Kotaku
By: Brian Crecente
News of the preliminary Adults Only rating for Manhunt 2 have spurred quite a bit of speculation about the process and how the game received the rating. While ESRB president Patricia Vance couldn't really talk about the game's preliminary rating, she did take the time to do an email interview about the issues that the AO rating have brought up.
1. With the Wii, developers can now make games that allow gamers to physically act out violent acts and see them occur in a game. Games such as Godfather, Scarface and Manhunt 2 all do this. Do such controls have an impact on a game's rating? If so do you think that supports the argument that a game's interactive nature makes it more dangerous than more passive experiences like watching a movie, listening to music or reading a book?
PV: We've always been very clear about the fact that the degree of player control is one of several elements that the ESRB considers in the assignment of ratings, including the content itself, it's frequency, intensity and realism, context within which it is presented, and the reward system. The interactive nature of games certainly differentiates them from more passive forms of media like films and televisions, which is why the ESRB system takes these other unique characteristics into consideration.
2. Has the ESRB ever rated a game Adults Only due to violence?
PV: Yes. The AO rating has been assigned more often than it actually ends up appearing on product shipped. Our system affords publishers the opportunity to modify and resubmit games that receive the AO rating in light of the business ramifications that such a rating currently presents.
3. An Adults Only rated game is akin to NC-17, I believe, for movies. Do you think it's fair to say that an AO rated game is essentially obscene?
PV: An Adults Only rating does not mean the game qualifies as being "obscene." And as confirmed on the MPAA website, nor does an NC-17 rating.
4. From a buyer's perspective, or a parent's perspective, the difference between a game rated Mature and a game rated Adults Only in one year. You have to be 17 to buy one and 18 to buy the other. How does one distinguish the fine line between the two when rating a game?
PV: While in terms of age recommendation the difference between the M and AO categories is only one year, the real utility of the AO rating is in communicating intensity. It indicates that the content in the game is more intense than what is typically found in an M-rated title, and the rating is there because that distinction is useful to consumers. Our raters review all of the pertinent content in a game and use their judgment to assign ratings they find to be appropriate given that content. It's worth nothing that, in terms of age recommendation, there is no difference between an R and an NC-17 rating for movies, as they both use 17 as the age threshold.
5. In general, when rating a game does the ESRB use a system that relies on community standards to decide what is and isn't an acceptable level of violence or sexual references in a game? If so, do you feel those standards shift over time?
PV: By their very nature, as well as to maintain credibility and trust, ratings must reasonably reflect the current cultural norms and community standards of those for whom they are intended. That is why we regularly conduct research across the country to gauge parental agreement with the ratings. Our most recent study found that parents agreed with the ratings we assigned 82% of the time, and 5% of the time they actually found our rating "too strict." The FTC's report from April of this year also found strong agreement with ratings, and in fact reported that 87% of the parents they surveyed are "somewhat" to "very" satisfied with the ESRB ratings. We'll continue to ensure that parents are satisfied with the ratings we assign.
6. Do you think the ESRB's ratings have become more strict since the issue surrounding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas came to light?
PV: The key issue with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was to correct a rating that was undermined when locked-out content that had been left in the code of a game became unlocked. Although we clarified our rules at that time to require that publishers disclose pertinent locked-out content on the game disc, the rating process itself has remained consistent, as have the rating assignments in terms of parity.
7. Rockstar has said that they feel that Manhunt 2 is very similar to the original Manhunt in the level and type of violence depicted. If that is the case why did one receive a Mature rating and the other appears to be on the verge of an Adults Only rating?
PV: Obviously, Manhunt 2 is a different product from the original Manhunt. The raters evaluated the submission for Manhunt 2 and determined that the AO rating was the appropriate rating assignment. Per our statement from 6/20, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.
Comments
It's not totally insane that it got an AO, but not to sell it is.
@drack48:
Really? In Nintendo's position I would totally not sell that game. As a "family" system, that would cause an uproar.
@drack48:
Agreed 100%
@walrusbrown:
The Wii is supposed to be a system that provides content for all ages. Since when is 18+ not a segment of that range?
I wish you had asked a question regarding most retailers refusal to even carry AO games. I don't like the fact that the ESRB has the power to effectively destroy a games chance of selling. Sure they are ethical with it NOW... but it is essentially setting the industry up for its very own McCarthy scenario...
I just had a horrifying thought; What if Jack Thompson was head of the ESRB? Just a fraction of a fraction of a fraction (etc.) of a percentage point away from being impossible, but a terrifying thought nonetheless. I don't think I will be able to sleep tonight.
was there ever a list of the things that made this game so over the top that it deserved a AO? From the things ive heard it should have gotten an AO but i really would like to know some specifics.
Its not rockstars choice to sell it.
Both Sony and Nintendo gave said NO to AO.
Rockstar got fucked and thats there problem now.
I hope they get an appeal tbough as the game SHOULD be M.
@Ghede: That's something the retailers decided, not the ESRB.
Great article, very informative. The fact that R and NC-17 have the same age recommendation is a good point.
Shame on console makers for not allowing AO games.
There isn't a major system out that will allow AO titles, and frankly it is within the rights of Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and whoever else to do so. No one has told Rockstar they can't create a product (in the U.S. at least), they are free to market a system that will play Manhunt 2 if they so desire. If you disagree with the companies decision, show them by boycotting all their products. You'll have to find a new hobby though. All the whining here means nothing if you won't back it up in your actions.
@Toasticus: If they did, the gaming industry as we know it would fall apart. Imagine that 60% of the games out on consoles would be porn games. And they already are having problems with the violence. Maybe not for you, but for many kids less than 12 years old.
@Toasticus:
Shame on them for not doing something that in their market would effectively be suicide? It pains me as much as anyone, but games are still seen as kids stuff, and I can't blame Nintendo, Sony, and MS one bit for not wanting to lose that much marketshare.
So if i am hearing right part of why it recieved an AO was due to the Cotrols of the Wii???
If that is why is the PS2 version an AO too??
@slomo788: Maybe not for you, but for many kids less than 12 years old it would disappear.
3. An Adults Only rated game is akin to NC-17, I believe, for movies. Do you think it's fair to say that an AO rated game is essentially obscene?
PV: An Adults Only rating does not mean the game qualifies as being "obscene." And as confirmed on the MPAA website, nor does an NC-17 rating.
So why else would it garner such a rating?
6. Do you think the ESRB's ratings have become more strict since the issue surrounding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas came to light?
PV: The key issue with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was to correct a rating that was undermined when locked-out content that had been left in the code of a game became unlocked. Although we clarified our rules at that time to require that publishers disclose pertinent locked-out content on the game disc, the rating process itself has remained consistent, as have the rating assignments in terms of parity.
I blame that one on the programmers, as my cousin (previously tester for 2K) explained it to me the way it was programmed the minigame would be too 'hard' to remove without changing too much of the game's code. (Basically complex programming stuff.)
I agree completely with the rating, but the fact that it bars the game from ever being sold is absurd.
I can understand why Nintendo wouldn't want it on their system, but I don't really see a big enough difference between M and AO to warrant keeping a game off the system. If they want their system to be open to all ages, they should allow AO games. If they don't then, they should block M too.
It'll be unfortunate for those who want to see these games, but then again, I'm sure Rockstar will find a way through it. And they'll sell copies hand over fist because of how much publicity it's receiving.
The AO rating seems much like the NC-17 rating.
There is little difference in who is allowed access to the first, and no difference in the second.
What these two ratings are, in essence, are a way for the respective ratings boards to pretty much kill a game or movie. The ESRB knows that most retailers will not sell AO games, as the MPAA knows that many theaters will not show NC-17 films.
These ratings give a small number of gatekeepers the ability to kill a project which has already been completed. The fatal flaw in both systems is that neither organization is willing to specify where the line is drawn, and are able to redraw it on a case by case basis because of this.
Television ratings seem to be the most fair. TV producers know that they can say 'shit' after a certain time, and what percentage of a breast or buttock can be shown before they will be shut down. Unfortunately for game and film makers these rules are nowhere near as clear in their mediums.
@petrieslastword: A big problem here is that these aren't movies. If someone makes an NC-17 movie, anyone who wants it can still get it. If a game company makes an AO game, it can't be sold for consoles, and the consumers lose.
Also, this says that the ESRB can determine whether or not a company can sell a product they sunk millions into. Where else is that kind of power in America? Imagine if some morale board determined what products could be sold to the public.
Did Sony and Nintendo have no idea of the Manhunt 2 game content before the ESRB announced the rating? Do they just give out licensing rights and not check up on projects during development? I think that's highly unlikely. Especially since screenshots and gameplay details have been available for quite some time.
Also, what's the point of putting in parental locks on your consoles if you're going to dictate to consumers which titles are appropriate?
@thegreatgazoo999: Look the problem here is that the AO that Manhunt 2 is rated would be the same that any hardcore porn game would be rated. Maybe the rating system is not accurate enough...
We both know that the game deserves an AO rating. If the console makers allow it, they will have to allow any other AO game. Perhaps they should make another rating for these porn games. But I assure you the day that a 14 year old knows about a porn game on his Nintendo console, he will do everything to get it. And if their parents see it, no more gaming for less than 17 years old. And that would be a loss of like 70% (at least) of the market share. So less money, less quality hardware and software, and console gaming dies...
Make it a PC exclusive.
@thegreatgazoo999: They could sell import copy on EBay from Thailand or something like that :P
Good interview and good journalism as always Crecente.
The ESRB is just doing their job, and in this case they have decided that Manhunt 2 has gone too far beyond the acceptable norms of violence for our culture. Good on them.
Rockstar will change the game to make it an M rating. They will do this because it will get them the money they want so badly. I for one won't be buying Manhunt 2, as I'm starting to see this as the publicity stunt it is.
The entire ESRB system rating is flawed. As you might already know, they don't even play the games while reviewing them.
The thing I feel needs fixing with the ESRB is that fine line between M and AO. Either knock down the M rating a few years or punch up the AO a few and maybe make a new class that holds things that are considered pornographic to let there not be any confusion with ultra violent AO games and XXX games. But you know all the same this whole situation doesn't concern me much at all but here I am still watching the shit fly every which way.
I've never been one for censorship, but I can almost see the point they're trying to make about acting out the act of killing someone. I'm sure there are a few kids out there that would get just a little too into it.
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with taking a lead pipe to someone's head if your pushing a button to do it.
R and NC-17 ratings are not the same.
R states that children under the age of 17 are required to be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian.
NC-17 states that children of the age 17 or under should not be admitted at all.
8. How much money was Take2 off, in terms of bribes, to get your religious, corrupted system moving into their favour, since you know, we all know that the racy games need to provide "gifts" in order for you to make that one year distinction?
I think you forgot to ask that one.
@Giolon: the statement 'gaming for all ages' implicitly means 'younger people and older people' ie nothing unpalatable to those demographics, as opposed to 'teenagers and young adults'. thats the entire point of that particular marketing canard. can we please stop being idiotic and suggesting it means 'we will release individual games appropriate to age ranges'. i for one dont relish the 40-60 range of business simulators and midlife crisis car racers, or the 60-80 range of chase the damn kids off the lawn, or the 0-5 range of square peg square hole training.
ay, you know what, im done commenting about this. ive been severely disappointed yet again by my supposed contemporaries reactions. im fucking glad this shit got banned to oblivion because it showed me what a stupid and uncultured bunch gamers are. all the shit going on in this world flying over your heads, and a ratings board doing its job brings you all into paroxysms of outrage and protests of freedom. all i can see when i read what you all write is an army of ricks off 'the young ones'. theres no hope for you sad fucks.
I'm not sure I get this argument of "bad evil console makers!"
If you think about it, a console implies the following rules:
1. Games released by that console have to be approved by the console maker (unless you do homebrew, in which case it's not the console manufacturer's problem if the game doesn't work).
2. The ESRB is no different than a "reviewer" who says "Well, I found blood, guts and so on".
3. Stores are not forced to sell anything they don't want to.
4. If Rockstar *really* wants to make this game, without worrying about console makers, they could make it for the PC/Mac, where there are no such restrictions.
No one (in the US anyway) is preventing anyone from exercising their own rights. You can't force someone to accept or sell things that they don't want to (well, within regulatory reason before I get some dumbass who wants to split hairs).
Now, could you consider Nintendo/Sony/MS "cowardly" for not carrying an AO game? Sure, but you could also say the same of them for not wanting to publish "Bob's Crappy Console Game" either ("99 Dragons" aside.). That's the whole idea behind consoles: you accept that when you buy it, the console makers can deny someone's game onto this system.
The ESRB game "Manhunt 2" an AO rating - that is their pejorative - they are not a government agency, they are a private business publishing their opinion. Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft do not have to listen to the ESRB, but they have. Stores do not have to deny selling AO rated games - but they can if they want as well.
Rockstar has options, and if they consider it "art" and don't want to edit it, that's their right as well. Personally, I wanted to check it out, but I'm not going to go up in arms because companies practice the same right to *not* approve/sell a game if they don't want to, as Rockstar has to *make* any game they want to.
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.
@drack48:
I also agree. How worth it is a system like Wii if you can't play AO rated games?
I bet more than half of the consumers that bought a Wii were above the age of 18.
What we have to remember is that the ESRB is ultimately on the side of the videogame industry, and that they themselves exist only to circumvent the type of censorship that has been suggested here. I have no doubt in my mind that Manhunt 2 deserves an AO rating, if only because it's arguable that the original Manhunt should have received one as well. The ESRB isn't using any moral authority to push select games out of the market.
If there is any blame to go around it sits with Sony and Nintendo (and Microsoft, who would also reject an AO game on their system). The ESRB is acting as a body that prevents government regulation of games, and have done their job; the console manufacturers are the ones who are barring this from retail. The stigma of the AO rating only survives because manufacturers and retail outlets force them out of the circulation. And that, too, is their right, although it's certainly fair to question their judgment and whether it serves the best interest us as gamers.
@aestheticity: For what it's worth, I'm right there with you. I'm glad the game received its AO rating because it shows that the ESRB has some teeth. I wouldn't go as far as you did with all the emo crying about the world, but that's just me :)
@Neon: You mean Sony and Nintendo could get fucked. I hope GTA IV is an Xbox 360 exclusive just because of this. Sony deserves it after this. Mature console my ass.
If they release an un-edited version for the PC I'll buy it just to flip my finger at Sony and Nintendo. It won't change anything, but I'd do it in hopes that the other gamers that can't stand censorship do it too. Maybe it'll sell enough just give the biggest "kiss my ass" to critics.
@ffmusicdj: It's not a Nintendo only thing, it's all three. Try to understand that they are protecting a market share instead of going after a bunch of perverts and have their consoles become other tools of pornography.
@NotSoCool: Then you hope GTA 4 don't come out on consoles because Microsoft has the same policies on their consoles since the original Xbox.
@slomo788:
Exactly. As soon as they allow one AO game through, the floodgates open to any number of pornographic and otherwise perverse games that quite frankly, the companies don't want to be associated with.
@Nexus6: If you really need it to be PC only then just hit the intertubes button. I'm sure there is far worst than Manhunt out there waiting for you... *Shivers*!
Really they should make this a work of art and have it shown in a gallery. Then release the M rated one on the systems listed above.
So I remember them saying the frequency of acts was the main problem too. Well just release each level as a game and it's all solved. Depending on the amount of level just spread the price out ...LOL
Really if rock star really wants to I'm sure they could get an online site up and actually make more profit off this game because of not having a retail version.
If rockstar can take the flack on this one all by them selves then they should go this route. Also too what is stopping porn stores from saling this game? Are porn stores illegal in the UK too?
@ElijahDProphet:
Yeah, the ESRB is out to kill games. Good job, you are a genius.
An AO rating does effectively kill a mass-marketed game, but that's not why the ESRB gave it that rating. That effect is incidental, and by the way, a direct result of the content of the game. To suggest otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous.
@slomo788: Are 60% of PC games porn games?
@petrieslastword: Selling adult-only games to adults is suicide? Nobody's saying that the console makers have to promote or encourage AO games. AO games would be much more difficult to get than M games, so a bible-thumping soccer mom backlash is unlikely.
Why can't they tell us what it was that got Manhunt 2 to AO? Was it just extreme explicit violence, Sex/Rape, or something else?
@Toasticus: No, but that doesn't prove that it wouldn't be the percentage of porn games for the consoles. But as you might have noticed I was just speculating. But I'm sure porn companies would jump on this fresh market.
For your respinse to petrieslastword, they wouldn't have to encourage them or promote them for lil' Timmy to look for them and find them. Then you can imagine how he would play with his Wii(-mote)!
@NotSoCool: Yeah because M$ doesnt have a no AO game policy... oh wait they do. These companies are doing what they think is best for there company. I cant fault any of them for that. They dont want there machines to become homes to nothing but none stop AO titles. If Manhunt 2 gets released with a AO i bet within a month there will be 100s of AO games along the lines of "BRANDI PLAYS STRIP POKER". This is not something that any of these console makers want.
I personnally dont see an issue with consoles having AO content. Its got to happen sometime as games become a more mainstream form of entertainment. Look at media from the past from DVD, VHS, CD, Tape, LP and Paper there are many things there that are within the same realm as AO content that are legal even if they offend or disturb some people.
Now please do not misunderstand I think the ESRB probably did there job in this decision and I think they should be tough on questionable content. As well consoles are not an open platform so the manufactures do have the right to restrict content. Though I do think this is counter productive of games being thought of as mainstream adult entertainment but its an unfortionate consequence of games still being viewed as kids toys. Unfortionatly though the PC is the only system that isnt regulated where this kind of contant can be freely expressed.
Now on another note I think Take Two has been a little foolish in pushing there luck on the ratings. They as a developer should know better than anyone the cost of getting a AO rating even if it is allowed on the system. But Im sure they will tone this down to a respectly M rating.
Personally though I have no interest in games like Manhunt 2.
For your response*...
This is a bit ironic. The videogame industry wants to be treated like other forms of media by government bodies but seem so unwillingly to treat themselves in the same manner. Movies have the NC-17 rating, are published, and can be purchased from general retailers. A game has an AO rating and no one wants anything to do with it? The console owners don't want the game and retailers don't want to sell it? But...games should be equated with other forms of media? Meanwhile if Rockstar were to trim a few pieces out of the game so that it would be rated M and then it would be ok? At heart it's the same game and a few changes in content aren't going to change that. And yet it's perfectly ok to allow the game so long as it's rated M and not AO? Downright hypocritical from the standpoint of a few slight nuisances between the ratings determines whether it is ok or not and the unwillingness of anyone to allow the game to be published while it would have been perfectly acceptable as another form of media.
I agree with Michael Pachter when it comes to killing in videogames...Whether you are pulling the R trigger to shoot a gun or swiping with a Wiimote it makes no difference. You are still performing the same act. The ESRB shouldn't take controls into factor, because it was never an issue before the Wii hit stores and her statement makes zero sense.
"We've always been very clear about the fact that the degree of player control is one of several elements that the ESRB considers in the assignment of ratings, including the content itself, it's frequency, intensity and realism, context within which it is presented, and the reward system."
Um, so pushing X in the orginal Manhunt and watching brutal cutscenes was fine? I'm sorry I just don't agree with any of this censorship.
Plus don't give me the "children could be scarred for life" routine because according to the rating handed out, children should NEVER SEE this game...making it a moot point. You are getting into bad parenting and stores selling to minors, nothing Rockstar or Take Two can control.
Also who are we kidding the PS2 and Xbox versions of the orginal Manhunt sold like shit. Like the two versions combined might have sold 120,000 units. Out of all those people how many 10 and 15 actually played or saw the game? Maybe a couple thousand. Who cares...If the little bastard is gonna grow up to be a serial killer, Manhunt 2 isn't gonna push him over the edge. It might be something like an abusive childhood, getting picked on at school or being dumped by a boyfriend/girlfriend.
If the media and world as whole didn't still view videogames as a medium played mostly by children this wouldn't be an issue. Sadly no one cares what adults say on the issue. The people who this game is clearly targeted at...