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

[quote name='furyk']Well, in fairness to the ESRB, the standard for MPAA seems to be whether or not you show a dick between NC-17 and R.[/quote]

Somewhat. I recall being a young lad, and going with my sister and mother to see a film called "The Crying Game." When Jaye Davidson's penis hit the screen - we were all, of course, shocked, for a myriad of reasons - I recall my mother (who's a veryveryvery conservative woman, politically, and seems to have allergies to progressive ideologies) cheering, saying "well, they show enough tits on movies, it's about time we get to see some penis."

So, yeah, that anecdote (1) disproves your argument at the same time it (2) totally proves your argument and (3) will probably continue to haunt me (not the penis on the screen, but my mother cheering it like it was tearing down walls of penis-laden oppression)

There's no way the ESRB is going to around in two years sadly. It's unfortunate too because I think we'll go to explicit censorship rather then censorship by circumstance.
Click to expand...

Hmm. An interesting claim; what do you think would replace it? Gov't regulations? No other medium has that (well...FCC, I suppose). Another industry bureaucracy? That won't last either, since the same attacks levied against the ESRB will apply to the next group to come along (industry complicity).

And as someone who owns AO titles (a friend who legally bought them sent them to me and that's the gods honest truth), most of them are remarkably terrible.
Click to expand...

I'm very unsurprised. Looking at the list FriskyTanuki posted, many of those titles seemed to come from boardroom ideas where the best and brightest thought like this:

"Everybody likes Bejewled, right? Of course! So, how to we make it even *better*? RIGHT! IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE BEJEWELED, BUT WITH TITS!"
 
The recent talks about Manhunt 2 being preliminarily rated AO just proves how the ESRB has failed. If there is an AO rating then it should be used and then put on store shelves with the rating on it. but if nobody will sell an AO rated game in which in my opinion is like an R rated movie by todays standards then the ESRB has failed, Why have a rating if it is never used.
Eventually this issue will come to more and more games. Because of more and more adults wanting more games pointed in there interest. These games can assume the role of the next blockbuster hollywood film that would have content that if it was in a game would be rated AO hands down.
Actually on another point alltogether i feel that games should have to be re-rated every 5 years. because on todays standards a game such as Mortal Kombat which was rated M when released would not be rated M on todays standards it would probably be rated T.
This is just pathetic how the ESRB is assuming the role of Judge Jury and Executioner and is practically censoring a game from coming to the US because stores such as Blockbuster, Gamefly, Bestbuy, and Walmart which make up a huge portion of the gaming market will not carry AO rated games.
 
i am not saying they would do this, but could they give it out for free. Like say they sold a manhunt keychain for 50 dollars and gave away a free copy of manhunt 2, would that be allowed?
 
And since I've never really looked into the MPAA at all, we should probably just give up on this whole argument regarding the ESRB specifically:

Many believe that the intent of the various ratings has been subverted. For example, there is widespread access to R-rated movies even for those under 17, while the NC-17 rating spells commercial death for a film, undermining its purpose. Film critic Roger Ebert has called for an entirely new system of ratings designed to address these issues. Some people criticize film-makers for editing their works to conform to the various ratings. For example, they might excise some extreme violence or sex to avoid an NC-17, or even "spice up" a children's movie so as to move from G to PG and appeal to older children. The ratings system itself is attacked as de facto censorship by free-speech activists, and conversely as too lenient in its content standards by some conservative critics, priest, lawyers, and parental review sites. A criticism that has come from both sides is that the MPAA tends to be considered more complacent with violent content than sexual one. Other criticisms have included that there is more bias against homosexual sexual content than heterosexual. Also, movies with male genitalia tend to get a "harsher" rating than those with female genitalia.
Click to expand...
Gee, sound familiar?
 
To summarize:

Censorship is bad, m'kay. Ratings enforced by anyone but parents are bad, m'kay. Christian conservatives are bad, m'kay. PC liberal whack-jobs are bad, m'kay.
 
[quote name='botticus']And since I've never really looked into the MPAA at all, we should probably just give up on this whole argument regarding the ESRB specifically:


Gee, sound familiar?[/QUOTE]


i mean just look at tv, you are allowed to show man ass all over the place, i doubt i have seen one woman ass on tv, so some how censorship got reversed for that
 
I have a hard time with why you all are dissappointed. I mean come on... It's those retards Rockstar... What did they/you expect?? :cough:gta:cough:
 
[quote name='botticus']I guess you guys haven't paid attention to the culture surrounding video games much if you don't think they're adhering to a social standard. Sex in movies? Not a lot of uproar unless it's approaching pornography, happens in just about every other R-rated movie. Sex in games? Chaos. Violent content is generally the same. People get shot all the time in PG-13 movies, but have a human killed in a game, generally moves it to an M. Blame in on Jack Thompson, or that video games are being seen as "for kids" still, whatever, the fact is that's how games are judged, and that's what rating systems have to reflect.

I'm sure none of us like it, but just how when I was a kid (some 20 years ago), it seemed like any movie that had an inkling of nudity was an R, though nowadays some PG-13 movies can sneak through with the same - the same will likely occur with games as the industry matures.[/QUOTE]

So videogame ratings have to reflect the very wrong, biased, irrational attitude that a minority of people have towards games? WTF?

Ratings shouldn't be given based on how videogames are viewed by Jack Thompson, Leeland Yee and the blame games first crowd. They should be given based upon the typically accepted content in ALL FORMS OF MEDIA.

IT's like going to another country where women typically go to the beach topless and saying that your beach can't be topless because a minorty of people don't agree with it even though the acceptable standard is blatantly obvious.

If sex, nudity and violence are typically found in M rated (17+), content (in all forms of media), then THAT is the standard. And the ESRB has willingly chosen to not abide by it and fuck gamers over.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']So videogame ratings have to reflect the very wrong, biased, irrational attitude that a minority of people have towards games? WTF?

Ratings shouldn't be given based on how videogames are viewed by Jack Thompson, Leeland Yee and the blame games first crowd. They should be given based upon the typically accepted content in ALL FORMS OF MEDIA.

IT's like going to another country where women typically go to the beach topless and saying that your beach can't be topless because a minorty of people don't agree with it even though the acceptable standard is blatantly obvious.

If sex, nudity and violence are typically found in M rated (17+), content (in all forms of media), then THAT is the standard. And the ESRB has willingly chosen to not abide by it and fuck gamers over.[/quote]Would you prefer the 82-87% of parents who agree with the ESRB's ratings? You can reflect whatever sample size you want, it's the same thing. And yes, the ESRB ratings are tailored towards parents, because gamers don't give a shit what the rating of the game is. Unless it's AO.

And as we've just shown with examples of movies and TV, there is no standard for acceptable content across all media. In your example, it would be more like saying that you go to a country where women typically go to the beach topless and saying that your skating rink can't be topless.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
"Everybody likes Bejewled, right? Of course! So, how to we make it even *better*? RIGHT! IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE BEJEWELED, BUT WITH TITS!"[/QUOTE]

20021018h.gif
 
[quote name='botticus']Would you prefer the 82-87% of parents who agree with the ESRB's ratings? You can reflect whatever sample size you want, it's the same thing. And yes, the ESRB ratings are tailored towards parents, because gamers don't give a shit what the rating of the game is. Unless it's AO.

And as we've just shown with examples of movies and TV, there is no standard for acceptable content across all media. In your example, it would be more like saying that you go to a country where women typically go to the beach topless and saying that your skating rink can't be topless.[/QUOTE]

So videogames and movies are like a skating rink to a beach? They have that little in common? In spite of their constant colabortation? I couldn't disagree more.

And it doesn't matter what polled parents think. What matter is the content that is ALREADY CURRENTLY CIRCULATING. They can say manhunt 1 is AO all day long, but their opinion is trumped by the fact that tons of other media ALREADY have that content and are freely circulating. Again typical social standard isn't what a minority of people or a group of polled parents think.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']To summarize:

Censorship is bad, m'kay. [/quote]OK[quote name='PyroGamer']Ratings enforced by anyone but parents are bad, m'kay.[/quote]huh?[quote name='PyroGamer'] Christian conservatives are bad, m'kay.[/quote] Agreed [quote name='PyroGamer'] PC liberal whack-jobs are bad, m'kay.[/quote] OK, but not as bad as #3
 
[quote name='Scrubking']So videogames and movies are like a skating rink to a beach? They have that little in common? In spite of their constant colabortation? I couldn't disagree more.

And it doesn't matter what polled parents think. What matter is the content that is ALREADY CURRENTLY CIRCULATING. They can say manhunt 1 is AO all day long, but their opinion is trumped by the fact that tons of other media ALREADY have that content and are freely circulating. Again typical social standard isn't what a minority of people or a group of polled parents think.[/quote]The parents are the ones the ratings are intended to instruct/educate. If the parents don't agree with the ratings and can't use them to determine what games are suitable for thier children, the ratings are worthless. And Manhunt was rated M by the same people you're railing against, so I guess I'm confused, unless you're still standing by the fact that at least some parts of Manhunt 2 are no worse than the original.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']Sony and Nintendo sold you hardware, and at present you are unable to utilize it to serve your needs, despite the fact that you have paid for it.[/QUOTE]
Everything you said was nonsense and I don't care to reply to anything but this.

So, when they sell me a game system, it's their responsibility to have games catering to EVERY taste imaginable on it? Because I have some pretty specific ideas for games that simply do not exist, and for many reasons, are more or less impossible to ever be created. So, should I be pissed that they don't have these games?

You're all full of horseshit, by the way.
 
[quote name='hohez']The game will be out by the end of august. Just wait and see. This is all just rockstar making a big controversial hullaboo over themselves to build up hype. I bet they have the M rated version ready to go and will get it rated in a month or so just in time for people to swarm all over it to see what all this taboo bullshit crisis is about.[/quote]

Cut and pasted response from me! Coming to a manhunt thread near you, June 2007!
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']So, when they sell me a game system, it's their responsibility to have games catering to EVERY taste imaginable on it? Because I have some pretty specific ideas for games that simply do not exist, and for many reasons, are more or less impossible to ever be created. So, should I be pissed that they don't have these games?[/quote]

While I don't think they should be required to make a, for example, ham sandwich-making simulator using the Wiimote, if a developer *does*, in fact, make one, I don't see why Nintendo should stand in the way of it selling (unless it's a garbage game - but that never stopped a console maker before).

You're all full of horseshit, by the way.
Click to expand...

Well, looks like we lose the argument. That right there pretty much takes all our arguments and logically tears them to shreds. You study at the Bill O'Reilly school of debate, kiddo? :roll:
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']I didn't even think of that.

Has Sony really been sued over GTA??[/quote]
Yeah, they generally do get named along with Take-Two and Rockstar in these suits.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/grandtheftauto3/news.html?sid=6139347

Thompson had been representing the families of two police officers and a dispatcher killed in June 2003 by then-18-year-old Devin Moore in a suit against Sony, Take-Two Interactive, Rockstar Games, Wal-Mart, and GameStop
Click to expand...

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/grandtheftautovicecity/news.html?sid=6158619

Attorneys in the trial of convicted killer Cody Posey have named Sony Computer Entertainment America, Take-Two Interactive, and Rockstar as responsible for a triple homicide that took place in New Mexico in 2004, according to news outlets in the state.
Click to expand...

[quote name='furyk']Well, in fairness to the ESRB, the standard for MPAA seems to be whether or not you show a dick between NC-17 and R.[/quote]
Or in the case of Team America, the difference is how long you show puppets having sex (no genitalia, but you can see nipples). The MPAA has some of the strangest requirements for pushing movies up in ratings. I've heard rumors that smoking is now something that'll push it up, though I don't know if that's true. The Snakes on a Plane guys mentioned that if they stayed at PG-13, they'd only get to say fuck once, but moving to R allowed Sam Jackson to say motherfucker twice in one sentence. Either way, their ratings don't mean shit once they hit retail, as pretty much any studio releases unrated releases that kids can pick up without hesitation from cashiers.

I'm surprised everybody seems to be pissed at the ESRB, but not the retailers. Retailers sell NC-17 and unrated movies all of the time, but attempt to release an AO game and there's no chance they'll stock it.
 
Take-Two's decision to temporarily suspend distribution of Manhunt 2 is a victory for parents and children. Because of the their thoughtful decision to give Manhunt 2 its strongest rating, 'Adults Only,' the ESRB has sent a strong message to Take-Two and other game makers that they no longer can push the envelope on gratuitous violence in videogames. The ESRB showed real leadership in assigning this rating and further evidence it is making significant progress in keeping extremely violent and graphic materials out of children's hands.

Hopefully Take-Two has learned from its Manhunt 2 experience and will undertake preventive measures to ensure its future games, including Grand Theft Auto IV, are appropriate for families and gamers.

As gaming technology continues to change, we hope to continue to work with the ESRB to ensure that future games have appropriate content and context for children.
Click to expand...
http://wii.ign.com/articles/798/798779p1.html

We lose, idiots who don't even play videogames WIN!! FTW!
 
[quote name='Scrubking']http://wii.ign.com/articles/798/798779p1.html

We lose, idiots who don't even play videogames WIN!! FTW![/quote]
It's time for some clarification. These are quotes are from NIMF, not IGN, Scrubking decided to remove quotation marks and what IGN wrote to make a point. Here's the entire article:

Media watchdog the National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF) has issued a statement in response to the news that Take-Two has suspended the release of the ultra-violent Manhunt 2. It's been a stormy week for the sequel to 2003's Manhunt, with the title being banned in the UK and receiving an "AO" rating from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB). An AO rating basically means a game cannot be sold or manufactured in its current form. NIMF appears to be quite happy with the news.

"Take-Two's decision to temporarily suspend distribution of Manhunt 2 is a victory for parents and children," the statement reads. "Because of the their thoughtful decision to give Manhunt 2 its strongest rating, 'Adults Only,' the ESRB has sent a strong message to Take-Two and other game makers that they no longer can push the envelope on gratuitous violence in videogames. The ESRB showed real leadership in assigning this rating and further evidence it is making significant progress in keeping extremely violent and graphic materials out of children's hands."

NIMF is apparently keeping a close eye on other upcoming games that could prove controversial.

"Hopefully Take-Two has learned from its Manhunt 2 experience and will undertake preventive measures to ensure its future games, including Grand Theft Auto IV, are appropriate for families and gamers."

Even though it is the organization's mission to inform consumers as to the content in videogames, NIMF seems a little misinformed as it refers to Manhunt 2 as a "first-player shooter." The title is a third-person action game.

"As gaming technology continues to change, we hope to continue to work with the ESRB to ensure that future games have appropriate content and context for children. The uniqueness of Nintendo's Wii gives game raters a new challenge when it comes to first-player shooter games. We take the ESRB's decision about Manhunt 2 as a positive step in addressing this new challenge."

NIMF confirmed to IGN that the organization has not played the game, and it is basing its decision that the title is unfit for release on the same trailers we have all seen (which don't show any gameplay that is more violent than numerous past games). What is particularly alarming to the Institute is the Wii control which allows players to act out the gruesome killings with the Wiimote.
Click to expand...

They don't know anything more about why it got an AO than we do, as they're assuming things, as well.

Why they want Rockstar to make GTAIV and Manhunt 2 more appropriate for families is the real the question here.
 
Come on gang! Lets gather around the television and play some Grant Theft Auto! It will be great family fun! Honey, did you invite the neighbor kids over?
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']It's time for some clarification. These are quotes are from NIMF, not IGN, Scrubking decided to remove quotation marks and what IGN wrote to make a point. Here's the entire article:



They don't know anything more about why it got an AO than we do, as they're assuming things, as well.

Why they want Rockstar to make GTAIV and Manhunt 2 more appropriate for families is the real the question here.[/QUOTE]

The ESRB sure is feeling the power now. :roll: Next will be GTA4 getting the AO rating if they don't like what they see. Ha ha maybe to help tone that down, they will go the Driver route and make it so you can't run over civilians. :lol:
 
[quote name='Silent Assassin120']Ha ha maybe to help tone that down, they will go the Driver route and make it so you can't run over civilians. :lol:[/quote]
:bomb: I hated that. I'd try to run over the deserving pedestrians, only to feel foolish as they disappeared into buildings. I want my 200 pts. for running over people. :lol:
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']It's time for some clarification. These are quotes are from NIMF, not IGN, Scrubking decided to remove quotation marks and what IGN wrote to make a point. Here's the entire article:



They don't know anything more about why it got an AO than we do, as they're assuming things, as well.

Why they want Rockstar to make GTAIV and Manhunt 2 more appropriate for families is the real the question here.[/quote]Well, it's the NIMF, they want everything to be appropriate for kids. They might as well go talk to James Dobson for all the insight he'll provide.
 
A victory for parents and kids? Is this guy kidding. This is beyond the point of absurd and yet another example of personal responsibility being tossed out the window. It is actually somewhat scary that this is accepted.

I can't even begin to say how wrong those comments are from NIMF.

I fully support a group like this but my god they are going about it the wrong way. Why do they not have reports for parents and families about what games are acceptable and what aren't? Make a streamlined process for parents so they know what is in games and what isn't?

They hope that Take-Two makes their games appropriate for families and gamers? That's like saying The Godfather should be banned because it isn't appropriate for the whole family to sit down and watch. While I agree with groups like this as a way to inform parents, this is just completely absurd the way they are going about it.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']I can't even begin to say how wrong those comments are from NIMF.[/QUOTE]

Looking at their website, they present themselves as very academic, very thorough, positivists. They deal with the real world of research an empiricism.

However, two things come to mind:

1) The obvious fact that, having not *played* Manhunt 2, nor being provided any insight/literature/descriptors/previews of the game above and beyond what any of us have access to (the web and game magazines), they have already decided the game's inappropriateness. They laud it receiving a rating of "AO," yet they have nothing to verify it with. In other words, all their ethical-sounding and allegedly unbiased claims to want to advance societal understanding have been immediately cast out the window. One can not simultaneously hold positions that advocate for greater research in the field (and appreciation for that research) and positions that heap praise on something that they can not empirically verify. One is a claim for unbiased academic pursuits of knowledge (let the real world tell us how it works and what it's about), and one is a claim for a preferred political result.

2) This: http://www.mediafamily.org/research/index.shtml has several noteworthy things that should make all of you immediately suspect. First, they publish their own research, which means it is not peer-reviewed (it's not held up to scrutiny by other academic experts in the field, and its academic/theoretical/methodological worthiness put to the test). It's fake "expertiness." I could start a website like this (I'll call it the "Institute for Policy Analysis Game Foundation Group"), make a logo, and take my own work and convert it to PDF. Still doesn't make me an expert on the research. It's a disguise for the fact that the people running the NIMF are putting on the appearance of academia, but they don't exist in the academic world.

Second, they're putting out conference papers as "research." I've been to many conferences, and outside of one (the annual American Sociological Association meetings), most of them have this policy before granting presentation: "Got a paper? Ok, you're in." Presenting a paper at a conference, and treating it as if it were some indicator of greatness, is crap. I've torn papers to shreds at conferences, and I've presented papers I knew were half-assed or unfinished at conferences (and summarily had my own work torn to shreds - it's a quid-pro-quo thing). Paper presentation is not something that means "good research."

Third, the findings of every article shows how horrible media is for children. When you have consistent and strong effects shown in every bit of research, you're either researching something redundant ("Do people breathe air?"), or you're mining for the desired result. In the real academic world, media effects are *VERY* rarely strong, and most often effects are either not found, or weak at best (meaning that video games may assist in the breakdown of the family, but it was something that was bound to happen whether or not games were there). If you have a hankering for real research on videogames, search out a psychologist named Craig A Anderson. I'm not the biggest fan of his research methods (and, as a result, if I ever get around to it, I have a perfect paper to write - I may even present it at a conference :)), but Anderson is bound to the empirical world. He's not biased towards finding any particular result, and I respect him for that.

What really gets my shit is that people act as if the NIMF matters, and is a force to reckon with. They're garbage researchers passing off unscrutinized research as damning evidence of media's effects on children, and they are clearly biased towards a particular finding (which, of course, makes me want to discover who the philanthropists are who fund this organization - this ain't a labor of love, kiddos - I bet ol' Dr. Walsh bought a bad-ass cigarette boat through this group). Yet they get media attention. That makes me want to slap someone more than Manhunt 2 ever could.
 
The thing that annoys me is not so much that Manhunt 2 is being labeled an "AO" game, but that I can't purchase and play an "Adult Only" game. If I want play a game where I can go kill dudes, and spray virtual jizz on pixelated titties then I should be able to do that. I understand that they want to keep these games away from the kiddies in fear that they are going to go sex crazed and retard strong, but video games are not just for kids anymore.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']*snip*[/QUOTE]
Though I appreciate it, it amazes me that you actually took the time to write that. It's like writing a book refuting UFOs.

Anyone with the cognitive ability of a freshly microwaved hamster knows the NIMF is the biggest crock of shit on the interwebs.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']Though I appreciate it, it amazes me that you actually took the time to write that. It's like writing a book refuting UFOs.

Anyone with the cognitive ability of a freshly microwaved hamster knows the NIMF is the biggest crock of shit on the interwebs.[/QUOTE]

Well, sure. Nevertheless, the very fact that they have such media credentials shows that not everyone is skeptical of them, and that, by virtue of airtime, they have both perceived legitimacy, and real power. Like Jack Thomson, except they seem to disguise their agenda (if only slightly more).

I find it better to point out what's actually wrong than to simply say "they're a crock." If you can have conversations with people on that level, then their power dissolves (IMO) far more than if you say "they're a crock." Now, sure, not many people are reading this thread...and I don't have a response to that. :lol:
 
The NYTimes has an article on this today: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/a...eference/Times Topics/People/S/Schiesel, Seth

(hopefully that will work)

The important part is:
But given the structure of Manhunt 2 it should be fairly simple for Take-Two and the boards to reach an accommodation and release a redacted version rated M for Mature in time for the December holiday season. Whenever it does ship, Manhunt 2 is likely to enjoy a level of public awareness (and potentially sales) that it could never have attained without the ban. That of course may well have been what its makers intended all along.

It seems from his description that it would be easy to take out the most violent stuff and get an M in time for the holidays after lots of free publicity. I'm willing to buy the argument that this was planned from the start.
 
Thats really all that is ticking me off now is the fact that all these groups are assuming that video games are only played by kids 6-12 years old. Adults play video games now too, mainly because they are the kids that where playing the games 10 years ago and now they are still playing today. With More adults playing video games today I think the ESRP should be taking that into consideration. As should the video game consoles in allowing AO games to be released for their system.
 
it's really weird that stores and the big 3 have basically banned on AO games, when they know their sales mostly come from 18-32 year old males (or whatever the bracket is.)
 
[quote name='Apossum']it's really weird that stores and the big 3 have basically banned on AO games, when they know their sales mostly come from 18-32 year old males (or whatever the bracket is.)[/QUOTE]

Because conservative USA would systematically wipe them from the face of the earth.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']Because conservative USA would systematically wipe them from the face of teh earth.[/QUOTE]

I keep wanting to compare this to DVDs and I'm not sure if it is a fair comparison or not. It just upsets me that you can walk into a DVD store and purchase a G rated movie intended for kids 8 and under and at the same time purchase unrated hardcore porn. Yet when it comes to video game stores anything intended towards an Adult Audience isn't even allowed. I just don't see where the difference is in the two.
 
[quote name='mr ryles']I keep wanting to compare this to DVDs and I'm not sure if it is a fair comparison or not. It just upsets me that you can walk into a DVD store and purchase a G rated movie intended for kids 8 and under and at the same time purchase unrated hardcore porn. Yet when it comes to video game stores anything intended towards an Adult Audience isn't even allowed. I just don't see where the difference is in the two.[/QUOTE]

The true hypocrisy comes in the DVD market with "unrated" DVDs. Wal Mart won't carry an AO game but they will carry a movie that came out in theaters that then had content edited back in that would push the film to an NC-17 rating (like Hostel or Saw 2) that went around the ratings board. As it stands, it's a complete double standard that really should be addressed.
 
[quote name='furyk']The true hypocrisy comes in the DVD market with "unrated" DVDs. Wal Mart won't carry an AO game but they will carry a movie that came out in theaters that then had content edited back in that would push the film to an NC-17 rating (like Hostel or Saw 2) that went around the ratings board. As it stands, it's a complete double standard that really should be addressed.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, all of their music is sanitized for your protection too. However, their book section is teeming with throbbing cocks in the Victorian era er, "Harlequin" romances. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']To be fair, all of their music is sanitized for your protection too. However, their book section is teeming with throbbing cocks in the Victorian era er, "Harlequin" romances. ;)[/QUOTE]

If you buy music from Wal-Mart, you deserve to be smacked (Johnny Go's and Used Kids in Columbus FTW).

natch.
 
[quote name='Zen Davis'][email protected]

Contact her and let her know how you feel. The president of the ESRB. I personally am boycotting any new games and only buying used games until they get off this power trip.[/QUOTE]

To me it's not really an issue with the ESRB. It's the fact that store retailers and the console producers (Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony) don't allow AO games. The AO rating should be in place, but it is total BS that Take two isn't allowed to release it because of the rating.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']Because conservative USA would systematically wipe them from the face of the earth.[/QUOTE]


they'd get used to it after making a big stink. Wal-mart isn't going anywhere.
seems like anyone can get away with anything restrictive under this current admin though....
 
[quote name='mr ryles']Thats really all that is ticking me off now is the fact that all these groups are assuming that video games are only played by kids 6-12 years old. Adults play video games now too, mainly because they are the kids that where playing the games 10 years ago and now they are still playing today. With More adults playing video games today I think the ESRP should be taking that into consideration. As should the video game consoles in allowing AO games to be released for their system.[/quote]
I guess you missed my reply to your last post about this, but the reason Nintendo and Sony aren't allowing AO games is because they don't want to get sued over the same kind of stupid crap that the GTA series got them into, which was only an M rating. I don't think they did it to spite the adults that buy their systems.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']I guess you missed my reply to your last post about this, but the reason Nintendo and Sony aren't allowing AO games is because they don't want to get sued over the same kind of stupid crap that the GTA series got them into, which was only an M rating. I don't think they did it to spite the adults that buy their systems.[/quote]On the internet, anyone who does anything you disagree with is out to get you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top