z3itgeist

Name-calling and gloating are childish forms of bullying and therefore signs of weakness, cowardice and immaturity.

岩「…Ace beats Jack」

Kincyr

I don't think that everything can hide behind the banner of "Being Art"

/agree

EnigmaNemesis

All they have to do? Tell Sony, as politely as possible, "We do not feel Sony's atittude towards creative freedom is in tune with Rockstar's ideal. We will take our business and titles elsewhere"

There's no real beating about the bush here: Grand Theft Auto 4 is going to be the game that has a huge impact on the making or breaking of the PS3. If Sony loses that, they're at a severe disadvantage.

They can also tell Nintendo the same thing, but I doubt it will have that much of an effect. Reggie has been attempting to get GTA onto the Wii in some manner and the possibility of losing that may make Nintendo either change their viewpoint or make an exception.

Denzal

But MS, Sony and Nintendo aren't in the business to 'make art', 'push boundaries' or 'promote adult gaming'. However, they do have a responsibility to their shareholders and it seems that they're doing just that. If you don't like it vote with your wallet and stay away from closed system (console) gaming.

tellute

So its not the end of the world or society as we know it. There is no conspiracy. We will survive and move on.

Let it be and go do something more productive.

joncoffee

Papa Midnight

Believe it or not, i kinda agree with you. I think everyone here agrees that this is Adult Content.

One thought though...

"So, if MH2 can be released and played by ~250,000 people, none of whom tear off any actual genitals or behead any actual prostitutes, then what does that say about the argument that this content is dangerous and will result in real violence?"

Trouble is though, someone will. Or they will know someone who played it near them once on a dull Thursday afternoon sometime last year who does. i doubt that in that respect it will make any difference.

In defence of Rockstar, i admit i have judged this game before playing it. Generally i know how things get hyped up beyond all reason and the issues that enrage some people are often overblown.

But on the wider question of "is everything acceptable as long as it has a sticker" I'm still not quite convinced.

I don't think that everything can hide behind the banner of "Being Art"

b06r011

Can't promise you payment...but I'd be happy to publish an article online via my site. Hit me up at phenix@phenix-raven.com if you're interested.

Phenix

Personally, whether Rockstar intends it as such or not, I do honestly believe that games such as MH2 could be an essential weapon against this movement to quash adult-oriented titles. The argument seems to be that this content is somehow dangerous or will result in something. So, if MH2 can be released and played by ~250,000 people, none of whom tear off any actual genitals or behead any actual prostitutes, then what does that say about the argument that this content is dangerous and will result in real violence?

It says something important. Something we should all want said. That video games are video games and reality is reality, and never the twain shall meet, regardless of how loudly Jack Thompson yells or how many finger wags Hillary wants to give a particular game.

Ultimate, it says "Stay out of my fucking living room."

OneFreeMan

Once you are done with this OneFreeMan, move on and help me stop "politically correct" bullshit, would you? ^_^

ビッグ ボス

You can congratulate Rockstar on creating an accurate model of the physics of flying body parts. I'm sure it is a great engine. I am sure that the anatomical attention paid to the characters is top notch. Like i said before, Rockstar have turned out games that are technically (and in many other ways too) excellent. In part, that is why they get targeted by the campaigners of the day.

You need to ask yourself a question, as do Rockstar:

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO?

If you / They want to be on the cutting edge of Art, pushing the boundaries of acceptability in the way of previous artists (/writers, poets, scupltors etc) then go for it. But also be prepared for this: You probably won't make a lot of money off it. If you are trying to make money, then you need to operate in the confines of the area that will provide you that money. In this case, that might include toning down the areas that the BBFC / whoever have with this game.

Feel free to operate in the creative / artsy space where the limits are pushed and what you are doing cannot be understood by Joe Public because it is too far ahead of its time or it is misunderstood. or even not known about.

i believe this is known as the difference between Cutting edge and Bleeding Edge

Where you go is up to you.

You know that Van Gogh died a poor man, right?

b06r011

I think in Japan, as weird as they are, they understand that "Adults Only" doesn't mean evil and mind-bending, but simply "only suitable for mature people interested in such strong topics". Therefore, publishers don't fear the stigma of being banned by Blockbuster/WalMart/whatever.

Now if only the Japs dropped mosaic... :P

nevernow

Seriously, how is the a surprise to either company?

BlueTemplar

dremos

Hey, if you know someone who wants to publish my bullshit, let me know! I take payment in Stella Artois and sesame bagels.

OneFreeMan

Since this thread is likely going to be lost soon anyway, I'll digress here and abandon the primary topic.

The question of "Is it art?" is not qualitative nor is it something to be considered on a game-by-game basis. Either you accept that the creation of games is an art form, or you do not. If you accept it as such, then the creation of any game is a "work of art." Whether you personally think it's a quality work of art is a matter entirely up to your personal opinion, just as if you were looking at paintings and exhibits at a modern art museum. Some of them might make you say "wow" while others will certainly make you say, "meh, looks like someone shit on a canvas to me" -- but your qualitative analysis does not mean one is art while the other is not.

Take as an analogy poetry. Is it art? I think most people would say yes. So are dirty limericks on bathroom walls "works of art?" Yes. Perhaps not art that's particularly high class or to your personal liking, but you cannot accept poetry as art and then say, "Except for these over here because they are offensive and sophomoric."

As to whether the creation of games is an art form, I think you would be hard pressed to argue against it, despite the glib comments to the contrary (i.e., "sorry, it's not art." with no explanation). I can't see how you can look at something like Katamari Damacy and not see art at work. The design, the world, the sound effects, the characters, the kitsch. A piece like that doesn't come together based on wrought game theories, established development practices, or manufacturing techniques.

At the end of the day, if the creation of games is not art, you should ask yourself why more incredibly successful games are not created every day. Certainly many games are created by developers with advanced technical skill, designers with years of experience, artists with incredible talent that still fail to create an appealing experience. If all of the parts of the whole are there and they still fail to create a complete product, what could possibly be missing except that extra touch of artistic cohesion?

OneFreeMan

All these books have one thing in common. They generated a firestorm of controversy when they came out. Catcher in the Rye has been described as "a vulgar, offensive book masquerading as art", Ulysses was banned in the US until a judge overruled it, finding nothing wrong about its content.

Every genre of entertainment has its own boundary pusher, books had em, movies had em, music had em, radio had em, heck even journalism had em.
Now videogames have em. We all should be proud that we have a boundary pusher as well.

One finds limits by pushing them.
Herbert Simon

No matter whether the game is good or bad. But it'd be interesting to see how this goes.

OneFreeMan, I again agree with you. You absolutely need to write an article or something, you have what it takes.
and manhunt was never a bad game, it received good scores all round, if not fantastic.

User-name

Hmm. Interesting. If you are Mr. Thompson (which, given the anonymity of the internet, is extremely hard to tell), I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds your comments worth reading simply for that fact. I'm going to reply as if you are indeed Mr. Thompson, if for nothing more than the sake of discussion, and because a quick glance through your post history suggests a reasonable amount of evidence to support that.

Here it is Mr. Thompson,
I'm a gamer. 24 years old. Active Duty Marine. I'm college educated (double major in Politcal Science and English),reasonably intelligent and consider myself a pretty serious game enthusiast. I say this because I want you to have a sense of where I'm coming from when I post. I will not call you names, threaten you, or say anything I feel is overly hostile. I say this because I want you to understand I'm a rationale human being, and not interested in drama.

If you read these posts, Mr. Thompson, I think you'll actually see a fair bit of intelligent discussion, as well as the usual dose of internet foolishness. So why antagonize everyone by calling us "kiddies"? I realize that you don't generally don't like games or the people that play them. Of course, I think you ascribe the characteristics of the worst examples of our kind into a stereotype for all of us. Please remember that gamers can be patriots, parents, intellectuals, or any other subgroup. So when you label us as "kiddies", it is you who appears childish.

Why am I saying that? Because, to a degree you're absolutely right about games. They can be dangerous in the wrong hands. They can be full of disturbing images, heinous acts, and perverse joys. Which is exactly why the ESRB and stringent controls are neccessary and good for the protection of children. I don't think it neccessitates the removal of the content, I think it necessitates the placing of the content as far away from children as possible.

I disagree that this is a "HUGE benefit" to the game industry. It does give weight to the ESRB, which is outstanding in my book. To see them unafraid to hand this rating down is a nice thing. I'd say there are other games which neccessitate AO...but the nature of AO has to change before that can be reasonable, Mr. Thompson. If AO games will never be published, then the rating won't get used-- and not having the AO rating means some extremely hard M's will be issued-- perhaps to the detriment of us all.

Consider your local video rental store. Most of the content is out there to be seen by all. From Rambo to Bambi, almost every rating is out there for children and parents to see alike. Some of the movies feature scenes as graphic as any game, including Manhunt, but aren't pushed to not be released. However, there is stuff that is so perverse it must be placed in an Adults Only section. Consider if the same were true of your local Gamestop, Mr. Thompson.

Right now, you have parents who ignore ratings for content their child sees/plays because they don't have the time or inclination to review everything their child does. They'll rent violent movies, buy violent games-- but I can almost guarantee no parent walks into a roped-off Adults-Only section to rent their child a movie. It is the very stigma of going in there that gives them pause.

What is better for our children, Mr. Thompson: a slightly-toned down version that recieves a hard "M" that is promptly ignored by parents, or a full version of this game in an area that forces a parent to feel guilty buying it? This could go for many games with a hard "M". In the end, I feel that if developers relaxed their stance on AO, and the ESRB forced retailers to sell AO games in seperate sections where children couldn't even look at them, you'd see these games that toe the line end up in less childrens' hands.

I'm a big proponant of the games-as-art argument. I think games can be artistic and deal with complicated subject matters. They can also be the equivalent of Hostel, reveling in disturbing images and violence for the sake of violence. But as with any media, effectively censoring it only increases it's desireablity. I never planned on buying Manhunt- but I will support to the end those people who want to.

The long and short is this, Mr. Thompson: many gamers support stronger laws and more stringent ratings. But often your own rhetoric places you so far from a middleground that agreeing with you becomes impossible. I think you'd find gamers and the industry as a whole more responsive to your opinions if you approched us with a litlte more decorum and stopped speaking down to us. I'm not attorney, and you may be, but I fail to see how arguing in a courtroom gives you more insight than my choice of defending the nation, which is precisely why I did not go to law school after college.

To finish my comments off, I'd love to discuss this with you, if you're up for it. My website can be found by clicking on my name here. Feel free to hop on the forums and comment there, or comment on my editorials page (which, incidentaly, features a piece written on yourself). Good day, Mr. Thompson and I hope to hear from you.

Phenix

Not looking forward to MH2 personally. Doesn't appeal to me and to be honest it sounds completely over the top - almost like Rockstar had a "design the most controversial level" competition and then tried to make it into a game.

And as much as I generally go for "vote with your wallet" / "each to their own" approach to life I still think that there is a line. Seems that Rockstar have gone steaming past it this time.

Rockstar are not a bunch of clueless idiots... they know the policies of Nintendo / Microsoft / Sony. They also know that they don't have to release games for those systems. They are "free" not to. They are also "free" to make a massive loss on this game. The reason that they would be so keen to release a game on PS3 / WII / X360 is because these are all brand names and that helps to shift units. But if they want the benefit, they have to play by the rules, in this case saying that MH2 is AO and therefore will not be picked up.

As for the "Games = art" argument, does anyone here know the intent of Rockstar in terms of artistic contribution via this game? What is the deeply philosophical point that they wanted to make? If that cannot be explained to a rational person then you are off to a bad start.

As has been said many times before "you cannot judge a game before you have played it". This is a popular response when someone accuses a game of "nasty" content. Can someone please explain to me why the same does not apply to "artistic content"?

How can you say that a game is art before you have appreciated it (by playing it)? up to that point you only have the hearsay / marketing of others.

b06r011

OneFreeMan

L_K_M

Uhh, yah. You can "encourage" them to make the games you like by buying those games. That's how the whole producer-consumer relationship is designed to work, you see? You buy products you like, they make more of those products.

If consumers don't want games like Manhunt 2, they won't buy them and Rockstar will stop making them. Pretty simple, right?

Of course, you wouldn't want to actually take the chance that consumers want games like Manhunt 2, thus encouraging Rockstar to create similar titles. No. Why leave the choice up to developers and their customers? Just go ahead and implement draconian laws and policies to force your opinion on everyone before they have a chance to make up their minds about whether they want to pay for this type of game. You know best, after all. Your taste in games is flawless and shared by everyone with proper sensibilities.

You also seem to have trouble telling the difference between "encourage" and "force via law and policy." There's a bit of a difference, what with the former involving choice and the latter preventing it.

OneFreeMan

Umm, they're not the industry. Usually when people refer to the "game industry" they're referring to engineers, designers, artists, producers, salespeople, etc.

If a console manufacturer decides to not want to wish a media blacklash or consumer boycotts because of one game it's clearly up to them.

Clearly. It's up to them whether to bow to political pressure that's based on junk science and fear mongering, or step up and take a stand for the rights of developers to create the content they desire, the rights of gamers to play the games they desire, and the responsibility of parents to monitor the media that their kids consume instead of relying on the government and "watch dogs" to do it for them.

The console manufacturers have all they need to respond to the backlash -- "The ESRB ratings system clearly indicates the content of the game and for whom it is appropriate. If you are concerned about the content of any game available for our system, we invite you to use the ratings system to make educated choices about what games you buy for yourself and your families. That's why the fucking system was put in place to begin with, you half-wit douchewangers."

Maybe they could tone down that last bit, but otherwise I think you get the picture.

It's ridiculous. The whole goddamn point to a ratings system is so developers can put out mature content without drawing criticism. That's the very reason the system was created, and the reason it has been under so much pressure to "refine" the process of rating games to provide more information to consumers.

Using the ratings system to stop the production of certain games because of their content is completely self defeating. The system was put in place to inform not dictate what gets made and what doesn't.

We were supposed to use the ESRB ratings so we didn't have to bow down to the Jack Thompson's and Hillary Clinton's. It was supposed to be our fucking compromise. Now it's being used to accomplish exactly what they said should be accomplished.

Fear-Mongering Politicians: Some games should never be released.
Industry: I don't like that. How about instead we refine our ratings system to help keep consumers better informed about the content of games and make it easier for parents to stay educated about the games their families play?
Gamers: Rejoice!
Industry: Now how about we use the ratings system to make sure certain games are never released.
Fear-Mongering Politicians: Rejoice!
Gamers: Rejoice... ?

OneFreeMan

You guys liked games like Okami and Odin's Sphere. So why not encourage R* and others be more creative in such a way?

Pull MH2 and start from scratch.

joncoffee

Secondly, the BBC and the world are now laughing at Take-Two Chairman Strauss Zelnick for his idiotic statement yesterday that Manhunt 2 is "a fine piece of art." Find the BBC story on that!

Right, and Jack the Ripper was his generation's Rembrandt. Please.

Take-Two has been hemorrhaging cash over the last few financial quarters, and this must makes it worse. I love it.

If you all would stop and think about this for a minute, this development is a HUGE benefit to the video game industry. It fits nicely with their argument that the ESRB ratings are real and actually mean something.

Responsible people within the industry, even Doug Lowenstein, have been saying for quite sometime that Take-Two had become a problem for the entire industry because it was painting a bullseye on the back of the whole industry and making it more difficult for the industry to get US politicians off its back.

Now the ESRB does something that indicates is might be trustworthy, and you nitwits go bonkers because of that development.

Grow up and smell the hot coffee. This is the best thing that could have happened to the industry. The isolation and ostracism of Take-Two by the industry was long overdue.

Now that it has come, rejoice.

Jack Thompson, Attorney, and you're not

jackthompson

"How you can sit there and support this as "good for the industry" is absolutely beyond comprehension."

Because he's right and the industry (Sony, MS & Nintendo) clearly agree. Let's remember that console makers take a loss on each machine sold and make their money back via the games. If a console manufacturer decides to not want to wish a media blacklash or consumer boycotts because of one game it's clearly up to them.

Does anyone here really believe that R* didn't already know that Sony, MS and Nintendo wouldn't release an AO rated game. They tried to push an M rating as far as it would go and clearly went too far. Now they'll edit back down to the M rating they always knew they would get and a few confused 15 years will continue to yell that it's 'censorship'.

tellute

Personally, I don't think it's hypocritical to entertain the notion of context. You may feel differently, but guess what - that's your choice.

Oh, and OneFreeMan - ethical sensibilities are also complaining about you deriving any pleasure from those who died in war.

Maldron

Iraq War II, Total Casualties: 70,000 at minimum, estimates range upwards of 200,000. This includes 3,500 US Troops, thousands of aid workers and contractors, hundreds of journalists and countless civilians.
Iraw War I, Total Deaths: 3,000+ including 400 US troops and upwards of 2,500 civilians.
Vietnam War, Total Deaths: ~1,000,000 troops, anyhwere from 2-6 million civilians.
Korean War, Total Deaths: 3,000,000+ up to ~8,000,000 including civial deaths estimated at 5+ million.
World War II, Total Casualties: Estimated at 70,000,000+ including 16 million servicemembers.
World War I, Total Deaths: 22,000,000+ including 10 million or more civilians

Of course, war is "cool" and "honorable," right? So it's perfectly acceptable for us to participate in simulated military conflicts despite their clearly being responsible for far more death and suffering than murder.

The double standard is even more ridiculous when you consider that games which simulate murder are ALWAYS fictional, there are no "Ted Bundy" games or "Be the Zodiac" titles, yet you can fight in World War II, World War I, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. to your heart's content -- all real wars that killed real people.

Hypocrisy can be so much fun. It makes me smile from ear to ear.

OneFreeMan

Okay, fine. You think there's a difference. Maybe that difference is important to you. So don't buy the fucking game dude. Nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you play it, are they? Nobody's forcing parents to purchase it for their kids, right? Stores are still not selling 17+ games to minors, right? So who cares if there's a "difference" between this and Mortal Kombat?

A game like Manhunt rightfully should be toned down.

Rightfully? Rightfully? Where the fuck do you people come up with this? I simply cannot get over the number of people who think their own personal moral judgements ought to be the law of the fucking land. If you don't think the game is "right," keep your money in your wallet. Problem solved. In the meantime, those who think the game might be interesting or fun can do as they see fit, too. Everyone's happy. What's the problem?

Like it or not, the manufacturer of the games -- which happens to be the same as the console manufacturer -- has a right, as an organization, to refuse to do something that would harm its image by association.

Nobody is arguing that. Of course they have the right. They have the right to refuse whatever they want. Tommorow Nintendo could come out and announce that "We no longer accept games designed by Jewish people." That would certainly be within their rights as well.

The question isn't about whether they have the right to do it. It's about what affect censorship-via-policy has on the future of the games industry.

As for the games=art thing... Games aren't art. Not primarily, at least. Games are supposed to be easily interactive and fun. A visually striking game is fine, but if aesthetics and style take the front seat and gameplay takes the back seat, the results probably won't be that good.

Umm, I think you're a bit confused. "Art" doesn't refer exclusively to visual aesthetics. Game design can be artful (tell me Katamari isn't a work of art?). Story and character design can be artful. In the end, putting together a fully interactive experience that immerses the user and creates a unique and gratifying experience is an art.

Calling a game 'art' as a defense of its content or lack thereof is a rather lazy counterpoint. I would think that art is supposed to have a message--unless it's Dadaism or something--and for the life of me I can't figure out what Manhunt's message is, nor its merits to society.

Right, because as we all know every piece of art appeals to everyone. Personally, I don't really see the "message" behind the Mona Lisa, nor its merits to society. It's a nice painting, but I'm pretty sure we could have done just fine without it. Does that mean it's not art? No, of course not.

What if the message of Manhunt is supposed to be "there's a difference between video game violence and real violence?" Seems like a pretty fucking important message to get across to me, judging by how many people seem to assume the contrary. If Manhunt can prove that people can virtually tear off a man's genitalia with a pair of pliers or virtually behead a prostitute and desecrate her remains without turning into raving lunatics in real life, then I think that's an accomplishment. One that might go a long way to shutting people up who think certain things should "rightfully" be toned down simply because they find it personally distasteful.

OneFreeMan

FarmboyinJapan

Kreean

Ace_of_Sevens

shit they might as well port Bible Black too just to piss all over the console makers

BigChiefSmokem

Ace_of_Sevens

When a game releases on YOUR SPECIFIC CONSOLE, the game releases with the label "PLAYSTATION3" or "XBOX 360". The dumb masses imply that your company label is an indication of your support of the game similar to the "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality" (yeah right, arf arf arf).

Nobody sees an offensive movie and says "Holy cow this movie is super offensive, I'm not gonna buy a *squints eyes* d-v-d-player now". VCR's and DVD's are standardized mediums where it wouldn't make business sense to filter out content.

Consoles and the game industry is so fragile at this point that the lack of standardization is what hampers Adults Only content to be released on any competing console. Don't think for a second a company cares about it's stance with children or soccer moms. It's simply too much business risk for a console to gain bad press and lose sales to it's competitors.

THAT'S ALL. FINISHED.

LunarAura

Did you miss the hundred people in this thread that pointed out that MS has the same policy as everyone else?

They are all equally into the idea of playing Mommy and Daddy to adults.

PapaBear434

VakeroRokero

this is the dumbest thing i have heard in a long time and is probaly one of the worst things to happen to the industry in a long time. they take this from us and whats next? get ready for only playing wii sports from now on everyone. Anyone up for a game of cooking mama?

2inches

God of War is so violent, has sex and nudity, yet it still doesn't have the AO rating...

Just how good IS this game? =P

*cough* 360 EXCLUSIVE! *cough*

Ultrasinc

Toad

Toad

ugh, sony and nintendo and everyone else responsible for not allowing Ao games... should be ASHAMED of themselves.

consenting adults deserve the choice as to whether they want to play games of that variety or not.

joelface

I read it. :P

I agree, though. It's going to get to to the point where if I want to buy a game, I have to wear and trench coat and take it out in an unmarked paper bag like a porno.

Or order it through the mail, where it arrives in a "tasteful, unmarked plain brown paper to hide it's true identity" like a sex toy.

PapaBear434

Spartan1308™

Spartan1308™

Xilibrius

GuaiGaWarui

Myself, why...this offends me, so I'll sell my PS3.

Just kidding, I don't have a PS3!

But seriously, give the rating board and Nintendo some slack. Yes, the movements of acting out the kills is swell and all, but look at the grand picture of it all. Although I personally believe that instead of banishment or whatnot, keep it under the counter and out of sight! But people aren't that simple. I say, respect their policy, as they've both (Sony and Ninty) have coughed up some epic games (Not related to Epic game company, though hey, Gears/UT can be fun) for our childhoods, as well as the past few years. We've all played our E's, T's, and M's. And we're all dandy with it. Not playing an AO game won't melt your skin off.

I promise.

Yes, with ice-cream and a cherry on top.

Mesren_Makai

It's about one step SHORT of censorship. Yes, it's rated AO. Adults only. That'd be fine, except since the only three console makers out there aren't going to allow it. Now even adults can't play it should they choose.

Thus, AO does not mean Adults Only. It means "This game is banned."

So unless Rockstar releases this game via unrated download (but requiring a credit card to purchase it) we will never see this game in true form.

I'd buy it just on that principal.

PapaBear434

You are all pussies. Giant, weeping, lacking all cajonies and any semlance of backbone.

Today, you sensor a media form that is in it's infancy. Today, you give in to the "Think of the children!" busy-body groups.

Today, you lost the respect of all gamers.

PapaBear434

Most of the less gullable see this for what it is, Rockstar pushing the extremes to get some attention to what has been thought of by most as a weak game. Now that the word is out they can edit the crap out of it that they most likely didnt intend to keep and advertise it as "banned in 50 countries...or the game the government didnt want you to see, etc." the end result will be a sales boost from all the suckers who buy into the hype figuring if its that violent it must be good. It reminds me of the idiots who would spout on about how great Thrill Kill was back in the psx days, once we saw the leaked game we all learned it was canned because it was crap.

blueraja

Jetsetlemming

miss_ali1984

It sounds like a disgusting game, but I don't believe in censorship.

Zunnoab

Like it or not, the manufacturer of the games -- which happens to be the same as the console manufacturer -- has a right, as an organization, to refuse to do something that would harm its image by association. If an AO game--let's say, for instance, some sort of game which, for no apparent reason, puts you in the role of a serial rapist (not that something like that would ever come out, it's just a supposition)--comes out for the Playstation 3 and Sony were to press the Blu-Ray Discs the game comes on, the blame would go to the game publisher and Sony themselves, and it would be a PR nightmare. Manhunt 2 is one of those nightmares in the making, far more than a game like Mortal Kombat or Doom.

As for the games=art thing... Games aren't art. Not primarily, at least. Games are supposed to be easily interactive and fun. A visually striking game is fine, but if aesthetics and style take the front seat and gameplay takes the back seat, the results probably won't be that good. Personally, I don't like people defending crappy games as art, and Super Columbine Massacre RPG was a phenomenally crappy game when you take away the supposed message it was making. Given that, it failed at the primary purpose of a game.

Calling a game 'art' as a defense of its content or lack thereof is a rather lazy counterpoint. I would think that art is supposed to have a message--unless it's Dadaism or something--and for the life of me I can't figure out what Manhunt's message is, nor its merits to society.

maikeru

Oxobiald

gamerzworld

caffolote

But they are, For the game to show up on a system they have to approve and license it for their hardware. At that point they can become legaly liable to a degree for said game and content. And when a lawsuit hits over a game or its content the console makers that said game showed up on get dragged into it as well. Heck the original manhunt manged to land Sony in a lawsuit.

Your right, they are perfectly free to condemn it publicly. and they have. By not licensing it for their console.

Its real simple. Sony dosnt approve of a game, they dont give it approval. in this case approval comes in the form of licensing. They cant approve and dissaprove of a game at the same time. Their refusal to license it IS their condemnation and by licensing it they would basicaly be saying they approved of the game.

Just like any book publisher is free to reject a work for publication. And like how the writer of the work is free to go to another publisher. And if they all reject him, well thats how it goes. Its no ones fault but the writers.

Murrytmds

If I go out and film someone raping a baby then put that baby in a blender, and say it's 'art', that's OK for anyone to see?

There's more to society than freedom of the individual.

It's a government's responsibility to ensure the levels of decency agreed upon by society are kept to the standard the society decides.

Censors enforce that agreed upon level.

There may be some who don't agree with it, but we're talking about democracies here, and what is decent is agreed upon by society by voting for various politicians and officials who can act to ensure these standards are up to date.

These standards are always in flux. There's always going to be people who push these standards, as Rockstar have done, and sometimes the standards expand and sometimes they contract.

I hold rockstar in the highest esteem for pushing those limits, but we must accept there are limits.

FunkyJ

prawnmatic

supercrap

Action-Bastard

AO games can make it to PC because Gateway and Dell and HP aren't calling the shots on what makes it to their computers --- but Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft DO call the shots on what makes it to their consoles, they print the actual discs. Rockstar can't suddenly decide they're going to release it Unrated or as AO anyway, because they can't press the discs or get distribution without the console makers in the mix.

Sucks that it's getting an AO rating, but Rockstar should have been smart enough to realize it was going to happen. If they want to sell copies, they gotta dodge that AO rating. If they just want to "make art", then they should prepare to go bankrupt pretty quick.

Gavelwrench

Basically soon as they spot...lets say blood, it's going to be -1 in category A, while they see people kissing, it'll be -1 in Category B and so on (as in example)

djricekcn

Once again, that's a false analogy. A theater is a venue, not a medium. The projector is the medium. Your analogy would hold true if the manufacturers of projectors refused to allow unrated or NC-17 movies to be projected using their hardware (ignoring the fact that that would be technically impossible).

Nobody is asking Nintendo to put Manhunt 2 on display in their stores. Nobody's asking them to put their "seal of approval" on it. They don't need to support it. In fact, they're perfectly free to condemn it publicly. None of that means they should prevent it's release altogether. That final step is censorship, by definition. The Wii is a unique medium, and Nintendo is supressing content on that medium based on moral judgements -- precisely the definition of censorship.

OneFreeMan

@Murrytmds: I understand the ESRB needs not cater to anyone. But pointing out the faults of a system is step 1 in fixing it. The AO rating is broken. Too many points of contention across the board.

This can specifically deal with Manhunt and future "controversial" games. It irks me as well as I'm sure a glut of others, that I won't get to experience whatever it is a group of creative minds have put together for me to experience.

Danj3ris

Also, art can be art to one person but not art to another. the definition and perspective of art is too big, you can even consider a placement of a rock art.

djricekcn

I am pretty sure that the same people who commented on one thing would say the samething the next, it just doesn't feel that way because, well you don't remember the name or they didn't post or something.

djricekcn

Censorship:
The act, process, or practice of censoring.

Censor:
A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

I truely cannot believe that there are so many gamers that are supporting having Manhunt censored. Presumibly the same gamers that all bought the Genesis version of Mortal Kombat, 3 million strong for Gears of War and who made Rockstar who they are today. Stop being a blind fanboy and stand up for your right to play whatever game you choose.

Whether the decision was made by the ESRB, Ninty, Sony, JT, White America or Cancer-Man, it doesn't matter. The powers that be have decided that "we" (meaning video gaming adults) are not able to play a game as the designers intended. Moreso, they are holding interactive medium by a higher standard than that of other accepted forms of entertainment. This is totally unacceptable. Although it is their legal right (as console makers) to disallow content on their proprietary hardware, but that still doesn't make it right.

What bothers me even more than Nintendo and Sony's stance is the fact that people here are trying to say that Manhunt2 isn't art. Seriously, you have no clue what "art" is. Believe me, I went to art-school, I know whats art. And Manhunt2 is without a doubt art. If you don't understand that, than you should maybe try to read a book sometime instead of trolling on the internet.

And what about all those people here that were defending Super Columbine Massacre RPG as art and/or free speech when it was censored by SlamDance??? Now, all of a sudden, games aren't art anymore. You fanboys flip-flop on every issue day to day. Pick a stance and hold it. Otherwise we are getting nowhere.

Also, I was one of the few people that actually liked Manhunt. At first I was turned off because it was a little slow-paced, but the game was a masterpiece. It is probably the only game ever released that could be classified as a psychological thriller. If you think Resident Evil is survival horror, than you have not truly been scared by a game. Not only that, but the AI was lightyears ahead of GTA. But like most really awesome games, it got bad reviews and people said it sucked.

Seriously, this whole debacle has turned me off to console gaming in general. Now that I see there is no true freedom of expression on the medium. If we want to really stick it to the man, we should all sell our consoles and buy an 8800. PC FTW!

cybereality

And yes, Rockstar could release an adult version on PC, but it's still not on Wii which has different controls and different capabilities. In other words, the Wii is in my opinion an entirely different medium from the PC. It's as if Sony didn't let some movie, say Happiness, be released on Blu-Ray. So then Todd Solondz releases it as an MPEG-4 for paid download. Sure, that's great, but sometimes you want to watch a movie on your TV. Please don't be a douche and say "Yeah but I can hook my computer up to a TV," it's just an analogy and anyone can see that the PC and Wii have differences. Also please note that I do not necessarily endorse the actual game Manhunt 2, I'm just making a general argument from the current situation.

ianovich

"What is the point of a rating system with a category for 18 and older, when due to a company's policy, no one will be able to play it on their console? "

Because the ERSB rating also applies to PC and Mac games, as well as other systems that might have or will at some point allow AO titles onto their system?

The rating system isnt just for Consoles, and it dosnt have to cater to what consoles do or do not allow.

Murrytmds

That's whole society, government, or simply life works

djricekcn

Hundreds and thousands of reports into age and brain development show that, on average, the human brain stops development at around age 18.

That's why it's OK to drink alcohol at 18 and not 17 in many countries. That's why it's OK to have a full license at 18. Why you're allowed to vote at 18. And so on.

But hey, in the USA it's different, so let's increase the age to reflect the drinking laws - make AO 21 years and over.

Problem solved.

FunkyJ

Basically, you should stop playing video games on your 18th birthday. You will never play a videogame that is meant specifically for your moral and emotional level of comprehension. Games that are indeed catered to you, simply wont exist.

It's incredible that as an adult, I still can't get what I want.

Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, new console update: when an AO rated game is placed in the console, it requires 2 passwords. 1 from the game instructions, 1 from the console maker via email or directly to the console. If they do not match after 2 attempts, the game cannot be played on that console.

So damn simple. Don't like my idea? Doesn't encompass the entire situation? Come up with something else. Took me a whole 2 minutes, and its already miles ahead of you.

Danj3ris

You can say the same about 12 years old vs a 80 year old. There are mature 12 years old there and immature 80 years old (assuming not disabled in anyway, both ages). However, a law can't base off individuals and have to apply it for the majority.

djricekcn

As I mentioned, NINTENDO, MICROSOFT and NINTENDO DO NOT PRINT THE MOVIES, they do PRINT THE GAMES. There's a BIG BIG BIG difference right there.

djricekcn

Action-Bastard

NLK4711

modifiedbears

Look, I know it's wrong that it's banned in the UK. No debate from me there.

When a game is no different from the stuff we see on television or in movies that get rated, and when that country has a rating for mature games, then there's something wrong with the ratings process.

But this bullshit about AO and maturity?

GROW UP PEOPLE!

Mature people don't whine like little bitches on forums, threatening to sell their Wii's, threatening to boycott Sony.

Mature people just DO IT, without any fuss, without any "hey look at me, I'm making a stand!" flag waving and grandstanding.

You just do it, and if people ask you why, you explain it to them in even, justifiable terms.

And let's look at this AO thing...

One year probably doesn't make a difference, but that's the policy. That policy has existed in the USA for nearly 10 years. It's existed in movie cinemas and for videos and DVDs even longer.

So why start whining about it now? Why not point out the folly all those years ago when it was formulated?

Ok, so most of you have just turned 18 no doubt, but the way you're acting makes their point - maybe you're NOT mature enough to handle the violence in the game.

And those slamming Nintendo and Sony about their no AO games policy - again, that has been their policy for years. It's been known about for years.

Rockstar / Take Two would have known this. It's spelled out clearly in the TRC for both Sony and Nintendo. So why the backlash?

Also anyone notice how Jack Thompson had a meeting with Rockstar the other week?

Notice how Jack Thompson has been relatively quiet about this
(or maybe the games journalism industry has taken my advice and maybe aren't reporting on Jack... nah...)

What's the bet in that meeting they said "Jack, you're a money man, we understand that. Our game is actually it's a bit crap, so we're going to cause a bit of a ruckus to get free advertising and get people to talk about the game. No offense, but we'd like you to keep out of it. Here's a few thousand dollars. On your way" ...?

And my final point is to the gaming media: STOP BEING LIKE FOX NEWS!

You want to be taken seriously, start acting seriously. Most of what is written is pure hyperbole, written to incite the public to comment*.

Stop it! Report the facts as they stand. Don't let your opinion come into it. BE JOURNALISTS.

*does not apply to Kotaku in this instance, but has in the past

FunkyJ

Heh heh. Sorry. This one kind of hits home. Or close to it, anyway. =)

OneFreeMan

Yeah that make sense."

It does. The same way you would stop your kids from watching X rated porn or R rated action movies, is the same way you stop them from playing an M or AO rated game. See, there is a keyword. Guess what it is? RATED. This game was rated just like TV and movies are. And this has nothing to do with a PS3. NONE of the major players in the console market allow AO rated games on their consoles.

Action-Bastard

Funny thing is that this is far from an uncommon thing with movies, but yet no one goes up in arms that Saw 3 had to edit down some of its gore to make it into theaters. But suddenly the world ends because Rock* were idiots and went way past the point of an M rating and just kept on truckin right off into the "what were they thinking" distance. There was no hope of this game ever getting an M rating. None. It hasnt a thing to do with politics, or pressur, or anyting. Theres just.. no way given even the small amount of detail we know about the gameplay that it would have managed an M.

Murrytmds

thurstonkillgore

Shumina

GTA was recalled by TakeTwo when it was re-classified, from an M, to AO for the PC after HotCoffee. It was then re-released as the original M.

Japan, Soudi Arabia sell AO/18+ games so why the fuss with Sony and Nintendo?

The rest of the world is not the same as the USA. Most retail stores in the US don't stock AO titles, including games, full stop. Around the world most countries don't have a 17+ rating the games are automatically rated at the higher 18+ and most stores around the world do stock 18+ games as a consequence. I think Oz is the exception to this rule as they only have a 15+ rating as there highest rating for games. Nintendo America and Sony America have decided that there is no point in releasing at a AO rating as it gives out a bad message and no where will stock it anyway.

Kevyn

crescentfresh

That's because Sony DOES NOT PRINT THE MOVIES. However, they DO PRINT GAMES.

djricekcn

Uhh, okay. So then make "M" 18+. Problem fucking solved.

OneFreeMan

They've got to be fucking stupid! :(

Another pro game gone to the xboxshit60

SliceWarriorX

So, basically what you're saying is "We should give Jack Thompson what he wants so Jack Thompson stops asking for what he wants."

Is that about right? Wow... the ignorance... the circular logic. Where to begin?

This move effectively confirms Jack Thompson's position -- it solidifies what he's saying as fact -- that violent video games are dangerous to the public and should not be created at all, regardless of whether we have a perfectly legitimate rating system in place to give consumers guidelines about what they're purchasing.

How you can sit there and support this as "good for the industry" is absolutely beyond comprehension.

And really, the things I've heard are possible to do in this game are just tasteless and sadistic to a degree that is just too far gone, so on a personal level I'm also pleased to see it being reigned in some. This is no cartoonish GTA, or even something like more graphic like Hitman, this is just gratuitous sadism.

So don't purchase it. It seems like the ESRB has done its job by letting you know what's in the game, and you have made your adult decision to not buy it. Why the fuck should that mean nobody should by it? Are you really that self-righteous?

Also: no one is censoring the game. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are PRIVATE ENTITIES.

Uhh, and? What's your point? Nothing in the definition of "censorship" says that private entities are incapable of it.

Anyone in an official capacity who supresses content based on moral judgements is a censor, regardless of their capacity as a private or public entity. The actions of the ESRB combined with the policies of Nintendo and Sony have censored the content of this game. By definition.

OneFreeMan

Yeah that make sense.

Just give it an adult rating and don't sell it to kids.

Strifer

Hopefully R* will release it for PC uncensored, and someone makes it work with the Wiimote.

:)

syp

pikachumariachi

djricekcn

The ESRB isn't physically stopping Manhunt 2 from being released. They did their job and rated the game what they saw fit. The game is still allowed to be published.

Nintendo and Sony, both of which are private companies, have made a decision that based on the rating, they do not want a certain product available on their console.

So the ESRB creates the "AO" rating which any reasonable person can tell is a complete farce -- if you truly believe the ESRB's rating criteria are specific enough to differentiate content approriate for 17+ from that appropriate for 18+, then you're downright delusional -- and mysteriously console manufacturers agree that content that's okay for 17+ is welcome on their systems while 18+ is "not in the spirit of their companies?"

The rating was created specifically to prevent certain games from seeing the light of day, whether you choose to accept it or not. How you can sit there and argue that that's not de facto censorship, I can't quite understand.

But neither the ESRB or the console-makers are in anyway stopping Rockstar from publishing the game in some form

No, they're just preventing them from actually making a profit on the game, which for a company that exists to make profits from creating games, is effectively the same goddamn thing.

OneFreeMan

alb1221

MatteWhyte

interesting take on the situation ... episodic content ... by proxy. They effectively released the game to the masses by doing this yet noone has played it and everyone wants to see what all the hub bub is about. Genious.

OniMirage

And really, the things I've heard are possible to do in this game are just tasteless and sadistic to a degree that is just too far gone, so on a personal level I'm also pleased to see it being reigned in some. This is no cartoonish GTA, or even something like more graphic like Hitman, this is just gratuitous sadism.

Also: no one is censoring the game. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are PRIVATE ENTITIES. There's nothing in the constitution saying they have to allow this shit on their platform, especially not for profit.

CountElmdor

But entertainment companies do that all the time. They decide what games are even put into production, which shows get put on TV, and which songs we hear on the radio.

The only difference between those and what's happening here is that it's playing outin the public eye. Meanwhile though, every television network, radio station, and probably game company has probably greenlighted and shot down about 100 different concepts, ideas, pilots, songs...etc.

TRT-X

Avinash_Tyagi

donJonSwan

The ESRB isn't physically stopping Manhunt 2 from being released. They did their job and rated the game what they saw fit. The game is still allowed to be published.

Nintendo and Sony, both of which are private companies, have made a decision that based on the rating, they do not want a certain product available on their console.

Rockstar still has a few options to release the game with its current content. But neither the ESRB or the console-makers are in anyway stopping Rockstar from publishing the game in some form (such as PC or via their own personal online distribution).

With what you people are saying, I would be able to cry censorship if I walked into Nintendo or Sony with a game I'd made and got turned away.

TRT-X

You're really missing the point with this argument, man. It's not a question of whether Nintendo or Sony has the "right" to do this. Of course they do.

It's a question of whether we, as gamers (and some of us as game designers and developers), ought to support the fact that they are choosing to exercise their right to effectively dictate what games are created and what we get to play.

You say "there are ways to sell AO games," but that dodges the point. Selling an AO game as PC download represents a fraction of the potential revenue. No legitimate developer is going to take that route, so the AO games you will end up with are shitty, half-assed, knock-offs from the bargain bin while major houses simply censor themselves and refuse to take risks so they can release their titles to the mass market.

OneFreeMan

djricekcn

Action-Bastard

Import2001

NotSoCool

Sure, and make 5% of the potential revenue, thus ensuring no game developer will ever take that route again.

So, perhaps Sony and Nintendo do not directly prevent Manhunt 2's release, but their decision effectively prevents any similarly "extra mature" content from being created (at least by a legitimate developer) in the future.

Sorry if that's not exactly the type of creative atmosphere I would like to see established for the future.

Not sure why anyone would.

OneFreeMan

Nothing any worse than what can be seen in the film: Pan's Labryinth

Oban

They wouldn't need to cut back on technology.

cowmilk