Manhunt 2 gets an AO.

[Fabricated]

Whoops:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172743.html

Nevermind I thought AO was only for sexual content, but whatever, we can't let the responsibility fall on parents because they would have to do something instead of plop their kids in front of the TV.

On a somewhat related note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9VqlvPT640

[MrHat]

I must be the only one w/out a YouTube account.

[FatuousTwat]

I must be a bad person... That video made me crack up.

Also,

'Earlier today, the British Board of Film Classification gave Manhunt 2 a thumbs down, banning it from sale in the UK due to its "unremitting bleakness" and "casual sadism."'

What. So now games have to be chipper to make it through the ratings system?

[MrHat]

I must be a bad person... That video made me crack up.

Also,

'Earlier today, the British Board of Film Classification gave Manhunt 2 a thumbs down, banning it from sale in the UK due to its "unremitting bleakness" and "casual sadism."'

What. So now games have to be chipper to make it through the ratings system?

It bothers me that they want games to have a rating system like movies, but then shit like this happens when shit like Hostel 2 and The Passion are OK.

[Baldrake]

...we can't let the responsibility fall on parents because they would have to do something instead of plop their kids in front of the TV.

Sorry, but this makes zero sense. Are you actually objecting to a rating system because you feel it removes the need for parental responsibility? Exactly how are parents meant to figure out the content of games before they buy if there is no rating system?

[Ironwood]

The point being that this totally removes the game from both the rating system AND parental responsibility.

It is, to use a Gulpism, a Nanny-State response.

[Big Gulp]

The point being that this totally removes the game from both the rating system AND parental responsibility.

It is, to use a Gulpism, a Nanny-State response.

It's also pretty much SOP for Great Britain.  How long did it take until Straw Dogs actually got unbanned in the UK?  Let alone Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that didn't get released unedited until 1999 or so.  Especially during the late 80's/early 90's they were in an uproar about "video nasties" (btw, you guys can't seem to help but give things really gay names).

The lesson is, it's good to have a written constitution that spells out freedom of speech and expression.  Well, as long as your legislators and executive actually pay attention to it, that is.

[Xerapis]

Now if someone can just explain why stores which refuse to carry AO games carry R-rated movies?

[schild]

Hey, hey, hey.

You know what's hilarious about this?

Nintendo refuses to license AO games.

The first BIG third party game they've gotten since RE4 is an AO game.

What? I lolled.

[penfold]

A reviewer for the gaming website IGN describes using a saw blade to “cut upward into a foe's groin and buttocks, motioning forward and backward with the Wii remote as you go.”

I'm all against bannings and censorship but I find it hard to find words to justify charming little subgames like described above.

[Baldrake]

The point being that this totally removes the game from both the rating system AND parental responsibility.

Yeah, there are actually two parts to this: the UK's outright ban, and the ESRB's AO rating. I was talking about the AO rating, since that was the part that Fabricated referred to in his post.

It is, to use a Gulpism, a Nanny-State response.

Terms like this are more about dogma than shedding light. I've never played any of the Manhunts so I'm now talking in the abstract, but is it really so unreasonable for the state to determine it isn't in society's interests to have people playing a game who's only point is hunting down and brutally murdering your fellow man? Are there no limits? Would you consider a child rape game to be protected by free speech?

[Big Gulp]

Terms like this are more about dogma than shedding light. I've never played any of the Manhunts so I'm now talking in the abstract, but is it really so unreasonable for the state to determine it isn't in society's interests to have people playing a game who's only point is hunting down and brutally murdering your fellow man? Are there no limits? Would you consider a child rape game to be protected by free speech?

We already have child pornography laws, which would be addressed by a game like that.  We don't have "general violence" laws, because that would put Hollywood out of business.  If showing violence isn't illegal, then a game which simulates it shouldn't be illegal either.  I have no problem with an AO rating and making it a pain for kids to get, but outright saying, "we're not allowing this form of media into the country" when it doesn't actually break any laws (child porn, etc) is nanny-statism.

[Murgos]

[re there no limits? Would you consider a child rape game to be protected by free speech?

Of course there are limits.  Just beware that there is a negative side to an over controlling state that is EVEN WORSE than harming the delicate sensibilities of a portion of the populace.  It's a fine line but one that has to be watched closely.

We, of course, have always been at war with Eastasia Southwestasia.

[Miasma]

If their ad campaign proclaims "BANNED in Britain because they couldn't handle the gore!" they will sell twice as many copies everywhere else.  They should start printing stickers to slap on the boxes now.

[NiX]

I'm sure if you pitched that idea to them they'd get right on board with it. Much like the PS3 in whatever country that had "IT ALSO PLAYS GAMES!" on the box.

[Ironwood]

The point being that this totally removes the game from both the rating system AND parental responsibility.

Yeah, there are actually two parts to this: the UK's outright ban, and the ESRB's AO rating. I was talking about the AO rating, since that was the part that Fabricated referred to in his post.

It is, to use a Gulpism, a Nanny-State response.

Terms like this are more about dogma than shedding light. I've never played any of the Manhunts so I'm now talking in the abstract, but is it really so unreasonable for the state to determine it isn't in society's interests to have people playing a game who's only point is hunting down and brutally murdering your fellow man? Are there no limits? Would you consider a child rape game to be protected by free speech?

I don't have free speech.  Not the right to it anyway.  In fact, by a very literal interpretation of the term, I live in a Police State.

And yes, I find it unreasonable.  Because you're really not hunting down and brutally murdering your fellow man.  You're playing a game.  With Pixels.  And Vertex Shaders.  And whatnot.

I'd consider a child-rape game equally 'reasonable'.  I wouldn't expect it to sell hardly at all, however, and further I'd expect 'The Mob' to track down the developers and lynch them.

[Yegolev]

Now if someone can just explain why stores which refuse to carry AO games carry R-rated movies?

Because R is equivalent to M, while the AO equivalent for movies is NC-17.  If you find a NC-17 movie at Wal*Mart, you win.

[schild]

They sell "Kids" at Walmart.

[Yegolev]

Sure, but what's it rated?  Movie ratings also keep Wal*Mart from thinking, not just parents.  If anyone actually watched that movie, it would disappear.

I assume...!

[CmdrSlack]

We already have child pornography laws, which would be addressed by a game like that.

Actually, in the U.S., that game would be fine as long as it used pixel children and not real kids.  Not so much in other countries like Germany.

[Tebonas]

Germany is extremely silly and random in their ratings. Somebody seems to get blindfolded and throws a dart at a rating board.

[Samwise]

is it really so unreasonable for the state to determine it isn't in society's interests to have people playing a game who's only point is hunting down and brutally murdering your fellow man?

Is it unreasonable for the state to determine it isn't in society's interests to have people reading a book whose only point is a middle-aged lech getting it on with an twelve year old girl?

(PS: If you say "well that's totally different," you need to explain how, and you need to do it in terms that are unambiguous enough to put into law.)

[Megrim]

I'm not entirely sure what all the fuss is about, since the first one was a terrible game - so exposing less people to a sequel (which is liable to be just as bad) is not exactly a bad thing.

[Hayduke]

That's pretty stupid that Britain banned the game, but the ESRB giving it an AO rating makes sense to me.  It's unfortunate that getting an AO rating pretty much dooms your game to failure since most retail brick and mortar places won't carry it, but not too many games tested that since most AO games are PC games.  But a lot of places don't carry NC-17 anyway.  Like it or not most videogame stores though are geared for kids so it sort of makes sense.

I don't think the ESRB does as bad a job as the MPAA at least.  The ESRB is a least a bit more consistent and transparent.  Plus the the MPAA has a bad history of overlooking stuff from major studios and punishing independents.  I'd greatly prefer they get rid of the MPAA and let the government come up with a ratings board, at least then there'd be some accountability and transparency.  But that'll never happen.

[Fabricated]

...we can't let the responsibility fall on parents because they would have to do something instead of plop their kids in front of the TV.

Sorry, but this makes zero sense. Are you actually objecting to a rating system because you feel it removes the need for parental responsibility? Exactly how are parents meant to figure out the content of games before they buy if there is no rating system?

Note that I stopped reading this topic when I got to your post so I could respond.

The game was flat out banned in Britain, and an AO rating in the US is NOT letting the rating system work. AO may as well be the scarlet letter, because retailers WILL NOT SELL an AO game. It's effectively banning the game. This is especially fucking pointless since the Wii has parental controls built in. There's nothing worth the AO rating in there, make it MA, let parents use the controls.

[schild]

F that, Gamestop will have my Manhunt 2 (for the PS2) on Day 1. If not, Fry's.

[Yegolev]

Have fun sawing crotches.  Sounds like a hoot.

[schild]

I'm gonna saw more crotch than you can shake a stick at. It's going to be AWESOME.

[Fabricated]

I don't know if graphic evisceration can get me excited about another "Shake wiimote to do X!!" minigame.

[schild]

Of course it can't. Buy it for the PS2. I betcha it's wiinis-free.

[Strazos]

Like it or not most videogame stores though are geared for kids so it sort of makes sense.

You're not wrong, but I fucking hate this. Most of the people who buy games are adults, who are buying it for themselves.

Personally, my store does a lot of business with kids (either directly or with parents), but it's mostly trade-in shit. Sometimes I really wonder how they make any money from such lax trade policies; the bulk of the stuff we take in Will Never Sell. It's the adult gamers who actually drop the real money, in my experience.

[schild]

Strazos. You're just wrong. There's a reason the 2nd most selling game last year was Cars.

[NiX]

Schild, I think Straz is saying that kids mostly do trade to make their purchases therefore EBStop isn't making THAT much profit on them especially when the bulk of the trade isn't stuff you'll turn over any time soon.

[cmlancas]

is it really so unreasonable for the state to determine it isn't in society's interests to have people playing a game who's only point is hunting down and brutally murdering your fellow man?

Is it unreasonable for the state to determine it isn't in society's interests to have people reading a book whose only point is a middle-aged lech getting it on with an twelve year old girl?

(PS: If you say "well that's totally different," you need to explain how, and you need to do it in terms that are unambiguous enough to put into law.)

If this is referencing Humbert Humbert in Lolita by Nabokov, you are completely wrong. Nabokov's book is not about the lechery, rather, it is about writing that is both beautiful and disgusting. This writing forces the reader to engage both disgust and beauty at the same time while sifting through a carefully crafted plot. The book is not pornographic; it is a novel explicitly engaging the art of reading a novel.
To refute your pornographic claim: Nabokov skirts the issue of man having sex with child by writing lines like, "She had bruises on her wrists..." and the like which reveal that there is pedophilia occurring. Trying to compare this book to governmental control of what we should/should not read more or less slams the door on all politically or sexually deviant novels. Just to make a short list, 1984, Animal Farm, Ulysses A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and Slaughterhouse-Five are just sample examples. Note that even the great Italian writer Dante was in love with Isabella, a girl of eleven.

I don't think that's so ambiguous. I very much believe that (at least in the United States under law) the government has no business telling me what I should and shout not read or have access too. Granted, I will agree with you that making child pornography widely available is terrible, but the government telling me what I can and cannot read is totally busted.

[Samwise]

is it really so unreasonable for the state to determine it isn't in society's interests to have people playing a game who's only point is hunting down and brutally murdering your fellow man?

Is it unreasonable for the state to determine it isn't in society's interests to have people reading a book whose only point is a middle-aged lech getting it on with an twelve year old girl?

(PS: If you say "well that's totally different," you need to explain how, and you need to do it in terms that are unambiguous enough to put into law.)

If this is referencing Humbert Humbert in Lolita by Nabokov

Yes, I am.  Gratz.  So you believe we should be able to read what we like.  I do too. 

Back to the topic at hand: do you believe we should also be able to play what games we like?  If so, I'm not sure what your post was about, since you're just agreeing with me in an unnecessarily verbose way. 

If not, pretend I just splatted out a few paragraphs of verbal diarrhea about how Manhunt is forcing the player to engage something or other and it is therefore not really about violence but about beauty and puppies, and that it follows in a proud tradition of violent video games that were also beautiful.  Now explain to me some sensible means by which a judicial body who was not familiar with any of the works cited could determine that your diatribe is valid and mine is not.