Take-Two 'Temporarily Suspends' Manhunt 2

[Andy]

I agree that there should be an AO game released, but I'm with Salsashark here. The first AO game should actually earn its rating based on mature content - "mature" as in "for grown-ups."

Agreed, but unfortunately the system is flawed by the fact that neither Sony nor Nintendo will allow AO rated games to be licensed for their systems. This poses a pretty significant concern, to me, though it seems to be greatly overlooked; it essentially means that the ESRB has the power to deny a game from being released, depending on their subjective "evaluation" of its content.

This isn't like the unfortunate consequence of most retailers refusing to sell your product upon it receiving AO-rating, it is quite literally the ability of some independent, third party organization to deny your product from being produced. Yes, there are similar examples in other industries, such as the FDA in the food industry (and even then, that is a federal organization), but that is opening up an entire other can of worms if you are willing to compare hazardous food and drugs with whatever mental stimuli produced by any form of entertainment.

[PKBMax]

QFT. To be honest I don't really understand why anyone would want to play a game where you mindlessly mutilate people with motion control

I thought you liked Red Steel...

Manhunt is gruesome to the point where you doubt your own actions. The killing makes you uneasy, but you have to do it to avoid being killed yourself.

Are you telling me that that is somehow less noble than killing hordes of people in a game designed to make death clean, unoffensive and fun for the whole family?

Play Manhunt "mindlessly" and you'll die real quick. Its stealth and cover shooting mechanics are very well implemented. You need to plan your moves carefully.

[Frogacuda]

I thought it was impossible for a game to get an AO based solely of violence? It was under their old standards, but I guess they can arbitrarily rewrite the rules whenever they feel like it.

Andy is completely right. We've given the ESRB too much power and no accountability to hold itself to a fair, evenly applied standard.

[Melf]

This isn't a dig at you personally, but part of the problem is that in this industry we call games like Manhunt "mature." If you look up the word mature in the dictionary I guarantee it says nothing about being entertained by countless gory death animations or running over hookers for fun (no, it's not part of the game's story. Yes, we all do it anyway).

Unfortunately, this is the context used in gaming.



Semantics doesn't really have anything to do with it when everyone knows the context.

Now I watched the trailer for Manhunt 2 and it looked like it could be a legitimately violent, cinematic game. I'm just saying. I personally have no problem with schlock and by no means do I believe in censorship. But video games have notoriously immature content, and just think how a game like Manhunt looks to people outside our bubble.

I have no real interest in Manhunt 2 either, as it's violent content doesn't really excite me, but that is why they're called games. Just because people don't agree with the content doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

[Frogacuda]

QFT. To be honest I don't really understand why anyone would want to play a game where you mindlessly mutilate people with motion control (but then again I don't understand the appeal of gore-porn like Hostel 2 either).

I don't want to play it. But to have it taken away from me like I'm some kind of child that can't make that decision on my own is completely offensive.

[Salsashark]

Agreed, but unfortunately the system is flawed by the fact that neither Sony nor Nintendo will allow AO rated games to be licensed for their systems. This poses a pretty significant concern, to me, though it seems to be greatly overlooked; it essentially means that the ESRB has the power to deny a game from being released, depending on their subjective "evaluation" of its content.

On one hand I agree with you, and it's the same deal with the MPAA. If they give a commerical movie an NC-17 it's the kiss of death, and so begins a retarded bargaining process. I don't agree with that.

On the other hand I know that games with an M rating can be pretty damn gratuitous as is, and they definitely would be NC-17 if the MPAA's system were applied to them. Not to mention that there is usually much less narrative justification for the violence in a video game. So I'm not entirely sympathetic. Once we have a game with truly mature subject matter that's given an AO for nudity or something, I'll have more to be pissed off about. I haven't played Manhunt 2, so I can't really say how appropriate the rating is, but based on the first game it's possible that there is just a despicable amount of interactive, realistic violence.

Manhunt is gruesome to the point where you doubt your own actions. The killing makes you uneasy, but you have to do it to avoid being killed yourself.

People say this, but there's really no denying that the big thrill of the game is murdering people in really gruesome ways. There's some set-up, but that's ultimately the payoff. It's true that that's how it is for lots of games, but stuff like Manhunt is just an escalation of the kind of violence being used--which practically proves people like Jack and Hilary right with their "murder simulation" crap.

Are you telling me that that is somehow less noble than killing hordes of people in a game designed to make death clean, unoffensive and fun for the whole family?

Stuff like Manhunt isn't just realistic violence though. It's realistic violence as fantasy, which is probably worse. We're not talking about The Wild Bunch or something here.

Unfortunately, this is the context used in gaming. Semantics doesn't really have anything to do with it when everyone knows the context.

Yeah, I knew what you were saying. I just happened to get set off by the word after seeing it in your post.

[Frogacuda]

Who gives a shit if it's in bad taste? Isn't the point here that consumers should be allowed to choose what offends them or not? If it's over the line and it's gross, a lot of people won't buy it. Others may.

Sony and Nintendo should not be deciding what's too violent for me. They should also not be deciding to censor games because they're 2D or they're not commercial enough. But they do, because we let them. Fuck that.

I hope Rockstar ports this to PC. I'll buy two copies, and I won't even play them. We need to do away with first parties if they have this little respect for consumers and artists.

[Salsashark]

I agree. I don't think censorship is the answer, but on a deeper level I'm bothered that entertainment is going in that direction at all. I mean the ESRB is pretty damn lenient when it comes to violence.

Who knows, though. Maybe the AO was for a sex scene amidst the violence or something, which would be a whole other conversation.

[bbobb]

On the other hand I know that games with an M rating can be pretty damn gratuitous as is, and they definitely would be NC-17 if the MPAA's system were applied to them.

Bullshit. There's no M rated game that comes even close to the gratuitous violence of R rated movies like Hostel or Pulp Fiction or Commando for example.

[Andy]

On one hand I agree with you, and it's the same deal with the MPAA.

No it isn't. Yes, an NC-17 rating signifies the financial kiss of death for a film, but it does not disallow it from even being screened. Theatres can still show the film.

On the other hand I know that games with an M rating can be pretty damn gratuitous as is, and they definitely would be NC-17 if the MPAA's system were applied to them.

Not trying to be directly argumentative, but can you name one?

Because personally, I don't think I'd find a game like Manhunt to be as gratuitous as a movie like Hostel.