Manhunt 2 gets an AO.

[cmlancas]

I think I'll use Doom 3 as an example. It was the first game I played on my new gaming rig when I bought it. I booted it up, starting playing, and was scared shitless. Call me a carebear pussy or whatever, but I was scared shitless. But what did I expect? It was Doom 3. I knew what it was going into the game. So you can hook up with a prostitute in GTA? So what. It is ultimately the decision of the person purchasing the game to decide what he/she wants to play.

I guess we are saying the same thing overall, but anytime someone makes the analogy with Lolita, I have an indefatigable urge to cockslap him/her. It's a moronic argument and the only people who make it are those who don't know jack shit about the book in question. They just see man+girl+sex=censor it.

[Samwise]

I guess we are saying the same thing overall, but anytime someone makes the analogy with Lolita, I have an indefatigable urge to cockslap him/her. It's a moronic argument and the only people who make it are those who don't know jack shit about the book in question. They just see man+girl+sex=censor it.

Yes.  That's the point I was making.  Again, gratz.  If you start saying that it's okay to censor material that deals with icky-sounding themes (like brutal murder, or pedophilia, or communism), you can't really stop people from censoring a book like Lolita as well.  The people who are up in arms about GTA and Manhunt are just this generation's version of the people who were up in arms about Lolita and Catcher in the Rye and every other book, movie, et cetera that ever made someone feel uncomfortable.

[cmlancas]

People who want to censor Catcher are doubly-morons. It's a kid's book about trying to KEEP innocence goddammit. He's trying to scrub FUCK off the wall. Sigh.


Sorry. I'm a lit major who is just getting ready to enter grad school and whenever this stuff comes up in conversation I feel like I want to vomit profusely.

[Big Gulp]

Sorry. I'm a lit major who is just getting ready to enter grad school and whenever this stuff comes up in conversation I feel like I want to vomit profusely.

So you're preparing for your future career of asking people if they'd like to supersize their order?

[CmdrSlack]

You really need to state which system you're talking about, Samwise.

In the U.S., an AO rating may be the same as a ban, but it is done by the industry and retailers. For most U.S. courts, this is a good thing, because it keeps them from having to regulate an industry. Believe it or not, courts generally prefer industries that are self-regulating. 

In the U.K., the game is utterly banned. However, the Euro nations tend to be a bit more pro-censorship than the U.S.

However, to answer your question about Lolita v. Manhunt 2, were I an attorney arguing this case (as opposed to an attorney running his mouth on teh intarweb), I'd say that Lolita is clearly protected by the First Amendment, as is Manhunt 2.  I would then point out that the publishing industry doesn't have a self-regulating entitiy like the ESRB. I would point out that allowing the game industry and retialers to regulate themselves is good for public policy. I'd further argue that it's in the interest of judicial economy to dismiss any suit claiming that the ESRB's AO rating is a defacto prior restraint on speech since there is no goverment actor, etc.

Also, the analogy fails in general due to that whole "industry self-regulation" vs. "government saying NO SALE, HOSS" thing.

[cmlancas]

So you're preparing for your future career of asking people if they'd like to supersize their order?

Not so much. I have a panel presentation in November for one of my papers and that's a pretty handy thing to tack on a resume.

Oh, and around where I live, Technical Writing is a pretty handy career path. The current company I'm with offers $45k USD to start. This is mostly because people in this company who have reached higher positions cannot write to save their lives. Editing ftw.

Edit: Redundancies!

[Samwise]

You really need to state which system you're talking about, Samwise... also, the analogy fails in general due to that whole "industry self-regulation" vs. "government saying NO SALE, HOSS" thing.

I was simply trying to reply to Baldrake's query:

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?

by saying in a slightly roundabout fashion "yes, it's every bit as unreasonable as the state determining it isn't in society's interest to have people (reading|watching|playing) a (book|movie|game) whose only point is (insert any controversial topic here)".  My answer seems to have acquired a lot of baggage since that time, though.  I blame cmlancas.

[CmdrSlack]

You really need to state which system you're talking about, Samwise... also, the analogy fails in general due to that whole "industry self-regulation" vs. "government saying NO SALE, HOSS" thing.

I was simply trying to reply to Baldrake's query:

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?

by saying in a slightly roundabout fashion "yes, it's every bit as unreasonable as the state determining it isn't in society's interest to have people (reading|watching|playing) a (book|movie|game) whose only point is (insert any controversial topic here)".  My answer seems to have acquired a lot of baggage since that time, though.  I blame cmlancas.

Heh, fair enough.  I figure that if an industry self-regulates and some content doesn't get as much shelf space as a result, then that's fine.  Government regulating, not so much. 

[Samwise]

Heh, fair enough.  I figure that if an industry self-regulates and some content doesn't get as much shelf space as a result, then that's fine.  Government regulating, not so much.

I agree that outright government censorship is pretty much the worst possible evil, and I'm familiar with the circumstances surrounding the creation of the MPAA ratings board (I wrote a research paper on it for an undergrad history course, narf) and that when it was created it was largely a defensive measure against real censorship.

I can still see an argument being made for a "ratings" board (like the MPAA or ESRB's) being a government entity (or some other third party that's accountable to the public at large but not easily cowed by the occasional random nutjob), provided that all it's allowed to do is stick labels on things, and none of the labels say "banned".  Especially after watching This Film is Not Yet Rated, whose message I found very disturbing but completely plausible.  Even if it's not backed by law, the amount of control that can be wielded by an anonymous board that isn't answerable to anyone other than the heads of the industry seems... off.

[cmlancas]

I agree that outright government censorship is pretty much the worst possible evil, and I'm familiar with the circumstances surrounding the creation of the MPAA ratings board (I wrote a research paper on it for an undergrad history course, narf) and that when it was created it was largely a defensive measure against real censorship.

I can still see an argument being made for a "ratings" board (like the MPAA or ESRB's) being a government entity (or some other third party that's accountable to the public at large but not easily cowed by the occasional random nutjob), provided that all it's allowed to do is stick labels on things, and none of the labels say "banned".  Especially after watching This Film is Not Yet Rated, whose message I found very disturbing but completely plausible.  Even if it's not backed by law, the amount of control that can be wielded by an anonymous board that isn't answerable to anyone other than the heads of the industry seems... off.

Samwise, have you looked into how much the conglomerate Viacom owns as far as media outlets? I'm not one for the tinfoil hat, but it still strikes awe into me.

[CmdrSlack]

I can still see an argument being made for a "ratings" board (like the MPAA or ESRB's) being a government entity (or some other third party that's accountable to the public at large but not easily cowed by the occasional random nutjob), provided that all it's allowed to do is stick labels on things, and none of the labels say "banned".  Especially after watching This Film is Not Yet Rated, whose message I found very disturbing but completely plausible.  Even if it's not backed by law, the amount of control that can be wielded by an anonymous board that isn't answerable to anyone other than the heads of the industry seems... off.

From a legal standpoint, they're nowhere near being government entities. There's a whole "state actor" standard, and they don't even come close (at least the ESRB doesn't). I see what you're saying, that there's a lack of "due process" for people who get a shitty rating. The thing is that if an industry decides to self-regulate, we need to encourage that. Do you really trust the people in D.C. to do a good job regulating things? I think the ESRB has a very transparent process and is a decent entity. Could there be a better one?  Sure, but I thinkt he ESRB is so entrenched that we won't see that any time soon.

[Hayduke]

When it comes to the MPAA, yes the government could do a better job.  But I'm generally satisfied with what the ESRB does.  I don't know why you speak so highly of self regulation.  The very principle is inherently at odds with capitalism as a corporation must as a fiduciary responsibility always seek to externalize costs.  I can think of many more examples of self-regulation not working than when it has worked.

[schild]

There's nothing wrong with the ESRB.

There's something seriously wrong with parents around the world though, so much so that governments feel they need to BAN the game in some countries. It's called fucking MANHUNT. OF COURSE IT'S NOT GOOD FOR KIDS.

It's really not a complicated situation.

[Samwise]

From a legal standpoint, they're nowhere near being government entities.

One wouldn't have to make an argument in favor of it if it were already the case, would they?   

I do agree the ESRB is quite a bit more transparent and generally sensible than the MPAA board.  OtOH there have been instances in the past (the Hot Coffee scandal in particular) where I've been perturbed at how readily they bow to pressure groups.  It seems like a government agency wouldn't have as much trouble in that particular regard, since it's a lot harder to boycott or sue the government.

[Ironwood]

Sorry. I'm a lit major who is just getting ready to enter grad school and whenever this stuff comes up in conversation I feel like I want to vomit profusely.

So you're preparing for your future career of asking people if they'd like to supersize their order?

I hear that a lot too.  I have a Lit and Lang Degree also and I make more money than Jesus.

It really taught me to communicate properly (honest) and to pass interviews and tests.  Also, there was the whoring and drinking for 4 years since actual work wasn't required.

:)

[Tebonas]

I say this as somebody who wanted to study literature and German as well and those are studies dear to my heart.

All of that can be learned in courses ranging from days to weeks.

Except the whoring and drinking. Thats the whole point of studying anyway!  :-D

[Ironwood]

No shit.

[Tebonas]

I could even give you the internal prices for our bank employees for those courses. Its the "Pathway to management" package. That and time management. I always find if funny that we peons don't have to manage our time and our bosses do!  :-D

[MrHat]

I'm confused, as usual.  It seems that you guys are making the same point.  Both from the Lolita side, and the Man Hunt side.

Also, I just thought of a new reality series.  Can you guess what it is?

[CmdrSlack]

I don't know why you speak so highly of self regulation.  The very principle is inherently at odds with capitalism as a corporation must as a fiduciary responsibility always seek to externalize costs.  I can think of many more examples of self-regulation not working than when it has worked.

Uh, industry groups like the ESRB externalize costs for individual publishers -- they're not part of the publisher after all.  The last I checked, capitalism still thrives in a laissez-faire environment. So how does less governmental interference make self-reg suck?  The places where self-regulation fails are where the fox is watching the henhouse. When regulatory bodies fuck up, that's when they get hit with the legislation stick (Sarbanes-Oxley for example).

[cmlancas]

The places where self-regulation fails are where the fox is watching the henhouse. When regulatory bodies fuck up, that's when they get hit with the legislation stick (Sarbanes-Oxley for example).

CCP->BoB  /duck. No, you're absolutely right here.
Isn't there always a big uproar in the movie industry when movies push the ratings board to get a certain rating? I seem to remember something about LOTR pushing for PG instead of PG-13. I think I remember some sort of unpleasantries for The Matrix receiving an R rating too.

[Yegolev]

It seems like a government agency wouldn't have as much trouble in that particular regard, since it's a lot harder to boycott or sue the government.

I would expect a government agency to be more, not less, vulnerable to the Liebermans and Clintons, but I can't say for sure since I didn't study government a great deal.  I do know that Government is a Necessary Evil and more of it is hardly ever preferable to less of it.  Problem is, many people have been trained to see the government as a parental figure and society at large seems to be close to living in Mom's basement, figuratively speaking.  Lazy fucks.

[Yegolev]

Also, I just thought of a new reality series.  Can you guess what it is?

Cat Monkey Fuck Party?  Might have trouble getting the FCC to approve that one.

[Stormwaltz]

I didn't see it mentioned in the thread, but it probably should be:

Yesterday Nintendo announced that they would not allow Manhunt on their consoles. Shortly afterwards, Sony said the same thing.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/original/nintendo-nixes-ao-manhunt-270741.php
http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/adults-only-manhunt-2-homeless-270768.php

So either MS gets a world exclusive hot-potato, or Rockstar have to eat their pride and tone it down.

[schild]

I was thinking about that, Microsoft has released AO games before (hell, child porn!) with The Guy Game (remember, one of those girls was 17). Frankly, I think Sony fucked up not letting this on their console. Because really, who gives a shit. SCEI has allowed this stuff before. But, whatever, up to them, would have sold an absolute shit ton on the PS2.

[Yegolev]

I wish Crescente would credit his sources.

[schild]

That's not going to happen.

[Hayduke]

The Guy Game was rated M.  Maybe they were threatened with an AO rating and cut a bunch of stuff?  As far as I can tell the only AO games were for PCs and Macs, and San Andreas for a time.

[Yoru]

I wish Crescente would credit his sources.

Hard to credit what doesn't exist. 

[Chimpy]

Isn't there always a big uproar in the movie industry when movies push the ratings board to get a certain rating? I seem to remember something about LOTR pushing for PG instead of PG-13. I think I remember some sort of unpleasantries for The Matrix receiving an R rating too.

The major complaints about the ratings system is that it has become very inconsistent. You cannot tell where the dividing lines for some movies are versus others. I have seen movies that were listed as R that made no sense in comparison to other movies, but then I see movies rated PG13 that should be R rated as well going by the MPAA guidelines. If you are a big studio, your pictures basically get the rating you want, but smaller pictures get ratings more in line with the guidelines. Hell, most of the uber-realistic horror flicks released now should be rated NC-17 by the MPAA guidelines, but violence is given a pass in most cases these days. I guarantee that had they been made in the late 70s they would have gotten the X that The Deer Hunter was originally given.

There is also the whole "unrated version!" DVD market now. I have seen the supposed not able to get an R versions of a lot of movies and I can safely say that they would not have been given any harsher a rating had they just left the stuff in originally. Of course, some of that shit should have just stayed on the cutting floor anyway but whatever.

[schild]

There's a T rated game coming out for the PS2 soon with the word "shit" in it. Written out and spoken.

[Strazos]

Thank you, NiX.

[Yegolev]

There's a T rated game coming out for the PS2 soon with the word "shit" in it. Written out and spoken.

If it is a JP game, I can understand why.  Besides that, the ESRB doesn't actually play the games it rates, likely it was just missed.

[schild]

It's in the first 20 minutes. ^_^

[WindupAtheist]

http://www.capalert.com/

This guy has been keeping me amused for years by finding new and creative ways in which all movies offend Jesus.  Apparently he got tired of paying for a ticket to every single movie coming out, though, because now he needs to be "sponsored" to review one.  Someone should pay him to do Hostel 2.