it continues: Manhunt 2 given AO rating in the U.S.

[quote name='Brak']Yes, I would. If what foolman posted was real, I would agree with the Ao rating of Manhunt 2.

My gripe is that, because it's rated Ao, I will not be able to purchase it or even play it, rendering the rating and ratings system a complete joke.

I'm an adult, and I can't play and Adult Only rated title?[/QUOTE]
Uh, sure you can. You can go buy all 23 (I think? I don't remember the number) officially AO-rated games. But the console makers made the decision that they don't want that on their systems, and AGAIN, that's their prerogative. Do you care to deny that?
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Uh, sure you can.[/quote]
Uh. No, I can't. And then you support the claim that I can with:
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']You can go buy all 23 (I think? I don't remember the number) officially AO-rated games.[/quote]Those are past releases -- Not Manhunt 2. This title isn't going to see the light of day, so what do past Ao rated titles have to do with what's going on in the now?

Me: I want to eat an apple.

You: Go eat one of the 23 oranges.

WHHHAT?
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']But the console makers made the decision that they don't want that on their systems, and AGAIN, that's their prerogative.[/quote]
Oh. Ok. And, again, you bring that up, again. Again.
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Do you care to deny that?[/QUOTE]
How can I deny something that happened, and what does that have to do with any part of what I said?
 
[quote name='Brak']Oh. Ok. And, again, you bring that up, again. Again.[/QUOTE]
And over and over again, you fail to tell me how the console maker's exercising their right to say what can be made using their tools is censorship.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']And over and over again, you fail to tell me how the console maker's exercising their right to say what can be made using their tools is censorship.[/QUOTE]
Well, at least you acknowledged that, pertaining to the post of mine you quoted, your reply had nothing to do with my post.

Good work.

Now, to answer your demand. Again:

Wait. fuck it. I'll quote myself. 10,000 times.

[quote name='Brak']My censorship war isn't with the consoles (not entirely, anyway); It's with the ESRB who is, and will be, using the console manufacturers' policies to their advantage.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Brak']Oh, really? I'm glad you have that much faith in the system.

Let me break down for you, real simple:

You're concerned that the game will get in the hands of minors if it were rated M. As it follows, you're concerned that this game will corrode the minds of children -- that's safe to assume, and a moot point. So let's just go past that one.

Now, that first concern - the concern of the title getting in the hands of minors - doesn't that indirectly say that you think the ratings system is a joke, and does not work at all, as you believe the title will be played by minors?

The very same ratings system that is giving Manhunt 2 a soft-core, indirect consumer ban by giving it an Ao rating? Now, why does that rating garner any validity in your eyes? I thought you were invertedly saying the ratings system was a joke..?

That's the part that you didn't understand me "babbling the fuck on about", or however many classy "fucks" you shoehorned in there, to make your point that much more valid.

As for my paranoia of Rockstar discrimination: I really don't think that's a batshit theory. Look at how much thunder the ESRB has received for not rating titles properly. Not to mention the American Liberal / Thompson thunder.

I think this received a rating before they even play-tested the game.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Brak']I disagree. The ESRB was playing their cards, knowing that giving it an Ao would be retail homicide for the title.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Brak']It's both parties. One is playing off the others' policies.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Brak']The Ao is a proverbial "cock block". Either they appropriate the title, for a lower rating, or it doesn't get sold in stores. Both of those options, in their own way, are censorship, no?[/QUOTE]

I'm referring to the ESRB here:

[quote name='Brak']That's my point; playing their cards to block the distribution of the title, in its intended form.

It's kind of like the bending of the laws that traffic cops use to their advantage.

"A suspicious minority driving at night? I better check if his license plate light is out."

All of that amounts to a greater point, where it goes on for so long that it's entirely abused.[/QUOTE]

There's probably a couple of more, but I'm getting bored.

Either you have a selective memory, or no memory at all. Especially since most of those were responses to your posts.

You're on this insane kick where you think you're the lone voice, defending the console manufacturers, when I've said numerous times, to you, that I'm blaming the ESRB.

We get your point -- stop shoehorning in to every other point, already.
 
I'm convinced, Day 1 for me.

(the 'gold' build torrent that will be leaked in a couple years since the game never became officially available)
 
Wow, you guys are still arguing? :lol:

CoffeeEdge, and sorry if I upset you. I just meant in general, not after the immediate quote.
 
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but here's what pushed Manhunt into AO territory.

"the content that seems to have netted the A-O includes a woman being decapitated and her decapitated body being raped in the neckhole, a live cat being microwaved to death, scenes of necrophilia, and a woman's breast being sliced off and worn like a hat.
"

The game deserves it's AO rating; Sony needs to allow the game on their system, regardless.
 
[quote name='reibeatall']I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but here's what pushed Manhunt into AO territory.

"the content that seems to have netted the A-O includes a woman being decapitated and her decapitated body being raped in the neckhole, a live cat being microwaved to death, scenes of necrophilia, and a woman's breast being sliced off and worn like a hat.
"

The game deserves it's AO rating; Sony needs to allow the game on their system, regardless.[/quote]

:shock:
 
[quote name='reibeatall']"the content that seems to have netted the A-O includes a woman being decapitated and her decapitated body being raped in the neckhole, a live cat being microwaved to death, scenes of necrophilia, and a woman's breast being sliced off and worn like a hat."[/quote]
what.. the.. fuck?!?!

That's some of the most twisted stuff i've ever heard of in my life.
 
[quote name='reibeatall']I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but here's what pushed Manhunt into AO territory.

"the content that seems to have netted the A-O includes a woman being decapitated and her decapitated body being raped in the neckhole, a live cat being microwaved to death, scenes of necrophilia, and a woman's breast being sliced off and worn like a hat.
"

The game deserves it's AO rating; Sony needs to allow the game on their system, regardless.[/QUOTE]

Was brought up earlier by someone, and I think he said it was bogus. Got any good sources?

I highly doubt any of thats true.
 
[quote name='reibeatall']I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but here's what pushed Manhunt into AO territory.

"the content that seems to have netted the A-O includes a woman being decapitated and her decapitated body being raped in the neckhole, a live cat being microwaved to death, scenes of necrophilia, and a woman's breast being sliced off and worn like a hat.
"

The game deserves it's AO rating; Sony needs to allow the game on their system, regardless.[/quote]


It's been mentioned, and then withdrawn due to the fact that this seems to be fake. Source, please?


The strong-willed argumenters: you are freaking out over a technicality which isn't really a difference of opinion. Brak agreed that it is the right of the manufacturer to do however they please, so there is no reason to bring it up again. If he wants to be super pissed off about ESRB (who as far as I'm concerned very well could be doing their job), just let him.

No reasonable discussion can start with "try to stop being so angry." The bitter truth of the matter is that people are really upset that they can not play Manhunt 2. They are going to blame everyone - the christians, the ESRB, the Austrlians, and the tides for what has happened. Their anger seems to have an effect of creating straw-man arguments where they don't belong (e.g. "Nintendo's official website is flimsy") unsubstantiated claims (Manhunt 2 is WORSE THAN RAPE / Manhunt 2 is TAME) and other such nonsense.

Let them calm down. I was 14 or so when Space Quest VII and Leisure Suit Larry 8 were both cancelled (and my revered Game Gods fired), and I've been used to Full Throttle 2 / Freelance Police / etc. cancellation announcements since then. I don't know how young some of the dire Manhunt 2 fans are, but if this is the first time that a title they've been psyched about has been taken away from them it explains their behavior.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Give it a rest, this isn't censorship. This is 3 companies not wanting adult only products on their consoles. Nothing more, nothing less. It is NOT censorship in any form. Rockstar is not being banned from releasing this game, they just can't use the 3 major consoles as an outlet. The ratings board gave it a rating it seems to have deserved, they did NOT ban this game from being played.[/QUOTE]

Ah, yes. The ol' "corporate bodies decided it for us, so it's ol' Adam Smith's invisible hand of the free market thinking for us!" argument.

So, to wit:

A) Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and Rick Santorum (at least that fucker's out of office) all co-sponsor a bill that would ban AO-rated games from release in the United States

B) Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo decide that they don't want to publish AO-rated games on their system

To be perfectly clear, one is censorship and the other is not?

Let me use a perfectly censor-worthy phrase: go fuck yourself.

BOTH
BOTH
BOTH are censorship, no matter how much you want to deny it. The free market is no longer free to decide. The consumer masses are having their choices limited without being given an opportunity to make those decisions for themselves. How perfectly undemocratic. This isn't some absurdity, like expecting your console to make you a ham sandwich upon demand. This is asking for your console of choice (Wii, PSP, PS2) to play a game conceived, coded, and created for play, and having that choice denied because of the content of the game, and not because it fails to meet some standards of playability and value.

Superman 64 should have been censored, not this. If you're such a goddamned fucking go-people-of-America-I-don't-want-anyone-telling-me-what-I-can-and-can't-do Republican like you play in the vs forum when you post some bullshit blog link that does the thinking for you, then you ought to defend the rights of people to decide what they do and do not want to play on their goddamned motherfucking videogame systems. I don't play the 345th iteration of "Bust-a-Move," because it's fucking boring and an awful puzzle game. I do, however, respect the wishes of those who want to play to be able to go to a store and buy it.

I bet you buy your explicit albums at Wal-Mart, too. Let ol' fat-cat corporate charlie make your purchasing decisions for you, but OH NOES! DON'T LET THE GOVERNMENT DO IT! THAT'S BAD!!

You're pitiful.
 
That sounds like some good wholesome fun.



WOW!! If that is true, who the hell signed off on that? There is no way that they could have thought that would have slipped through.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']The bitter truth of the matter is that people are really upset that they can not play Manhunt 2.[/QUOTE]
In a sense, yes. But not in the sense you're implying, I imagine. I assume that's the customer-rage, Veruca Salt brand of "I WANNA PLAY MANHUNT 2 NOW!"

I'm upset that I can't play Manhunt 2 because of the way the dominoes have fallen.

Like I said earlier, let's see what happens when GTA IV is submitted for its rating.

This is a sign of things to come.
 
[quote name='reibeatall']The game deserves it's AO rating; Sony needs to allow the game on their system, regardless.[/QUOTE]
Uh, why does Sony need to do that, prey tell?

[quote name='Brak']Like I said earlier, let's see what happens when GTA IV is submitted for its rating.

This is a sign of things to come.[/quote]
So, what are you going to do when/if it gets rated M?

[quote name='mykevermin']general "free market" nonsense claiming that policies are censorship[/QUOTE]
So, it's censorship for console makers to set rules of what they'll allow on their systems?

Is it also horrible, reprehensible, oppressive censorship that my local theaters don't play hardcore porno flicks along with the rest of the movies? Because according to your theory of what constitutes censorship or the lack therof, is would seem that it's the job of every entertainment medium provider to provide every type of content on their platform.

There's censorship, and there's companies having the freedom of having policies on the use of their product. You're telling me that these are always one and the same?
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']So, it's censorship for console makers to set rules of what they'll allow on their systems?[/QUOTE]
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']So, what are you going to do when/if it gets rated M?[/QUOTE]
I don't know. Hence, "Let's see".

Don't try to prove me wrong in the future, knuckleduster.
 
[quote name='Brak']The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no it's not, for one thing. And furthermore, I only hope that with repetition, the general stupidity of people raising their "OMG FASCIST CENSORSHIP" flags will get this shit through their heads, that it is NOT fair to force companies to not be allowed to have policies on what may be done with their products.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Uh, no it's not, for one thing.[/quote]
It's a Benjamin Franklyn quote.[quote name='CoffeeEdge']And furthermore, I only hope that with repetition, the general stupidity of people raising their "OMG FASCIST CENSORSHIP" flags will get this shit through their heads, that it is NOT fair to force companies to not be allowed to have policies on what may be done with their products.[/QUOTE]
Jesus H. Christ.

Just... Nevermind.

Never-fucking-Goddamn-mind, Goddammit.

You: Why do you enjoy the flavor of goats milk?

Me: I don't.

You: Why do you enjoy the flavor of goats milk, though?

Me: I said that I don't.

You: Ok. But why do you like the flavor of goats milk?

Me: ... I don't.

You: Answer the fucking question!

I'd make better progress arguing with a fire hydrant.
 
[quote name='Brak']It's a Benjamin Franklyn quote.
Jesus H. Christ.

Just... Nevermind.

Never-fucking-Goddamn-mind, Goddammit.

You: Why do you enjoy the flavor of goats milk.

Me: I don't.

You: Why do you enjoy the flavor of goats milk, though?

Me: I said that I don't.

You: Ok. Buy why do you like the flavor of goats milk?

Me: ... I don't.

You: Answer the fucking question!

I'd make better progress arguing with a fire hydrant.[/QUOTE]
We must be in different mirror realities or something, because you make no fucking sense to me.
 
I think that's because you have the memory of a goldfish.

Scroll up to the top of the page when you asked me to answer the question you accused me of dodging.
 
[quote name='Brak']I think that's because you have the memory of a goldfish.
[/QUOTE]

Holy shit. I haven't laughed that hard on these forums in a LONG time. Hilarious man.
 
[quote name='Brak']I think that's because you have the memory of a goldfish.[/quote]

Someone just got bitch slapped... :applause:
 
I hope you guys know that if you keep arguing about this censorship bit, I'm going to have to make some ridiculous relationship between console makers not allowing AO games on their consoles to the state of Florida not selling Pepsi products.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
A) Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and Rick Santorum (at least that fucker's out of office) all co-sponsor a bill that would ban AO-rated games from release in the United States

B) Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo decide that they don't want to publish AO-rated games on their system

To be perfectly clear, one is censorship and the other is not?

[/quote]

Two COMPLETELY different things. One is saying you CAN NOT release this game in the USA. The other is saying YOU CAN release the game in the USA, just please do it on a different platform. And to be perfectly clear, yes #1 would be considered censorship, #2 would be considered a business decision.

Nintendo and Sony are not banning you from playing this game, they are just saying, play it on a different system such as the PC.

Seems like you are going the route of ANYTIME Microsoft or Nintendo says no to a game for whatever reason, that it would be classified censorship. That is ridiculous. They are running a company and they obviously feel AO games don't provide any positives for their system, hence they don't release them. Plain and simple business decision. It is NOT censoring these companies from saying what they want. Rockstar is completely free to release this game as is via other alternatives.
 
You know, even if the above list of things is fabricated, you've got to wonder what on earth could be in this game to give it an AO rating. After GTA, Saint's Row, etc. I wasn't sure anything could get the dreaded rating and that anything that wasn't T suitable got the M, to which the sky was the limit.

My money's still on that Rockstar never intended to release this AO version of the game, but submitted it to save a few bucks on marketing. Would there have been a 17 page thread about this here without this rating controversy? Would my wife know about this before I talked to her about it because she read it on a news website? I think not.
 
[quote name='Brak']I think that's because you have the memory of a goldfish.

[/QUOTE]


:applause: and the comprehension skills of a brick wall.
 
[quote name='daroga']My money's still on that Rockstar never intended to release this AO version of the game, but submitted it to save a few bucks on marketing. Would there have been a 17 page thread about this here without this rating controversy? Would my wife know about this before I talked to her about it because she read it on a news website? I think not.[/quote]

i agree.
 
[quote name='daroga']My money's still on that Rockstar never intended to release this AO version of the game, but submitted it to save a few bucks on marketing. Would there have been a 17 page thread about this here without this rating controversy? Would my wife know about this before I talked to her about it because she read it on a news website? I think not.[/QUOTE]

It's possible, but I doubt it. Word on "the street" is that Take Two wants to be bought out post GTA. It doesn't make any sense for Rockstar to piss away that much money for a publicity stunt that very well may end up back firing in their faces. Stock holders no likey multi million dollar investments that may not come out.

As it stands, censorship has always been a part of games. It completely sucks that this game won't come out uncensored. It's hypocritical that retailers won't sell this game, but they will sell "unrated" versions of movies (even if not submitting to the ratings board is a marketing scheme more then an actual commentary on content). As a lover of exceptionally violent cinema, this does completely suck that Manhunt isn't coming out in its most unadulterated form, but on the same token the ESRB has been burned by Rockstar before and I could see them taking a better safe then sorry approach with the company in the future.

I can't really blame Sony or Nintendo for dropping this game, Nintendo especially. Both companies are still geared towards the under 21 market and an AO game is too unproven and will be met with substantial backlash especially considering that Manhunt 2 is more then likely violence for the sake of violence rather then violence for the sake of art. From a business standpoint, it's too much of a risk with not nearly enough reward.

I've always been a bit pissed at Rockstar since they seem to be the ones who put out the controversial content but never seem to get any of the punishment or criticism other then tangentially. I really hope that GTA 4 changes this with a game that is adult in terms of storytelling as well as content (which San Andres nearly did) but as it stands now Rockstar is the #1 reason why games take so much flack these days.
 
[quote name='daroga']My money's still on that Rockstar never intended to release this AO version of the game, but submitted it to save a few bucks on marketing. Would there have been a 17 page thread about this here without this rating controversy? Would my wife know about this before I talked to her about it because she read it on a news website? I think not.[/quote]
If true, it wouldn't be surprising. I'm sure they could have just sent the ESRB some footage that they planned to scrap anyway.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ah, yes. The ol' "corporate bodies decided it for us, so it's ol' Adam Smith's invisible hand of the free market thinking for us!" argument.

So, to wit:

A) Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and Rick Santorum (at least that fucker's out of office) all co-sponsor a bill that would ban AO-rated games from release in the United States

B) Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo decide that they don't want to publish AO-rated games on their system

To be perfectly clear, one is censorship and the other is not?

Let me use a perfectly censor-worthy phrase: go fuck yourself.

BOTH
BOTH
BOTH are censorship, no matter how much you want to deny it. The free market is no longer free to decide. The consumer masses are having their choices limited without being given an opportunity to make those decisions for themselves. How perfectly undemocratic. This isn't some absurdity, like expecting your console to make you a ham sandwich upon demand. This is asking for your console of choice (Wii, PSP, PS2) to play a game conceived, coded, and created for play, and having that choice denied because of the content of the game, and not because it fails to meet some standards of playability and value.

Superman 64 should have been censored, not this. If you're such a goddamned fucking go-people-of-America-I-don't-want-anyone-telling-me-what-I-can-and-can't-do Republican like you play in the vs forum when you post some bullshit blog link that does the thinking for you, then you ought to defend the rights of people to decide what they do and do not want to play on their goddamned motherfucking videogame systems. I don't play the 345th iteration of "Bust-a-Move," because it's fucking boring and an awful puzzle game. I do, however, respect the wishes of those who want to play to be able to go to a store and buy it.

I bet you buy your explicit albums at Wal-Mart, too. Let ol' fat-cat corporate charlie make your purchasing decisions for you, but OH NOES! DON'T LET THE GOVERNMENT DO IT! THAT'S BAD!!

You're pitiful.[/quote]

This is a rather subtle and complex point, IMO you argued it well.

I have noticed this for a while as well - the politicians and corporate heads are colluding to foster an enviornment of soft censorship - politicians do it for power and the corpos do it for money.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Two COMPLETELY different things. One is saying you CAN NOT release this game in the USA. The other is saying YOU CAN release the game in the USA, just please do it on a different platform. And to be perfectly clear, yes #1 would be considered censorship, #2 would be considered a business decision.

Nintendo and Sony are not banning you from playing this game, they are just saying, play it on a different system such as the PC.

Seems like you are going the route of ANYTIME Microsoft or Nintendo says no to a game for whatever reason, that it would be classified censorship. That is ridiculous. They are running a company and they obviously feel AO games don't provide any positives for their system, hence they don't release them. Plain and simple business decision. It is NOT censoring these companies from saying what they want. Rockstar is completely free to release this game as is via other alternatives.[/QUOTE]


you can't just forget that these companies have the power to make or break these developers by saying what can or can't be on their system.
Also, why are you breaking it down to such a minor technicality? That's exactly what these companies would use as an excuse to ban the game-- they'd say "we're not censoring it, you can release it on PC" then mutter "good luck selling it though, kekekeke" under their breath.


If I'm the only guy in the world that manufactures candy hearts, then have people send in the messages to put on them, then I tell a guy he can't put "fuck you" on one of my candy hearts, then I would be censoring him. Maybe there's one other guy who also makes something similar to candy hearts but they're too expensive, don't sell as well, and not as high quality, so it's not really worth it for the guy to put "fuck you" on one of those. So he's effectively in a censored position because he can only enjoy a "fuck you" message in private.


It's a situation like this that reminds us of one seriously bad side of console gaming-- console games aren't on a unified platform, giving the big 3 complete control over them. It's not usually problem, but this is a pretty big one.
 
First, sorry 'bout them ad hominems in the last post - I blame the booze. Now, to business.

[quote name='schuerm26']Two COMPLETELY different things. One is saying you CAN NOT release this game in the USA. The other is saying YOU CAN release the game in the USA, just please do it on a different platform. And to be perfectly clear, yes #1 would be considered censorship, #2 would be considered a business decision.[/quote]

The argument is that it is more the collective "business decisions" of all major console makes have made it so that we will never see Manhunt 2 in the United States in its current form. The results of government intervention and corporate intervention are identical: we won't be playing Manhunt 2. I'm not sure how you can argue that one is censorship and one is not when the results are *precisely* the same. Sony and Nintendo's decision to not release this title is not the same thing as rejecting a game because it's lousy or unplayable: they are making moral decisions for us, the consumers. They have decided what they do and do not want us to be able to see, play, or do, based, again, on the content, and not how it plays, its length, lingering bugs/crashes...just because it's a "naughty" game.

Yet that isn't censorship? Please

Nintendo and Sony are not banning you from playing this game, they are just saying, play it on a different system such as the PC.

Seems like you are going the route of ANYTIME Microsoft or Nintendo says no to a game for whatever reason, that it would be classified censorship.
Click to expand...

Nope. Again, content. They may reject a game if they think it stinks, it has bugs, if it's unplayable, if it doesn't look current, or if it may not generate sales. There are sound reasons for not releasing games; as much as it pains me to admit, it probably would not be a sound business decision to release "Shenmue III" on any game system. Not because of content, but because of the fact that it probably won't make any profit for Sega or whatever system it comes out for.

So, no, there are ample sound reasons for rejecting a game. This is not one of them. This is SNES Mortal Kombat all over again, but nobody has the guts that Sega did in 1992.

That is ridiculous. They are running a company and they obviously feel AO games don't provide any positives for their system, hence they don't release them. Plain and simple business decision. It is NOT censoring these companies from saying what they want. Rockstar is completely free to release this game as is via other alternatives.
Click to expand...

Aw, shucks. I sold my N-Gage. And my Virtual Boy. And my Intellivision. And..well, you get the point. What "alternatives" do I have to play this on a console? Someone took issue with my previous post as well, saying that what I'm arguing is akin to asking a movie theater to show a porno. Well, there's a case where alternatives exist (and, ironically enough, those alternatives - porn on home video - are precisely what killed off the adult theaters of the 70's). If I want to watch "Librarians in Heat 12," I *can*. VHS, DVD, probably Blu-Ray and HD DVD...they probably even stock Betamax and videodisc versions of those movies. Manhunt 2? No dice. There are no alternatives. Again, whether it's taken care of in Congress or in Nintendo's boardroom, the end result is the same: censorship.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ah, yes. The ol' "corporate bodies decided it for us, so it's ol' Adam Smith's invisible hand of the free market thinking for us!" argument.

So, to wit:

A) Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and Rick Santorum (at least that fucker's out of office) all co-sponsor a bill that would ban AO-rated games from release in the United States

B) Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo decide that they don't want to publish AO-rated games on their system
[/quote]

The key difference is that A) violates the Constitution while B) does not. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are simply exercising their freedom of expression to not support AO games which I personally think is a bad business decision but well within their rights.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The key difference is that A) violates the Constitution while B) does not. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are simply exercising their freedom of expression to not support AO games which I personally think is a bad business decision but well within their rights.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure there are ample cases where things such as (A) occur, however - more at the state level than federal.

Nevertheless, this kind of argument is going down a very different path. IMO, of two different events with the precise same results, if one is constitutionally protected, and the other not, then what we have is a loophole. Something to be looked into, that's for sure.

In honor of this topic, I'm going to be listening to Body Count's "Cop Killer" today intermittently. Another "business decision," right guys?

Right? After all, it was a smart business decision of Warner Bros to make sure I would steal their song instead of buying their album. Then again, they didn't give me a choice. Three cheers for Adam Smith everyone!
 
It's weird because games are a super expensive and time consuming medium, but they're in line with the movie industry now. Any content can be in any movie, short of the obvious illegal stuff. this case shows the limits on expression in console gaming, at the hand of the big 3 (who are technically in their rights to reject Manhunt 2, but it doesn't mean they're not complete assholes...anywhoo..)


Do you guys think games should be the same way? what about publishing an unlicensed game? Tengen did it on the NES, as well as other companies...can Rockstar do that with manhunt and sell the game through non-traditional means? The returns would be shit, of course.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm sure there are ample cases where things such as (A) occur, however - more at the state level than federal.

Nevertheless, this kind of argument is going down a very different path. IMO, of two different events with the precise same results, if one is constitutionally protected, and the other not, then what we have is a loophole. Something to be looked into, that's for sure. [/QUOTE]

You introduced the (A) scenario in your argument (which I think is perfectly applicable) and I was responding that I consider those two situations very different. "Freedom of expression" doesn't give people carte blanche to say/do whatever we want; it just doesn't give the government the power to be the arbiter of what can or can't be expressed. However, privately, "freedom of expression" can and should be restricted. I'm sure myke, in your class, you don't let students swear at you or say racist epithets (or maybe you do, you never know about those liberal college campuses ;) ). I can't go around crying "fire" in a crowded theater, journalists can't make up news stories and not expect repercussions and companies making AO videogames can't expect to be guaranteed a license if they fail to meet the publishing standards of the console company. If I'm interpreting your last sentence (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be suggesting that console manufacturers should be forced into licensing AO games which I would argue violates their right to freedom of expression.
 
I don't know why people are arguing (on the internet especially) in favor of any kind of censorship (be it governmental or otherwise)... Is this a testament to the effectiveness of brainwashing?

Props to Mykevermin on always "keeping it real" in his posts, I wish more posts (including mine) were as well thought out.

EDIT: Why would you compare creating explicit and offensive artwork to slander or shouting fire in a crowded theater?

The argument is that these companies are out to please the government/crazy people and not just satisfy their own moral scruples.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I don't know why people are arguing (on the internet especially) in favor of any kind of censorship (be it governmental or otherwise)... Is this a testament to the effectiveness of brainwashing?

Props to Mykevermin on always "keeping it real" in his posts, I wish more posts (including mine) were as well thought out.

EDIT: Why would you compare creating explicit and offensive artwork to slander or shouting fire in a crowded theater?

The argument is that these companies are out to please the government and not just satisfy their own moral scruples.[/QUOTE]

The companies aren't out to please the government, they're out there to sell systems and games. Anyone who thinks that if an AO game came out for a home console wouldn't lead to massive protests by the religious right is deluding themselves. I'm not in favor of any sort of censorship, but I also think you need to pick your battles. Manhunt 2 is probably the trashiest of trash games in terms of its content. I'd rather wait for a game that is actually trying to say something or advance the medium a la a Killer 7. I'm of the opinion that you fight for something where the explict content is incidental rather then the cause of the medium. The former battle is much more satisfying if won.

Just curious, but does anyone think Manhunter 2 would have been anything more then a murder/rape simulator at its AO core?
 
Honestly I've never enjoyed a Rockstar game for more than 5 minutes.

I think they make boring software, but I don't like the way any of the companies are handling this.

Why can't they just publish the game as unrated like most movie studios?

You're right about people protesting though, I forget sometimes that people are insane.

BTW it's Manhunt... is Manhunter some gay porn game that also got an AO?
 
[quote name='dopa345']You introduced the (A) scenario in your argument (which I think is perfectly applicable) and I was responding that I consider those two situations very different. "Freedom of expression" doesn't give people carte blanche to say/do whatever we want; it just doesn't give the government the power to be the arbiter of what can or can't be expressed.[/quote]

So far, fair enough.

However, privately, "freedom of expression" can and should be restricted. I'm sure myke, in your class, you don't let students swear at you or say racist epithets (or maybe you do, you never know about those liberal college campuses ;) ).
Click to expand...

Cute. :lol:

I can't go around crying "fire" in a crowded theater, journalists can't make up news stories and not expect repercussions and companies making AO videogames can't expect to be guaranteed a license if they fail to meet the publishing standards of the console company. If I'm interpreting your last sentence (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be suggesting that console manufacturers should be forced into licensing AO games which I would argue violates their right to freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

Forced? Not at all. I wish someone would be this generation's Sega, since the companies seem to buy into this phony notion of defending themselves against presumed protests by those appalled by this game - a very vocal, very small minority who probably aren't going to be potential customers. I don't see how it's bad for business - TRU already (I think) stopped carrying M games, and Wal-Mart censors the shit out of their cds. It's nothing new. I merely wish that there was *some* opportunity to buy/play this game. If I have to order from Amazon, because retail stores don't carry it. Fine. Give me, and give everyone else, the opportunity to vote with our wallets. Don't take that choice away from me and tell me it's for my own good. I find that highly offensive.

[quote name='furyk']The companies aren't out to please the government, they're out there to sell systems and games. Anyone who thinks that if an AO game came out for a home console wouldn't lead to massive protests by the religious right is deluding themselves.[/quote]

This is something that should NEVEREVEREVER be used as a reason for not doing something. The religious right can and will find something to protest with or without Manhunt 2 in this world, and even those things should be held sacred and protected.

I can't believe you're advocating giving in and giving up on something because of the mere presumption of protests by a bloc of people who do nothing BUT complain about the state of moral decay in our society. If this were 80 years ago, they'd be complaining about jazz cats in zoot suits leading to moral depravity as well. Their great grandparents sure did.

Guess who you just gave power and legitimacy to? Jack Thomson. Well done, chap.

I'm not in favor of any sort of censorship, but I also think you need to pick your battles. Manhunter 2 is probably the trashiest of trash games in terms of its content. I'd rather wait for a game that is actually trying to say something or advance the medium a la a Killer 7. I'm of the opinion that you fight for something where the explict content is incidental rather then the cause of the medium. The former battle is much more satisfying if won.
Click to expand...

I pick this one. It's not like Larry Flint collaborated with Annie Liebowitz or "art" types when he fought his fight. He fought for himself and his filthy, filthy, FILTHY magazine (Hustler makes my stomach churn). And he won. Not on any grounds of "art" or "trying to say something for the medium."

Just curious, but does anyone think Manhunter 2 would have been anything more then a murder/rape simulator at its AO core?
Click to expand...

I'd like to be able to find out, but Grandma and Grandpa...err, Nintendo and Sony, won't let me buy it.
 
[quote name='daroga']My money's still on that Rockstar never intended to release this AO version of the game, but submitted it to save a few bucks on marketing. Would there have been a 17 page thread about this here without this rating controversy? Would my wife know about this before I talked to her about it because she read it on a news website? I think not.[/QUOTE]

It would be a foolish gamble for Rockstar to wager on. Let's face. Manhunt 2, even if retooled to a lower rating, will forever be an Adults Only title to the mainstream media. Even with a Mature rating, I doubt any retailers but Gamestop will carry it due to massive protests from angry housewives and part-time fathers.

Here's a dramatic reenactment of what I think occurred. Please use your own shadow puppets.

ESRB Bob: "What's next on the agenda, Bill?"

ESRB Bill: "Uh. Rockstar Games. Manhunt 2"

ESRB Sally: "Two? What did we give the first one?

ESRB Bill: "Let me check. Uh huh. Mature"

ESRB Sally: "Good. Easy work then."

Video is shown.

ESRB Bob: "The ESRB declares Manhunt 2 shall be rated Mature"

ESRB Sally: "Good. I'm hungry."

ESRB Bill: "Wait a minute guys. Did you see what platforms this game is coming out on? Nintendo Wii. Didn't you buy your daughter one of those things Bob?"

ESRB Bob: "Yeah. I did. I can't give her the opportunity to play this game. Let's rate Adults Only to make sure no children can play it! We'll be heroes to parents!"

Everyone cheers and the game is rated Adults Only.

If it were only a Playstation 2/PC title, I'm sure it would have been saved a death sentence. But since we're all sorta stuck in a "Nintendos 4 kidz" mentality, Manhunt 2 was rated on its platform choice instead of content. Which, again my opinion, means the ESRB failed. This is all speculation on my part, but we're on the internet.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Why can't they just publish the game as unrated like most movie studios?[/QUOTE]
Gee, I dunno. I've only explained that about 4,000 times already in this thread.
 
Just because a ban does not violate the constitution does not imply that it is somehow moral. The console companies have formed an effective monopoly on banning AO games, since none of the three would let the game appear on their systems. In other words, the effectiveness of the AO-rating is extremely similar to the UK government ban from a practical point of view. This is a crucial point, since so many of you that agree with the AO rated games being banned from consoles keep pointing out that it is somehow better than the goverment ban.

Don't get me wrong, it is better, because they theoretically could release the game for PC. Despite the fact that it can be legally sold in the United States, you can not argue that the title has been effectively shut down, with the only option of releasing it in its current form still requiring to alter the gameplay mechanics (as far as I'm concerned playing games on PC is not the same as playing games on a console). But this "marginally better" statement is quite far from "good enough" for anyone wanting to play the game.

I can not say that I can fall in either of the camps in supporting or condemning ESRB rating, mostly due to complete ignorance (apart from rumors) of the content of the game. Mykevermin hit the nail on the head when he said that he would like to find out and vote with his wallet. That is an inherent freedom that should not be violated.

I found this online when searching for high-res ESRB logos:

I found it to be a curious read.
 
[quote name='terribledeli']It would be a foolish gamble for Rockstar to wager on. Let's face. Manhunt 2, even if retooled to a lower rating, will forever be an Adults Only title to the mainstream media. Even with a Mature rating, I doubt any retailers but Gamestop will carry it due to massive protests from angry housewives and part-time fathers.

Here's a dramatic reenactment of what I think occurred. Please use your own shadow puppets.

ESRB Bob: "What's next on the agenda, Bill?"

ESRB Bill: "Uh. Rockstar Games. Manhunt 2"

ESRB Sally: "Two? What did we give the first one?

ESRB Bill: "Let me check. Uh huh. Mature"

ESRB Sally: "Good. Easy work then."

Video is shown.

ESRB Bob: "The ESRB declares Manhunt 2 shall be rated Mature"

ESRB Sally: "Good. I'm hungry."

ESRB Bill: "Wait a minute guys. Did you see what platforms this game is coming out on? Nintendo Wii. Didn't you buy your daughter one of those things Bob?"

ESRB Bob: "Yeah. I did. I can't give her the opportunity to play this game. Let's rate Adults Only to make sure no children can play it! We'll be heroes to parents!"

Everyone cheers and the game is rated Adults Only.

If it were only a Playstation 2/PC title, I'm sure it would have been saved a death sentence. But since we're all sorta stuck in a "Nintendos 4 kidz" mentality, Manhunt 2 was rated on its platform choice instead of content. Which, again my opinion, means the ESRB failed. This is all speculation on my part, but we're on the internet.[/quote]:rofl: You mean out of the millions of PS2s sold (many times how many Wiis are out there right now), none of the children of ESRB panel members own one? Shocking!

If it is rerated as an M, it will be sold in stores, it will be played on Wiis and PS2s and PSPs. Regardless of how dramatic a change must be made to the game to get that rating, it will be assumed that all the AO content is gone (which it logically should be), so it would be difficult for the public to be more outraged over this than the original, or God of War, or any other M title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top