Someday when you become a big boy you can make your own company that does whatever you want it to.

I'm glad to see your unsurpassed respect for different ideas and values. Having respect for one another is extremely important and as always I appreciate your willingness to provide it.

In response to your ideas of me promoting 360s to play PS3 discs or whatever. Of course not! Well for one 360 doesn't have blueray capabilities. And two that is leaking into the piracy or at least a situation that resembles piracy. It seems your twisting my words to your liking.

And your right the freedom to develop games should go to the companies. The companies that pay millions of dollars to make the game(not always microsoft, sony and nintendo). So under this Take Two should have the right to release Manhunt 2 onto consoles. Any game developer/publisher that wishes to make a AO game or M game should do so without fear of being denied by the console manufacturer just like no film production should fear being denied by a DVD player manufacturer.

Flash isn't the only way out. There are many, many other ways and tools to use. =)

The reason why the video game industry is being attack so much by the government is because they don't grease the palms of candidates or officials like the movie industry does. You don't bite the hand that feeds you do you? That's why the try to keep focus on video games when it comes to talking about media that need to be controlled/legislated.

@Rob

I don't think there's enough grease in the world to prevent video games from becoming the pariah of politicians right now. In order to fix that, games will need to undergo a shift in cultural connotation, from CP for Child's Play to E for Everyone. This is something that will happen over time.

Yes, if someone wants to then yes. Of course Bill Gates probably would be able to sue them for conspiracy to commit murder and the developers may go to jail

Yes, my argument is that in the contract between say Microsoft and any game developer/publisher should not include a ratings requirement. Microsoft should NOT have the right to deny AO games access to their console. This would be like saying you can't view violent or sexual imagery while using the Windows Operating System. It is absurd that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are doing this and I don't think they should be allowed to restrict content like this.

I'm not suggesting they only allow AO or E content, I'm suggesting they allow ALL content on their consoles. This certainly would not make them "tank".

Just because someone doesn't agree with your views or how the system currently operates doesn't mean I'm denying reality. I'm simply suggesting that the way it operates should change. I'm not ignoring the real world, I'm envisioning how it could change and why it would be good to go in that direction. Now if you want to not give respect to people that wish to change things to promote freedom and liberty on any issue thats your choice but don't accuse them of ignoring reality. That is a flimsy claim at best. The real world is what we as a society make it to be.

But I honestly don't believe in regulation. We shouldn't have to regulate games for the same reason we shouldn't have to regulate art. I don't think you should regulate movies or music either. Call me crazy if you wish but I just appreciate FREEDOM, not the fake processed version but the pure and true version.

The ESRB is broken and is no longer an organization with the best interests of gamers or the industry in mind. The de facto censoring of games is nothing more than kowtowing to political pressure and the more people that understand that the ESRB is a negative thing, the better.

Well Bill Gates is a real individual and its currently against the law to conspire to commit an act of violence against an individual. And since Bill Gates has an unlimited amount of money I don't find it difficult to see why he wouldn't have a perfectly acceptable case against any individual wishing to promote ideas particularly against HIM as a person.

What I'm saying is I'm pretty sure the game would be illegal without even taking into account anything besides the illegality to conspire a violent act against an individual. Of course it depends on the game but you see they just made the machine. They can make games if they want to but they shouldn't control what the machine is used for as long as it isn't pirating software.

Doctor, your still ignoring my question. How is this different from say Sony making a DVD player and saying this DVD player can play all DVDs unless they are unrated, contain too much violence or sexual imagery?

@ Terrible Tom

The DVD is a universal standard for movie production. The PS3 is a private standard for making video games. Universal means public. Private means the owner can dictate the terms.

Should Scholastic be forced to print Misery 2? Should Disney be forced to Produce Saw IV? So why should Nintendo be forced to Liscence Manhunt 2?

A better question is this: Why can you play the un-rated Blu-Ray of SawIII, but not Manhunt2 on the PS3? I'm willing to bet that Blu-Ray porn isn't long for the making, will the PS3 play that?

I think we need to get Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to see that they are wrong for not wanting AO rated content on their consoles. Then after that we should get rid of the ESRB and then let the retailers sort it out.

@Terrible Tom

"Its different. Sony doesn’t produce every game. They license them but not produce them."

Exactly! There's the glimmer of understanding somewhere in there behind all the cheese analogies...

The makers of Saw III do not have to get a license from each DVD player manufacturer. They merely create the DVD's and put them up for sale. The makers of Manhunt 2, however, are required to get a license from Nintendo though.

This isn't "corruption" though, it's called "proprietary technology". Nintendo went to great expense to create the Wii and it's unique control system. They own certain patents and intellectual property rights relating to this system. This was the reason why they weren't involved in the rumble lawsuit...they created their own rumble technology, rather than using an *unlicensed* facsimilie of another company's idea.

As such, they have the right to require a license when creating a game on their console. They have the right to specify whatever terms and conditions they want on that license agreement, just like the developers and publishers have the right to refuse those contracts. Incidentally, it was Nintendo's push to sign 3rd party N64 developers into contracts barring them from working with competitors that ruined that console. The developers simply refused and moved over to Dreamcast and Play Station.

DVD players, on the other hand, are an entirely different animal. Anyone can build one, from Sony, to Panasonic, to Zenith. Also, the way that DVD's are formatted is universal. There aren't "Sony" DVD's and "Microsoft" DVD's...there's just DVD's. Hell, you can even make them yourself! It's called a DVD burner.

Because there aren't those nasty license agreements you can't really limit the content. Sure, they can make pr0n movies illegal to sell to minors, but the DVD players will still play it. We already have a console of sorts that works along those lines...it's called a PC.

Doctor Proctor Said things a bit better than myself.

@ Miraba

The console manufacturers still have the say in what games are available for download. The developers going this route still have to play by the console manufacturers rules and are only available for download from the console manufacturer's servers. You are not able to just download anything from the internet on the consoles.

Thank you Central Scrutinizer. This is what I have been trying to tell these people. I doubt they will listen though. After all the ESRB is stomping on our First ammendment rights. ;)

judging by*

@E. Zachary Knight

Do you know Sony's or Microsoft's position on downloadable games? Is it possible for unrated games be judged by people within Sony or Microsoft, or must every game go through the ESRB?

I expected downloading from a browser would be broken, but totally different reasons. Imagine the mess if a) people were able to download pirated content from Youtube/their provider of choice (hello RIAA and MPAA) or b) someone wrote a virus for one of the consoles. Even if something worked ok on Windows/Mac/Linux, it still might brick the console.

We can agree to disagree.

I'm currently not taking part in the consumption of next gen consoles. I'm going to stick with PC until one console deems itself worth purchasing. Right now Wii is getting most of my interest, PS3 and 360 are tied for not really being terribly interesting.

PC, in my opinion, is far superior to consoles. And there aren't any restrictions so I think I'm going to stick with my PC since in a year it will most likely out perform all consoles.

Now perhaps if Take Two would release an extended uncut and unrated version(would require adding extra content unreviewed by the ESRB) of Manhunt 2 on PC then reduce content on Manhunt 2 and water it down so the ESRB can bring it down to M then perhaps they can release a crappy watered down version for consoles and then an expanded unfiltered version with a controller that works like a wiimote then perhaps people would buy it for PC.

Anything to try to take away from their consumer base. But that would sour the relationships between take two and the console manufacturers. But they deserve it. Perhaps games could sell start selling games with controllers included so it would make the PC more like a console in some ways.

@Terrible Tom

Why exactly do console manufacturers deserve to be punished by the taking away of their consumer base?

If this is all because the ESRB rated Manhunt 2 as AO then, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

I'll glady embarce the ESRB over government regualtion any day of the week. Take 2 knew the ESRB standards going in. They lose the right to complain when they state from the outset that they were trying to make the most offensively violent game ever and then it gets rated that way. Stores also have the right to refuse to carry a product. If I'm a store owner I can choose to not carry certain media while carrying others. Sometimes those choices are down right schizophrenic, but that's the way the game is played.

I'm 33 years old now dude. I've lived through when D&D and Vampire the Masquerade was blamed for everything, I was in school when some groups went after every fantasy animated show on television because they were "satanic". This stuff with the ESRB? This is downright mild compared to what I used to see.

Give it time. The ESRB will mature and grow, as with everything there will be stumbling blocks along the way; but that's to be expected.

You don't have to support the ESRB but keep in mind were we'd be if the industry hadn't "voluntarily" created it.

Yea, and its time to go because this method isn't working out for me. Yea it was worse but just because something is better than terrible doesn't make it right or even okay. We should try to fight for whats right and what I believe is right doesn't involve the ESRB being affiliated with the console manufaturers or retailer's standards.

Oh yea, retailers are my enemies as well.

@The Central Scrutinizer

"It is not to focus on or protect crappy games or even good ones, its to bring a higher level of transparancy and most of all understanding to the ratings of games in general."

Scrutinizer indeed... That's a really great way of looking at things, and you're right, that should be our focus. If what you describe happens, as it seems to have with the movie industry, then we won't have all these legal challenges and industry infighting about rogue developers drawing the ire of Washington and "He who shall not be named".

@Everyone

The discussion continues to revert to the "who are the enemies?" template.

I think we should stop thinking about this issue in terms of who's to blame, and consider instead how to turn it on its head. If you speak in dollar signs, the suits listen.

Right now Manhunt 2 doesn't look to constitute a significant enough piece of the game to encourage retailers reconsider their position, or to make game companies open their hardware to all titles. If it were poised to have a box-office caliber opening week, rest assured we would have it on our shelves in all its AO-glory.

As gaming continues to become a more predominant force, there are certain be serious reconsiderations of content-restriction by everyone involved. Except the ESRB, of course, which should probably continue to function as it stands, if only to keep the gameless monkeys off our backs, and 5-year olds from shoving heads into electrified toilets.

Bayushisan - Since you know the vast majority of gamers and their opinions perhaps you could conduct a survey(not net based) to see if they think the ESRB is rating games fairly and then another survey seeing on if they support the ESRB. I'm very interested in this and the only surveys I've read of is the one ESRB gave to parents.

@Central Scrutinizer

I damn well will blame the ESRB for this (although not solely the ESRB). What is an M designed for: 17+, how about an AO rating: 18+. That's only one year of difference. Now why would they possibly have such a small difference between the two. Ah yes porn. AO used to mean a porn game, and only a porn game. Now look here comes uber-violent manhunt 2. It should get an M rating but now it gets an Ao rating and treated like hardcore porn. The problem is it's not porn. Look I'm willing to bet the reason Ao means retail death is because of it's association with porn. Simply put that if you give a game that is not porn a rating reserved for porn games someone must have screwed up somewhere along the line.

To further elaborate on this how could a game POSSIBLY be so violent that it is inappropriate for 17 year olds? Can your average 17 year handle porn? Yes. How about Saw, Scarface and Se7en? Also yes. Do they honestly think that the same people who flock in record numbers to see 300 are going to be scarred by manhunt 2? That raises the question of how exactly do they rate games? Do they just rate them by offensiveness (decapitating an adult vs. decapitating an infant), because it sure seems that way.

Also the ESRB should be aware of what happens to an Ao rated game. With that in mind why haven't they revised their rating system? Why do they keep a rating that effectively bans the game from existence? Their job should not be to dictate to the nation what crosses the line, so why don't they destroy the M rating, or bring it up to 18+ and destroy the Ao rating, since the system as it is now is fundamentally flawed.

Oh yeah I would to ask everyone here, a simple question.

If God Of War 3 got an AO rating do you think Sony would still publish it anyway?

Father Time: I just think people are coming from different directions on this issue. Some people want to move forward faster than others in some respects I guess.

I disagree with your common sense. No one knows for sure where we would be without the ESRB. There is no way of knowing. You can make a GUESS but its just that... A GUESS. Its common sense to know that your predictions may very well be right but there is no way proving it and no way of being certain.

@ Miraba

Nintendo requires an ESRB rating before a game is available for download. I am not 100% sure about Sony and MS but I don know that they require prior approval.

@ Father Time

Maybe you missed it the first time, but I already corrected you on the difference of the M and AO ratings. M is a suggested rating. Meaning that they suggest letting only 17 and up play it, but if parents feel that under 17 kids can play it then fine. AO is a strict rating. Meaning, The ESRB says that no one under 18 should play it. 18 is not a magic age. Its just the nationally accepted age of adulthood.

@E. Zachary Knight

I still don't think that ANY game/movie/book etc. can be inappropriate for 17 year olds solely off of violence. That's why I think the ESRB needs to change their system.

Bildo - People's position against the ESRB has been stated, read the comments.

oh and one more thing, the ratings go like this

EC = G
E = PG
T = PG-13
M = R
AO = Nc-17

(E10 has no equivalent in movie ratings).

The great thing about this site is that the focus on political aspects of the videogame industry provides a nice cover for trolling the various companies, consoles and fans themselves.

Don't you agree, Tom?

I wonder, how many people remember when Manhunt came out and got a M rating? Do you remember THAT controversy? It may not have been as big as this, but a lot of people, some even inside the industry, thought Manhunt deserved an AO. I remember many comments stating that it only didn't get an AO because the ESRB was afraid of giving a "kiss of death" to the game. Manhunt's M rating was used as an example by some critics about how broke the ESRB was.

Now, Manhunt 2 comes out, and the ESRB gives it an AO rating... and it's being used as an example of how broke the ESRB is.

The fact is, I never played Manhunt and have no desire to, so I don't know what rating it deserved. And none of us have played the AO version of Manhunt 2, so we don't know for sure whether it was really that much worse than the first game or not, do we? For all we know, Manhunt 2 did in fact deserve an AO rating. Some have argued that nothing deserves an AO or NC-17 just for violence, but the fact is all these age ratings are just general standards based somewhat on our culture's standards, and a lot of people in our culture DO think that violence alone is worthy of a rating beyond R or M, so obviously the ESRB and MPAA are going to have one.

Assuming for the moment that Manhunt 2 did really deserve an AO, then the ESRB was stuck in a bad situation, one not entirely its fault. Either they give Manhunt 2 the rating it deserves, and be accomplice to a de facto ban, or give it a M rating, and abandon their duty as a rating board by purposely giving a rating they knows is inaccurate. Some people seem to think they should have done the 2nd, that the duty of a supposedly independent ratings board is to give inaccurate ratings so as to get around the descisions of the console makers and retailers and ensure certain games are released.

That said, I'm not entirely happy about the rating system. I believe that in general the ESRB is often too harsh. Things that would be PG get T ratings, and things that would be PG-13 get M ratings. In addition, sex is still a big taboo in games and judged even harsher than violence. I'm not myself a fan of graphic violence and sex, but I prefer some consistancy in ratings, though with the MPAA and ESRB being seperate entities I understand that's hard to manage.

And whatever the ESRB trys to say, it seems some standards have changed. It appears that Fallout 3 is having to cut stuff out that existed in the first 2 games, and that greatly frustrates me some. I've never played either Fallout, and probably won't ever due to the hassle of finding a copy and getting it to run on my current machine, but both those games have really interested me for a while, because they offer such great freedom in how you can play the game. I love the idea of such a world, even if a lot of the choices are ones I'd never make while playing.

One interesting thing about Fallout is that when you shoot at someone and miss, the bullet doesn't just vanish into thin air. It hits something. And that something can be another person, a bystander. Combine that with the fact that you can kill anyone in Fallout, even children, and it certainly adds a new dynamic to fighting in towns and cities, a new challenge, one that will effect even people who'd never choose to hurt innocents and would blanch at the very idea of killing even a virtual child.

But what will happen in Fallout 3? "Oh crap, this guy's trying to kill me in the middle of a crowded city, this could be bad... wait, all the people around him are kids. Good, I can use my submachine gun and hand grenades now. Good thing children are immortal."

If that's what Fallout 3 is, then I myself, a somewhat conservative christian, would rather play a special AO PC version of Fallout 3 that let you kill kids, if one existed. I'd rather have the challenge of trying to avoid hurting them in such cases.

Toshiba could have banned porn from DVD. They didn't because it made no financial sense. See betamax. This is the market's fault, mainly.

I think the ESRB has more power than they care to admit. They can't INSTANTLY fix the state of the industry but it's within their power to do so. It will require some work and planning, but it can be done.

The gist of my idea (now explained in GP's letters page, as of now, second letter down): the crucial part is breaking the old “M” rating into 16+ and 18+ and having a SEPARATE rating for “conventional” AO-duty.

@Mad Scientist

"I’ve never played either Fallout, and probably won’t ever due to the hassle of finding a copy and getting it to run on my current machine."

Not so hard. I found Fallout 1, 2, and tactics on one DVD, cost me about 15 bucks on Ebay. The games run perfectly on XP.

Not so hard, and definitely worth your time and money. Those are important games.

@Mad_Scientist

On the disparity between movie and video game ratings for the same level of content, I think there are several factors in play. One is that some people feel that participating is worse than passively watching (debatable). The other is that the ESRB is new and needs to appear conservative in their ratings so politicians and activists don't jump all over them even more than they are now. This puts the ESRB in the position to make themselves look good when compared to the MPAA.

Console makers can't win this fight for trying. If they publish absolutely everything, they become a target for the morality police, and this will hurt their ability to compete. If they publish some AO titles, they're going to become a legal target when they won't publish others.

The second point is probably not all that defensible, actually. But the gist of the argument is, if you want to get the titles published, you need to target your efforts at the source, and start shutting down the repressive morality police. You need to fight them on every front. They've already declared a culture war, it's time to stop giving them the Sudetenland and start fighting.

@chuck

Ever seen a sign in a restuarant that says 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone'? The same principle applies here, they could publish fallout 3 and manhunt 2 and not publish porno adventures 5 if they so choose. There is no law saying that if they publish an Ao title they have to publish all of them.

Also we both know that the morality police sure as hell can't do anything to stop the game industry. Even if we don't put up a fight they can't win.

@Father Time

"But who cares if politicians start bashing the ESRB? Why should that matter?"

Uh, us, the gamers? Isn't part of the struggle to have games recognized as a form of art and to have gamers be recognized as functional members of society? People who aren't gamers see the game companies and the ESRB as the representatives of violent teenagers and immature adults. One way to combat that is to let the ESRB err on the side of caution so it gives the impression of being an organization of mature adults.

@ father time

Well, lets be honest here. Are you telling me that M rated games are worse than rated R movies? No way. Like I said, compare half life to casino royale, you can even compare other games such as DOOM 3 to Terminator 2 or Starcraft to Die Hard. IMO these (and most) games content are much less worse than that of the content of the movies.

The reason I left out EC is because EC is essentally the same thing as E. The content descriptors state that EC is for 3 and older while E is for 6 and older. but may have some mild cartoon or fantasy violence Since the G rating given by the MPAA means "All ages admitted" I just wrapped EC and E together since they are pretty much the same thing when compared to the G rating.

I understand that EC and E are different when there is a direct comparison between the two but since I am comparing them to the likes of a G rating, most G movies has some sort of violence (bambi, ratatouille, Polar Express, etc.) while EC supposedly does not according to the ESRB. So where would that fit into the MPAA ratings? No where since there is no MPAA rating for movies with no violence in them. That is why i coupled EC and E together.

@Father Time

I'm not totally sure I understand what you're trying to say. I never said that just because a bunch of people think something it is right. What I meant was that the ESRB, as a ratings board who's supposed purpose is to make it easier for people to know what content is in a game and what ages are recommended for it, is going to try and choose standards that are relevent to a fairly large amount of people.

A lot of people in other countries think the US's standards in relation to violence vs sex are backwards anyways, but I'm not trying to argue about that. The fact is, even though violence is fairly tolerated in the US, there are still a lot of people who think that extreme violence can reach a lvl where it goes beyond what is acceptable for a M or R rating. The ESRB and MPPA apparently agree. You may not, but surely you can at least try and respect the viewpoint of those who do.

"And those are just the ones we know about."

Let us not forget thrill kill, a PSone game which never saw the official light of release. Though I guess since it never was 'officially released' it wouldn't count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrill_Kill