| |||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSS"Manhunt 2" promises to be more of the same. But not everyone gets to play. The British Board of Film Classification, which is in charge of rating video games, has effectively banned the sale of" Manhunt 2" by refusing to rate it, which prevents game stores from stocking it. Ireland and Italy have followed suit, and in the U.S., the Entertainment Software Rating Board, our own (non-governmental) rating board, has slapped the game with an AO -- adults only -- rating. While it doesn't legally bar the game from going on the shelves, an AO rating is the kiss of death for a video game. Many retailers won't stock AO games, meaning that sales are stunted, even if the game is stellar.
Video games get ratings similar to movies -- AO corresponds to NC-17 and M (Mature) corresponds to R. Critics of the ESRB claim that the only time a game catches the AO label is when it has sexual content, but "Manhunt 2" seems to be the first game to buck that trend; its rating is based solely on its violence.
Since the kerfuffle over the game's content, Take-Two Interactive, parent company of publisher Rockstar, has decided to suspend publishing and "consider its options." The game will likely be a financial failure if they publish as-is, but Take-Two may do it anyway. The company's chairman, Strauss Zelnick, had this to say about the title: "It brings a unique, formerly unheard-of cinematic quality to interactive entertainment, and is also a fine piece of art."
The truth of the matter is that the AO rating is economically devastating for a video game, and, given the fact that "Manhunt 2" is being rated thusly based only on violence, there's very little distinction between AO and M. The ESRB should scrap the adults-only category, in favor of M as the most restrictive rating.
2 people recommend this article.
RSS FEEDS
The solution may be for them to sellf-distribute. Bypass the retailers in favor of mail-order.
The AO rating has the same stigma as an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. It means distribution outlets will not carry it, and in this case, that consoles will not play it.
Shankar's point, which I agree with, is that the AO rating is redundant except as a form of censorship. The rating's distinction of 18+ vs. 17+ was because of legality issues regarding sexual content, and because most respectable institutions don't want to appear to carry smut, they ban AO/NC-17 media.
But violence is not sex (the debate over our moral and legal attitudes of sex vs. violence isn't really fitting here, but is worth discussing elsewhere). And as such the distinction between an M game and AO game on purely violent grounds can only be meant to have the censorship policies created around the sexual nature of the rating apply to the game.
Usually these gore-games flop big time. Without strong gameplay elements and storylines, they are generally not found to be worth the $50. If they DO have the gameplay and storylines to justify the purchase price, then I'd argue that they have redeeming artistic qualities that the ban of AO-titles undermines. Pulp Fiction is a violent film, but a very good one. I wouldn't want my 12-year-old cousin to watch it, but I would want it to be available to rent when my cousin reaches 18.
In the same sense, what we need is parental education about the M-rating and enforcement of sale restrictions at retail, but censoring a game by grouping it in with porn is really just stupid. It gives an otherwise sleeper game cult status (i.e. Postal), and can "kill" a great game that took artistic license.
Anyway, I completely appreciate the artistry that is game development, but the creators of this game should have thought about how violent it was before they released it.
I don't believe it is necessary to have extreme graphic violent or sexual debasement of women to have entertainment. However, since many of the guys who create these games can't get women, (in the real world), maybe they feel this is their revenge.
Basically, I'm a gamer, pro-marketer, party girl and non-prude, but I know where to draw the line and if you ask me, they're getting exactly what they deserve creating games like these with the AO rating.
Let this be a lesson to game creators: make something positive and make money. Bravo to the raters.
I'll give you that there isn't a clear distinction between M & AO, but that's because if there were companies would work night and day to creatively work around guidelines. No one is naive enough to think that the M rating kept Halo 2 & Resident Evil 4 out of the hands of 13-15 (a key demo for those games), but do you really think that Manhunt 2 is in the same category as those two games? Maybe Take Two didn't catch the ESRB on a bad day. Maybe there is some penance to be paid for Hot Coffee and their insane denials.
The "magical distinction" between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is a legal one.
True, the politicians you listed aren't "right wing." I was thinking more of the National Institute on Media and the Family and their quasi-questionable research methods...or any moron that gives Jack Thompson a mic to speak into. However, have you ever stopped and wondered why it is so much easier to stick it to the games industry instead of Hollywood these days?
What's the magical distinction between a 17 year old and an 18 year old that means they'll be able to handle violent content? There isn't one. The distinction is not useful, and only serves to financially ruin games that catch the ESRB on a bad day.
Two quick ponts on this: One, politicians will rant about the decaying moral state of anything if they think it'll get them another term, they don't need cause. Two, "right-wing" is a gross misrepresentation of the political alignment of the anti-video game lobby. Sens. Lieberman, Schumer Clinton are three major figures, and they are hardly right-wing."...you play a convicted murderer on Death Row who gets kidnapped by a psychotic snuff film director and forced to run a gauntlet of gang members."
"The truth of the matter is that the AO rating is economically devastating for a video game, and, given the fact that “Manhunt 2″ is being rated thusly based only on violence, there’s very little distinction between AO and M. The ESRB should scrap the adults-only category, in favor of M as the most restrictive rating."
In this case the AO rating gives parents of 17 year olds the choice of whether or not they want to explain to their kids what a snuff film is. You can make arguments about what 17 year olds know or don't know, but the bottom line is if the media industry doesn't want to show restraint in how they market these games to demographics below the ESRB age, then they shouldn't complain about the ESRB giving parents a meager tool to make an informed decision. People keep saying that "Parents should parent...," well then give the less savvy ones tools to do so.
Your argument doesn't even revolve around freedom of speech for art, which was the angle Zelnick was playing. You simply say that the AO rating should be abolished because it will cause the game to make less money. That's exactly the kind of rhetoric that gives right-wing PACs cause to rant about the decaying moral state of the entertainment industry.
As for The British Board of Film Classification, if Take Two wants to publish it, let them. Publishing bottom-feeding titles like Manhunt 2 and then calling it art does wonders for street-cred.
Personally I probably never would have played this game, but if all this buzz it's getting has me pretty interested. If they release an AO version I am getting it, but the M version I will pass on.
*Everyone get ready for the inevitable AO for Grand Theft Auto IV now because we know its coming.