Talaen wrote:

If Take Two were allowed to publish the game, they could still find ways to distribute it - via a web storefront, if nothing else.

Right. At that point, I wouldn’t care about the AO rating; however, the AO rating as it stands now is effectively a mechanism for blacklisting games. ESRB has become a censor and therefore has failed in its responsibility to inform consumers.

ESRB knows full well that the AO “rating” is the kiss of death. ESRB also knows that the organization does have the influence to work with the big three publishers to enable public access to AO works. In effect, ESRB is responsible for ensuring that the organization is not prevented from doing its job. As of now, it doesn’t matter if a work receives an AO rating because that rating does not inform consumers; it simply bars the work from distribution so that no consumer has the choice to be informed.

If you go to your local Blockbuster, you probably won’t find a shelf of XXX porn (at least, I don’t think you will). But I bet if you look you’ll find a few shops in your town selling them, and they’re only a few clicks away on the web.

This is why I said way up above that I understand and respect a retailer’s decision to carry or not carry a title based on its rating. Although I agree with you that it is silly that you can go buy movies like Saw or Hostel at Best Buy and yet not pick up a title like Manhunt.

The reason that this is acceptable to me as a consumer is that there is still room for specialty retailers to carry the title. Of course, in the video game industry, there aren’t very many specialty retailers left, and that’s an issue, but there is still room. If Take Two were allowed to publish the game, they could still find ways to distribute it - via a web storefront, if nothing else.

While I agree that the AO and M ratings are way too close to really be a meaningful distinction, I don’t think AO really is the kiss of death for a game like this as long as it can still be published. It might be the kiss of death if you’re counting on big box retail as your primary distribution channel, but there are alternatives to big box retail.

Talaen wrote:

How is it really all that different if he happens to be using the wiimote as the gun?

Right. And how is it really all that different from using controllers shaped like handguns and rifles in arcade shooters?

JuJutsu wrote:

Why the rant about the ratings board? They issued an adult only rating…info for informed choice just like you want.? It’s the hardware companies and the retailers that should be getting the vitriol.

Because as moo wrote…

moo wrote:

… these other corporations have *granted* to the ESRB the power to cripple or kill the distribution of any adult-oriented content by branding it AO instead of M. And I think that sucks.

ESRB knows full well that the AO “rating” is the kiss of death. ESRB also knows that the organization does have the influence to work with the big three publishers to enable public access to AO works. In effect, ESRB is responsible for ensuring that the organization is not prevented from doing its job. As of now, it doesn’t matter if a work receives an AO rating because that rating does not inform consumers; it simply bars the work from distribution so that no consumer has the choice to be informed.

Such play can desensitize etc, but is less likely to lead to trauma and reenactment through play (because they are already reenacting… right?). That is not the case for strong visuals and interactive media. It’s not only what they do when they play the game, it is the effect afterwards.

Some kids and young teens unfortunately hang and suffocate themselves and other kids in reenactment acts. Such acts can, and are often, triggered by media-induced trauma, or inspired by media). Is Manhunt2 worth a single wounded kid or teenager?

what we’re saying is that society has to compensate for parents who won’t control what they give their children access to, because we think (but we don’t really know) that emulating violence might be bad for the children.

Ehm, a dead kid isn’t proof good enough? Any man claiming that parents should control what kids have access to is either suffering from a severe case of amnesia or being hypocritical.

Developers who create content which PRIMARILY young and juvenile players crave for have to be held to adult standards of responsibility no matter what rating their product gets. Kick them in their groins, that hurts less than the pain they transfer to some of these kids. They know what they are doing.

Ensuring that people are blind and ignorant to media other people don’t want you to experience is not the point of the ESRB. It never was. The point was to rate games fairly, to provide consumers with the data they need to make informed decisions. I can’t respect any bastard who prevents me from the opportunity to make my own informed decision about the media I want to consume.

I actually had a lengthy rant typed up about this yesterday, but Raph’s site overflowed its CPU quota before I could post it. =)

In a nutshell: there is no reason for the AO rating to exist, *except* to give the censors a way to discriminate between “not-for-kids-but-socially-acceptable” content (which gets rated M = 17+) and “socially-unacceptable” content (which gets AO = 18+). One year’s difference does not matter much. What matters is the Walmarts of the world who refuse to stock AO games, Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft refusing to publish them, etc. In effect, what has happened is that (to please the “think of the children” crowd, I guess) these other corporations have *granted* to the ESRB the power to cripple or kill the distribution of any adult-oriented content by branding it AO instead of M. And I think that sucks.

I’d rather see a rating system with 16+ and 21+. Then at least there would be an excuse for having two different ratings, and the higher rating would still of course be used for “anti-social” content like Manhunt 2.

Personally I don’t believe him. Its perfectly true that “Wii welcomes games rated E, T and M” but even if Manhunt 2 somehow got re-rated Mature, I don’t believe Nintendo would let it be released.

To play devil’s advocate for a moment, how is that really all that different from a 10-year old kid playing a violent video game where his character on the screen shoots “bad guys” or other characters? How is it really all that different if he happens to be using the wiimote as the gun?

Whether or not Manhunt 2 is over the top, I think the more important question is should we embrace the idea of censoring content even when we have things like a ratings system and parental controls, or should we rely on the parents to use the ratings system and parental controls and try to make those tools robust enough and easy enough to use that they become more effective?

From my point of view, it’s the latter. Otherwise we might as well start getting rid of any toy or game that can be used to emulate violence in any form, because what we’re saying is that society has to compensate for parents who won’t control what they give their children access to, because we think (but we don’t really know) that emulating violence might be bad for the children.