My fellow CAGs please join my campaign in regards to Manhunt 2.

B

bjwoodruff

CAGiversary!
I am mad not only at the ERSB for the rating of Manhunt 2, but at game retailers not carrying this game. So I though I would speak with my money and sent Rockstar games this message. On their main page, www.rockstargames.com, on the bottom there is a mouthoff spot that you can send your comments directly to Rockstar. This is what I sent them.
Dear Rockstar Games,

I want to buy your new game coming out in July for the Wii titled "Manhunt 2." I do not have a choice to purchase it from my local retailer because of their policy of carrying adult rated games. These game retailers are participating in a type of censorship that is not only an attack on my personal liberties, but a way for them to restrict what I should and should not play. I am an adult, and I want to play adult games. I have a right to play what I want, when I want, and not to have my taste in entertainment be dictated to me.

I will pay full price, plus shipping, when the game comes out. Please provide me with payment information. Thank you Rockstar Games.

Benjamin Woodruff


Please fellow CAGs do the same. Let us tell Rockstar that they do not have to cater to the retail and ESRB system in order for this game to be successful. Let us purchase copies directly from Rockstar and show the industry that adult games do have a place in our world.
 
[quote name='bjwoodruff']Please fellow CAGs do the same. Let us tell Rockstar that they do not have to cater to the retail and ESRB system in order for this game to be successful. Let us purchase copies directly from Rockstar and show the industry that adult games do have a place in our world.[/quote]

At this point, it has a lot less to do with retailers and a lot more to do with the fact that Sony and Nintendo won't license it for the PSP/PS2/Wii.
 
While we're at it, let's boycott any retailer that doesn't sell porn in their check-out line. Because that's what the AO rating is for. Grotesque Violence and explicit sexual content. I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms over this. If Rockstar was truly surprised by this factor, then they must have just barely crossed a line somewhere with the game, and it should be easy enough to just edit down a smidge to get an M rating.

Regardless, this smells of purposeful scandal to get buzz going about their title. I'm certain that we'll see the game in stores with an M rating at release.
 
[quote name='bjwoodruff']I am mad not only at the ERSB for the rating of Manhunt 2, but at game retailers not carrying this game. [/quote]

Ever stop to think that maybe this game deserves an AO?

The game will more than likely come out, after some censoring. It's the same reason why not many movies release with an NC-17, it's suicide.
 
Yeah, you tell 'em BJWOODRUFF. Next though, you can boycott me. If you come over to my house and ask me to go buy a copy of Playboy so you can buy it from me, I'll refuse. Obviously I also wish to censor your freedoms and piss on the constitution just like Walmart!!! Just cuz you want smut and crap doesn't mean you have a right to buy it whenever and wherever you want.
 
I'm glad I didn't give a crap about this game when it was first announced, and still don't give a crap about it now.
 
[quote name='Lobsterjohnson']Ever stop to think that maybe this game deserves an AO?

The game will more than likely come out, after some censoring. It's the same reason why not many movies release with an NC-17, it's suicide.[/quote]

Just to point out, the UNRATED versions almost always end up in stores...

Why can't we have an unrated game? Ask Sony, Nintendo or MS.
 
I think it's been pretty well established already that this game isn't going to see the light of day in it's current form on any console. Your best bet is to email Take-Two and beg them to release a special unedited PC version.
 
[quote name='jdevlin7756']Yeah, you tell 'em BJWOODRUFF. Next though, you can boycott me. If you come over to my house and ask me to go buy a copy of Playboy so you can buy it from me, I'll refuse. Obviously I also wish to censor your freedoms and piss on the constitution just like Walmart!!! Just cuz you want smut and crap doesn't mean you have a right to buy it whenever and wherever you want.[/QUOTE]

Did he ever mention the word "boycott" in the OP? He's just asking to be allowed to purchase the game unedited.

Obviously, you can't buy Playboy from Wal-Mart, but the point is, you can still buy it SOMEWHERE. It would be nice if the same thing applied to video games.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']I think it's been pretty well established already that this game isn't going to see the light of day in it's current form on any console.[/quote]

That's a damn shame. I feel really bad for the Roclstar employees who worked so hard on this game.
 
[quote name='Scorch']At this point, it has a lot less to do with retailers and a lot more to do with the fact that Sony and Nintendo won't license it for the PSP/PS2/Wii.[/QUOTE]

Yep, your better off writing Nintendo and Sony and expressing outrage that they won't license AO rated games.

That's the first hurdle. Retailers don't matter if the game can't even be published.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, your better off writing Nintendo and Sony and expressing outrage that they won't license AO rated games.

That's the first hurdle. Retailers don't matter if the game can't even be published.[/QUOTE]

i really don't think that was how it went. the retailers said that they wouldn't sell it. and sony and ninty followed suit. both sony and ninty knew exactly how this game was going to look from day one. but they didn't care until the retailers pulled out.

a caller on the last cagcast had an idea. he thought that the esrb should drop the mature rating and just give all those types of games ao. after all, mature is for 17 and over. while ao is for 18 and over. how stupid is that. all the hype for this game. the reason that people were interested in it was because of the violence. so it's crazy that the violence is the reason we can't buy it.
 
I have no problem with private business refusing to carry the title. It's their right and it's a good thing.

I do have a problem with Nintendo, Sony and MS pandering to the vocal minority and radical politicians by liscence AO titles. It's hurting our industry that we cannot use our ratings system the way it is intended to be used.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']I have no problem with private business refusing to carry the title. It's their right and it's a good thing.

I do have a problem with Nintendo, Sony and MS pandering to the vocal minority and radical politicians by liscence AO titles. It's hurting our industry that we cannot use our ratings system the way it is intended to be used.[/quote]If I'm not mistaken, those two situations are pretty similar. Retailer A chooses what is and is not sold in their store. Console Manufacturer B chooses what is and is not playable on their console. If you're going to be mad at one group, be mad at everyone. It's basically an industry decision, not one company.

[quote name='buttle']i really don't think that was how it went. the retailers said that they wouldn't sell it. and sony and ninty followed suit. both sony and ninty knew exactly how this game was going to look from day one. but they didn't care until the retailers pulled out.[/quote]It has always been the policy of Nintendo, and likely Sony as well, to not allow AO content on their platforms. It's for the same reasons that stores do not carry them, but not caused by stores not carrying them. Why would they care if the game only sold two copies? They would get the licensing fees from Rockstar/Take Two either way.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']I have no problem with private business refusing to carry the title. It's their right and it's a good thing.

I do have a problem with Nintendo, Sony and MS pandering to the vocal minority and radical politicians by liscence AO titles. [/quote]

Those are the same thing. They are both businesses refusing to carry/license titles based on their ratings. It has nothing to do with the government other than the government's rating. The government is not forcing anybody to not license AO games. The businesses, whether it's a retailer or Ninendo/Sony/MS, do it of their own accord.
 
I love it when people scream "censorship". It's the first thing that comes to people's minds when they can't get/have something they want. It's like a little kid crying because he can't have an ice cream cone.
 
[quote name='neocisco']I love it when people scream "censorship". It's the first thing that comes to people's minds when they can't get/have something they want. It's like a little kid crying because he can't have an ice cream cone.[/quote]

But we're not little kids. That's the difference.
 
[quote name='neocisco']I love it when people scream "censorship". It's the first thing that comes to people's minds when they can't get/have something they want. It's like a little kid crying because he can't have an ice cream cone.[/quote]

I think a lot of us are more in support of furthering the power of expression held by the industry we enjoy.

I hate Rockstar games generally, but I think the ESRB and console manufacturers are in the wrong here.
 
[quote name='Zen Davis']But we're not little kids. That's the difference.[/quote]It's also not an ice cream cone. That's where the simile comes into play. ;)
 
[quote name='daroga']
Regardless, this smells of purposeful scandal to get buzz going about their title. I'm certain that we'll see the game in stores with an M rating at release.[/quote]
I've been thinking the same thing. I thought Hot Coffee was an intentional leak to get more press, and it certainly worked if you looked at Gamespot's list of the most popular games and saw San Andreas there for two years. This seems like the same thing; could have added material that would obviously invoke some controversy and then just take it out if they managed to provoke the AO rating. Although it managed to be a good and harmless game, I 'm sure somebody over there was thinking the same thing when they proposed Bully.

Not that I mind it. They're make good games, and shocking the system might be what the game industry needs.
 
Actually if you go to ign.com and read on what Matt and Bozon have written and said about the game they thought that it was fun and worth the buy.

They also said nothing about nudity or anything else of that nature in the game.

The reason why i attacked the retailer is because the only reason that nintendo and sony will not license the game is retailers stances on adult rated games being carried in their stores.

I understand that nintendo and sony are not going to license the game to their systems, but the only reason why they are doing this is because they are afriad that they will not have a place to sell it.

That was my point, that retailers are telling us what we can buy and that is trickling down into the game buisnesses.

This game just seems very violent and i would not want any children to play it, but since the great preview that ign gave it, and the fact that it is more of an adult game for the Wii system I want to buy it and I do not want any game retailer, Nintendo, or Sony to tell me that I cant.

Also, more of my point is I wanted to show Rockstar and Nintendo that they do not have to rely of some of their games being sold in gaming stores, that if we really wanted to play them we would buy the game direct. I was more hoping that rockstar would forward the message to Nintendo to tell them that they do have an adult auidence that would be willing to play the game. Even if the game was the most violent game ever created, if it could sell copies then Nintendo would not care.
 
This really has nothing at all to do with freedom of artistic expression. Manhunt 2 is knowingly and intentionally an excessively violent game, and I think it's pretty important that the industry takes a stand on bad taste. I seem to recall a preview promising to let me tear off a man's testicles with a plier?

Pornography is a poor comparison -- I'd rather compare this to those awful Faces of Death films. You'll never find THOSE at a retailer.

Personally, I was excited about this game and was probably going to be in line on day one. I'm absolutely certain that the whole thing will blow over, and the developer will remove whatever single offensive image that set it over the bar was. Nintendo and Sony KNEW what they had on their hands and greenlighted it anyway, so there is probably some new gore beyond the testicle-removing that everyone already knew about. I recall reading that there was an infant being killed, or something like that.

Knowing the nature of industry controversy, and if Hot Coffee is any indication, the AO rating is likely the result of some small technicality that can pretty easily be removed from the game. I really doubt that this means NO MANHUNT 2 EVER.
 
[quote name='ItsTrueItsTrue92']How can you hate Rockstar Games?[/quote]

I said generally I hate Rockstar games not the company Rockstar Games, not saying they're great.
 
[quote name='ItsTrueItsTrue92']How can you hate Rockstar Games?[/QUOTE]

I don't hate them, but I've yet to enjoy any of their games.
 
If the gaming industry really wants to be like Tinseltown, why can't they (eventually) release the unrated/"AO" version in addition to the M-rated one? Make the totally uncensored version difficult for kids to get, as in online orders only.

Maybe--nay, probably--Rockstar is popping corks over "everything proceeding as (they) have foreseen", but then again, maybe in our jittery, reactionary start to the 21st century, parameters are getting that much narrower? Maybe Rockstar really thought that this was a "hard M", based on precedent. Maybe it's a matter of some content inhabiting a grey area.

How long does the game get delayed if it needs more than a couple altered cutscenes or animations?
 
[quote name='brandonabley']This really has nothing at all to do with freedom of artistic expression. Manhunt 2 is knowingly and intentionally an excessively violent game, and I think it's pretty important that the industry takes a stand on bad taste. I seem to recall a preview promising to let me tear off a man's testicles with a plier?

Pornography is a poor comparison -- I'd rather compare this to those awful Faces of Death films. You'll never find THOSE at a retailer.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Best Buy used to stock those along with the gruesome Guinea Pig films. Take that for what it's worth.
 
[quote name='daroga']While we're at it, let's boycott any retailer that doesn't sell porn in their check-out line. Because that's what the AO rating is for. Grotesque Violence and explicit sexual content. I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms over this. If Rockstar was truly surprised by this factor, then they must have just barely crossed a line somewhere with the game, and it should be easy enough to just edit down a smidge to get an M rating.

Regardless, this smells of purposeful scandal to get buzz going about their title. I'm certain that we'll see the game in stores with an M rating at release.[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing... If any development company should know where the line is, it would be Rockstar. It does smell a little fishy.
 
Did the news "leak out" as soon as ESRB assigned a rating for Manhunt 2? According to ESRB policy, the publisher is notified of the rating and has 30 days to contact ESRB prior to them making the rating public. ESRB website still has no listing for the game, which doesn't really prove anything, since it could mean anything, from Take Two appealing, Rockstar editing game for content, or the news slipping out early.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']Did the news "leak out" as soon as ESRB assigned a rating for Manhunt 2? According to ESRB policy, the publisher is notified of the rating and has 30 days to contact ESRB prior to them making the rating public. ESRB website still has no listing for the game, which doesn't really prove anything, since it could mean anything, from Take Two appealing, Rockstar editing game for content, or the news slipping out early.[/quote]From what I can see, the rating was only officially disclosed by Take Two. After that watchdog group demanded that the ESRB give it an AO (which followed the Britain ban), ESRB publicly stated that a rating had already been assigned and communicated to the publisher. At which point Take Two stated they had received an AO rating.
 
[quote name='botticus']From what I can see, the rating was only officially disclosed by Take Two. After that watchdog group demanded that the ESRB give it an AO (which followed the Britain ban), ESRB publicly stated that a rating had already been assigned and communicated to the publisher. At which point Take Two stated they had received an AO rating.[/quote]

Hmm. This only feeds the speculation that this is a publicity stunt. Your comment about cost-benefit analysis of already damaged reputation of Rockstar's titles in another thread is pretty interesting, since I have not considered the differences between them and others in the industry.

It's interesting that in the midst of rather bleak announcements preceeding E3, this is the biggest news for a while. I'll admit that I'm more excited about Ankh coming to the DS, but the every forum is filled with Manhunt 2 discussion.
 
[quote name='bjwoodruff']

I understand that nintendo and sony are not going to license the game to their systems, but the only reason why they are doing this is because they are afriad that they will not have a place to sell it.[/quote]

That's not a well thought out argument. Sony and Nintendo have nothing to lose by allowing this game to be published. Even though Walmart won't carry it, all they have to do is sit back and collect licensing fees for the copies that DO sell in other outlets. It's not like they're the ones taking the risk of publishing and distributing it.

That was my point, that retailers are telling us what we can buy and that is trickling down into the game buisnesses.
Click to expand...

Big deal, that's the way the world works. Farmer Jack doesn't stock my favorite brand of beer. It's not a denial of my rights because they don't choose to buy from a particular manufacturer or distributor. It's called freedom of choice. They can choose to deal or not to deal with whomever they want. Don't retail stores have the same rights as you do when they decide to buy something or not? Yes they do.
 
[quote name='brandonabley']This really has nothing at all to do with freedom of artistic expression. Manhunt 2 is knowingly and intentionally an excessively violent game, and I think it's pretty important that the industry takes a stand on bad taste. I seem to recall a preview promising to let me tear off a man's testicles with a plier?[/quote]

Not often is "wrongness" a measure of fact, but in this particular case you are absolutely that: Wrong. "Bad Taste" is an arbitrary definition that no single entity can determine for everyone, and so no single entity SHOULD determine it for everyone. They can rate it, and if companies refuse to show it because of its rating that is fine; however, suggesting that the ESRB's and the industry's position as rater and potentional blocker of content is a necessary moral facet of government is suggesting that people do not deserve to be able to choose what they want to experience in fiction. Fiction is FAKE, and as a personal proponent of free artistic expression (wherein artistic expression is defined as original creative thought physically expressed) I have to let you know that:

No, this has everything to do with freedom and artistic expression. Manhunt 2, "knowingly and intentionally excessively violent" as you personally conceive it to be, ought to be available for those of us with stronger stomachs and an interest in artistic expression in all of its forms.

Need I define Manhunt 2 as art? If so, it is a creative product of fiction with original design and programming devised to make it cohesively work as one single, entirely original creation whose sole purpose is to entertain.
 
TakeTwo/RockStar is free to void any agreements they have with Nintendo and Sony and just attempt to release Manhunt 2, unedited, as an unlicensed game.

Anyone who attempts to "force" Sony or Nintendo into licensing the game or "force" EBGameStop (etc.,) into carrying the game is just as wrong those who are trying to "force" violent/sexual video games off the market. These companies have the same rights to freedom of expression (through which products they choose to license/carry) as T2/R*. To deny them that right makes you just as guilty as Jack Thompson.
 
I believe that nintendo and gamestop aren't licensing/stocking this over their image. both are "family friendly" and I don't think either want to mess up that image. do i agree that this is rite, no, but i believe its true.

I have a feeling gamestop is also worried about the sh!tstorm they would get if some dumbass employee actually sold it to a 12 yr old.

and i also agree this smells of marketing scheme for r*. what else has everyone been talking about this week. I bet they prolly made some ao material to throw in rite before they were rated and made it very easy to pull out so that they can still make their launch date (whatever that is) and reap the benefit of the free pub.
 
[quote name='lilboo']So what's the point of having the AO rating, if no one is going to use it/sell it?! Really stupid.[/QUOTE]


For the same reason there is an NC-17 rating which is very rarely used. It's a threat that the various ratings boards hold against developers to restrain violence and sexual content from the products they rate.

You have to look at WHY the ERSB exists, it's an attempt by the video game industry to show Congress a good faith effort to control its own products so that Congress will hold off on imposing legislation regarding game content.

Thus, the AO rating, which is basically a retail death sentence at this point, just like an NC-17 is for movies (at least at the box office, the "unrated cut" DVD phenomena is an issue for another day), is designed to dissuade game designers from making games that would likely get the industry into undue trouble from the government.
 
But in the end the result is the same. Whether its retail death of government regulation the same games will be more or less banned.

Extreme cases notwithstanding, you'd think the invisible hand could easily regulate these sorts of things on its own, as ridiculously sick games would be unmarketable, therefore publishers don't release as many, or they stay underground, etc etc.
 
[quote name='spiwak']But in the end the result is the same. Whether its retail death of government regulation the same games will be more or less banned.

Extreme cases notwithstanding, you'd think the invisible hand could easily regulate these sorts of things on its own, as ridiculously sick games would be unmarketable, therefore publishers don't release as many, or they stay underground, etc etc.[/quote]If the government was doing the regulation, I'm pretty sure GTA wouldn't exist as a franchise right now.

I guess the response is, why would Nintendo, Sony, or MS want to allow these sick games on their system? Nothing positive can come from it.
 
[quote name='spiwak']But in the end the result is the same. Whether its retail death of government regulation the same games will be more or less banned.

Extreme cases notwithstanding, you'd think the invisible hand could easily regulate these sorts of things on its own, as ridiculously sick games would be unmarketable, therefore publishers don't release as many, or they stay underground, etc etc.[/QUOTE]

The difference is that the free market is making the decision to "ban" the game - not the government.

As it is now, anyone in the free market can design a system that will play Manhunt 2 unedited. Anyone in the free market can sell Manhunt 2, unedited. It's just that they choose not to. As long as they have the choice, I'm okay with it.
 
[quote name='d00k']That's a damn shame. I feel really bad for the Roclstar employees who worked so hard on this game.[/quote]

Funny thing is - I don't. To me, it's a disgusting, tasteless game.

What I don't like is how a game with subject matter that some find offensive can be effectively censored by the companies that control the content platforms. If the corpos that maintain the internet infrastructure ever get the same power, we're looking at an end run around the first amendment in the digital age.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The difference is that the free market is making the decision to "ban" the game - not the government.

As it is now, anyone in the free market can design a system that will play Manhunt 2 unedited. Anyone in the free market can sell Manhunt 2, unedited. It's just that they choose not to. As long as they have the choice, I'm okay with it.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Just as one can make, distribute, and exhibit an NC-17 film (barring the pretty high standards for obscenity), one can make an AO game. However, if you do so, you have to deal with the fact that most mainstream retailers do not want to deal in this market, for the same reason that most movie theaters do not show "adult" films and most bookstores do not stock pornography, capitalism has shown them that the negative attention they would recieve causes more harm than would be offset by the sales of the adult products. I would rather it be an issue of choice, rather than a matter of government regulation.
 
[quote name='dallow']The game probably sucks.
Shock factor only goes so far.

Don't pay for this trash. Or at least not full price.[/QUOTE]

Remember State of Emergency? Me either, but I remember paying $50 for a PS2 game with that title before it got temporarily "pulled" from shelves. Jesus, that was the biggest mistake I've made in my gaming career.

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt, and sadly, it will work.
 
[quote name='strummerbs']
Thus, the AO rating, which is basically a retail death sentence at this point, just like an NC-17 is for movies (at least at the box office, the "unrated cut" DVD phenomena is an issue for another day), is designed to dissuade game designers from making games that would likely get the industry into undue trouble from the government.[/QUOTE]

They really need to change the ratings for both movies and games. The problem is AO and NC-17= sex/porn in most peoples minds, and in our lame ass , ass-backwards culture any sex is far worse than level of violence.

For games they need an AO-V for violent games and an AO-S for sexual games. That would allow the ESRB to seperate a game like Manhunt from much less violent/disturbing games like Halo, while Nintendo and Sony would probably allow AO-V games and most stores would probably carry them.

Similarly, movies need something above an R and below an NC-17 as Hostel shouldn't receive the same rating as a comedy with some f-bombs and maybe a couple brief glimpses of boobies.

Such changes would both solve the issue with this game not being able to come out, and make the ratings more informative to parents and consumers in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top