http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_games/ncp/english/article.do?platform=games&id=574768

censorship sucks. Games usually gets it the hardest.

A video game from the maker of the "Grand Theft Auto" series came under fire Tuesday in the United States and Britain and the British government ratings board banned sales for what it called an "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone."
Rockstar Games' "Manhunt 2" was scheduled for a July 10 release on Nintendo Co.'s Wii and Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 2 consoles.

Players of "Manhunt 2" assume the role of an escaped mental institution patient who goes on a killing spree as he fights his way to freedom. It includes special death moves players can perform by moving the Wii's wireless, motion-sensitive controller at just the right moment.

"Manhunt 2" is the first game to be banned by the British Board of Film Classification since 1997, when it barred the sale of "Carmageddon," in which players rack up points by driving vehicles over pedestrians.

In a statement, BBFC director David Cooke said the board was unable to approve the game because it was "distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing."

Rockstar spokesman Rodney Walker said "Manhunt 2" was meant to be a horror game, something akin to gory films like "Saw."

He called the BBFC's decision a form of censorship because the public would never get to decide for itself.

"People think of video games as a kids' medium but the fans are so diverse and the games are diverse," he said. "When you ban a game, you're putting a limit on what sort of creative choices people can make."

But Cooke insisted that the game would "involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks to both adults and minors." The BBFC said it had given Rockstar and parent company Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. six weeks to appeal the board's decision.

In the U.S., meanwhile, a national coalition of educators and child advocacy groups sent a letter to the video game industry's self-governed ratings board on Tuesday hoping to slap "Manhunt 2" with the strictest rating possible.

Though nobody at the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has seen or played the game, it wrote in a letter to Patricia Vance, president of the Entertainment Software Rating Board, that "Manhunt 2" should be given an "Adults Only" rating instead of a more lenient "Mature" rating.

"If ever there was a time for the ESRB's strongest and most unambiguous rating, it is now," wrote Dr. Susan Linn, co-founder of the CCFC. "An adults-only rating is the only way to limit children's exposure to this unique combination of horrific violence and interactivity."

The "AO" rating means the game is suitable only for players 18 years old and older, while the far more common "M" rating is meant for players 17 and older.

The group said the Wii version was particularly troublesome because players would be able to act out the violence with the console's controller. :) (The Wii is looking better and better)

"It is reasonable to expect that being able to go through the motions of violence while playing Manhunt 2 will exacerbate its negative effects," the letter said. "Given what is already known about the impact of violent games played on standard game controllers, it is irresponsible to make this game available to children and teens on a potentially more dangerous platform."

"Manhunt 2" maker Rockstar and Take-Two have long been at the centre of the debate over video game violence and children.

Rockstar was embroiled in another ratings controversy two years ago, after a hacker uncovered a hidden sex scene in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." Another of the company's hits, last year's "Bully," was about a slingshot-wielding 15-year-old at Bullworth Academy boarding school, whose motto is "Canis Canem Edit," Latin for "dog eat dog."

Exactly why is this in the Xbox forum? The game is only being released on the Wii, PS2, and PSP.

i was gonna say the same thing :)

I am guessing the fact that it indirectly effects us all.

Actually it does not affect me at all...since I am over 18, so could buy it even if the ESRB takes the parents groups suggestion....which it will of course not do.

No, it does effect every video gamer.
The game being rated AO means it can not be on ANY console.
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft do not allow AO games on their consoles.

If they censor it at all from what it was originally intended, I won't buy it. Basicly, if Rockstar doesn't have balls enough to release the game the way it was meant to be, then to hell with them. I'm still pissed about the way they handled GTA:SA on PC. They released that second edition that was uncooperative to modders. I wonder if anyone ever cracked that crap. I'm just glad I scored a copy before the change.

That is the thing...they CAN'T release it the way it was originally intended on any console. I guess they could still release an AO PC version but that is it. No console version.

I wonder if the game will be any good anyways.

Gah. Well, I guess I won't get my hopes up about GTA4. There's a good chance we'll be getting screwed by the bible thumping bastards at the ESRB again there.


I'm an adult. I'm a well adjusted adult. But sometimes god farnit, I want to play the most depraved, sick game, twisted other depraved, sick and twisted minds can come up with. If there was a game where you punted babies into a wood chipper, and it had a good physics engine - sign me up! I guess its fine that these companies want to ban AO ratings...still my inner psychopath is sad.
(I don't know where this came from, but I thought it sounded good.)

So, "M" is 17+ and "Ao" is 18+?
Seems trivial difference. But what is the point of an Ao rating if not to indicate that the content of a game is for adults only? It seems like the content of "Manhunt 2" is for adults only, doesn't it? (By the way, the objectionable material is violence rather than sex. Those who complain that ratings=censorship often claim that sex gets unfairly targeted by ratings boards.)
The problem appears to be that the console manufacturers will not allow Ao rated games on their systems. You can't blame the ratings board for identifying what content is for adults only, as that is literally their job.

Luckily we have MS on our side. They know they are marketing to adults. All these GD peripherals and HD TV and Digital surround sound. I don't know many 16-17 year old kids that have a comparable set up to what is in my possession (I am 25 btw). We got gears with no hiccups, pretty damn bloody to me. At least on par with anything MK has to offer. Could this be the key to winning the console war?? Publishing games under MSGS with an AO rating and having exclusive rights to almost guaranteed hits (pretty much anything by rockstar is gold) that other systems will refuse to license because of the rating. Crap I should have copyrighted that idea.

I don't really see a problem. Banning it outright is a bit much, but here in the US it would get an AO rating, not banned. If your console doesn't allow AO games... blame the console maker.

The game will suck just like the 1st one did. It will be released, and die off and fade away. Then everyone will be able to move on. Although, bludgeoning someone with a wii remote sounds very tempting. A good way to get some excersise!!

I think that many of you are missing the point. An AO rating means it can't be released on ANY console. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft don't allow AO rated games on their consoles. The only platform that could see it is the PC.

That is outrageous. AO would be the equivalent of NC-17. M would be the equivalent of R. There is nothing in that game that you don't see in R rated movies such as Hostel or Saw. The current political climate deems that videogames, especially those from Rockstar, be judged much more harshly than movies or other entertainment media. It comes down to freedom of expression. If I am a consenting adult, and wish to participate in forms of entertainment that are suitable only for people of my age and maturity, then it is my right to do so. Freedom of speech promises me that right. The fact that the three major console makers deny this is quite disappointing.

I hope that the PC sees an uncensored version, or that the AO content is 'leaked' onto the internet for all to see.

Anyone here see "Passion of the Christ"? Was the main character not tortured and beaten in a very graphic manner? How is a videogame different? Does pushing a button to see a beating differ from simply seeing it? In both cases you are consenting to the content.

I think that many of you are missing the point. An AO rating means it can't be released on ANY console. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft don't allow AO rated games on their consoles. The only platform that could see it is the PC.

That is outrageous. AO would be the equivalent of NC-17. M would be the equivalent of R. There is nothing in that game that you don't see in R rated movies such as Hostel or Saw. The current political climate deems that videogames, especially those from Rockstar, be judged much more harshly than movies or other entertainment media. It comes down to freedom of expression. If I am a consenting adult, and wish to participate in forms of entertainment that are suitable only for people of my age and maturity, then it is my right to do so. Freedom of speech promises me that right. The fact that the three major console makers deny this is quite disappointing.

I hope that the PC sees an uncensored version, or that the AO content is 'leaked' onto the internet for all to see.

Anyone here see "Passion of the Christ"? Was the main character not tortured and beaten in a very graphic manner? How is a videogame different? Does pushing a button to see a beating differ from simply seeing it? In both cases you are consenting to the content.

No chance I'll get this game, but I'd like at least 1 console maker allow AO games. I'm not outraged enough to boycott them or anything though.

The current political climate deems that videogames, especially those from Rockstar, be judged much more harshly than movies or other entertainment media.
It makes sense that videogame content gets closer scrutiny by ratings officials than movies do. [First contention about younger demographic removed, as it was factually inaccurate...See following post for detail. The point is made by the second contention, which remains.] Second, participating in the experience (such as beating someone virtually with a Wii controller) is truly different than watching a story unfold in a movie. If a kid is not mature enough to distinguish between fantasy and reality, or to extrapolate his thoughts from the action to the consequence that will follow, then he is far more likely to be affected by an interactive experience (videogame) than a passive one (movie).

It makes sense that videogame content gets closer scrutiny by ratings officials than movies do. For one thing, videogaming has a younger demographic than moviegoers overall.

This is a common misconception. Per the link below, the average age of a video game buyer is 40. The average age of a video game player is 33. And, 69% of video game players are over the age of 18. Not exactly sure how this compares to movie-goers, but I can't imagine that it is much different.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

Thanks, kblee, I have edited my post 16 accordingly, and referred to your post for the original contention and its refutation. I still think the point is sufficiently made with the second contention alone.

I agree with you...but the problem is that these games are rated M and AO. By definition that means for Mature (17+) and Adults Only.

You don't take children to R movies. You don't take children to Strip Clubs. You don't buy children cigarettes, beer or guns. These are entertainment options that only adults legally participate in. If a game were to be released and given an AO rating, it is pretty clear who this game is made for. Just because children can use the game console does not mean that everything on the console is for kids. By that same logic R, NC-17 and Pornographic dvds would not be available as the dvd player can be used to watch Disney movies.

If an adult cannot perceive the difference between fantasy and reality, then there are greater issues to be addressed than video game violence.

It makes sense that videogame content gets closer scrutiny by ratings officials than movies do. [First contention about younger demographic removed, as it was factually inaccurate...See following post for detail. The point is made by the second contention, which remains.] Second, participating in the experience (such as beating someone virtually with a Wii controller) is truly different than watching a story unfold in a movie. If a kid is not mature enough to distinguish between fantasy and reality, or to extrapolate his thoughts from the action to the consequence that will follow, then he is far more likely to be affected by an interactive experience (videogame) than a passive one (movie).




If the kid can't distinguish between fantasy and reality then the game isn't to blame but the mental health of the kid is.. People should stop blaming everything else and look in the mirror.. I also feel that if the "kid" bought and played the AO rated game then he isn't a kid but an Adult..

I agree with what Thrillhouse has said..

If the kid can't distinguish between fantasy and reality then the game isn't to blame but the mental health of the kid is.. People should stop blaming everything else and look in the mirror.. I also feel that if the "kid" bought and played the AO rated game then he isn't a kid but an Adult.
1. You are precisely right about mental health v. blame-the-game, and that's consistent with my point. However, there actually are some people who poorly distinguish fantasy and reality, and the likelihood of this mental ailment afflicting a person is inversely proportional to the breadth and depth of their life-experience, thus is higher for children.
2. You are also correct about only adults purchasing Adults-Only rated games; however, the people who are complaining about "censorship" of Rockstar Games are bemoaning the threatened Ao rating for "Manhunt 2." Apparently, that will effectively "ban" the game, as console makers disallow Ao games to run on their machines.

Alot of you guys act like ratings or restrictions actually stop a curious mind (mainly children). The fact that it gets a rating that restricts them only makes them all the more excited to get/try it by any means. I'm guessing they realize this, and thats why they have moved to the next more obvious rating. Sure the mental health of the kids (or adults) would be the biggest concern, but thats not going to keep them from playing.

Alot of you guys act like ratings or restrictions actually stop a curious mind (mainly children). The fact that it gets a rating that restricts them only makes them all the more excited to get/try it by any means. I'm guessing they realize this, and thats why they have moved to the next more obvious rating. Sure the mental health of the kids (or adults) would be the biggest concern, but thats not going to keep them from playing.


So, everyone should be penalized because parents can't control their kids?

The blog "Dubious Quality" has a pretty good take on this. Check it out.

The setup. (http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2007/06/hypothetical.html)

The follow-up. (http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2007/06/that-didnt-take-long.html)

Alot of you guys act like ratings or restrictions actually stop a curious mind (mainly children). The fact that it gets a rating that restricts them only makes them all the more excited to get/try it by any means. I'm guessing they realize this, and thats why they have moved to the next more obvious rating. Sure the mental health of the kids (or adults) would be the biggest concern, but thats not going to keep them from playing.

This argument is couldn't be more ignorant. (I'm not saying you are, as this is the viewpoint taken by many, I'm saying that this explanation is.)

If we were to live our life by "what if's", then nothing would be permitted. Why have cars that can reach 110 mph if the speed limit is 70? What if someone speeds and kills themselves? Why sell cigarettes and beer? What if a child gets it? Why sell fast food? What if someone gets fat and has a heart attack? Why sell pornographic material? What if a child finds it? Why administer morphine to people in pain? What if it gets stolen and abused by a drug addict?

It comes down to personal responsibility. This cannot be stressed enough. If you feel the material is appropriate for you, then it is your right and responsibility to handle it in a mature way. If you are an adult, who are we to say that you cannot handle it. If you have children in your home, it is your responsibility to educate and grow them to be adults. You can't justify banning and censorship by yelling "Think of the children!". You were a child once, and you've matured into an adult. Now the choice, and the responsibility, falls on you.

I agree AO games should be allowed on gaming consoles.

I also agree MH2 should be banned.

More intelligent commentary from GIB (Game Industry Biz):

Sick Filth?
You'll have to forgive the British tabloid press for seeming a little bit out of sorts this week. Normally slavering at the mouth at the first sign of a violent videogame being condemned, the low brow red tops have had their noses put out of joint after being utterly pre-empted by the British Board of Film Classification.
After all, "Ban This Sick Filth" makes for a wonderful headline. "Some Sick Filth Has Been Banned", however, looks a touch limp, no matter how big you make the letters.
Tuesday's announcement that the BBFC has denied a rating to Rockstar Games' Manhunt 2 represents a new stage in the debate over violence in videogames. It is the first time that a videogame has been denied a rating since Carmageddon suffered a similar fate ten years ago - although Carmageddon's publisher, SCi, successfully appealed that decision.
I ought to say, at this point, that I am deeply uncomfortable with the fact that the BBFC - an organisation whose very name suggests classification, rather than censorship - should be in a position to make a decision like this.
British consumers and commentators have regularly noted that Germany has a particularly censorious regime surrounding videogames, and that the United States has an astonishing tendency to outrage over even the mildest sexual content. The irony is that neither of those countries actually censor videogames, in the strict sense of the word.
The German authorities can refuse a rating, which prevents a game from being advertised but doesn't stop it from being sold. In the US, an outcry over a game may cause some large retailers, such as Wal-Mart, to withdraw it from shelves. However, in neither country can a game actually be banned.
In the UK, however, despite a generally liberal attitude to media and all forms of artistic expression, free speech does not enjoy the same legal protections which it is afforded across the Atlantic. The result is that the BBFC's refusal to certify Manhunt 2 means that it is now entirely illegal to sell the game in this country.
Concerns over the mechanism of censorship, however, are secondary in this instance. In the US, after all, Manhunt 2 has been "banned" just as effectively by the actions of the videogames industry itself. The ESRB, a voluntary ratings board, has classified the game as Adults Only, and Sony and Nintendo have therefore refused to license it for sale on their systems.
This is a voluntary, internal industry process of self-censorship which is far more laudable than externally imposed censorship - but nonetheless, the effect for consumers is the same. Manhunt 2 is banned, on both sides of the Atlantic.
What's more important, if somewhat less comfortable a topic for discussion, is the question of why this game has been banned. The BBFC, after all, has not exactly been the most censorious of organisations in the last decade.
The organisation has largely kept pace with changing social mores and an increasingly liberal view of art and media in the UK, and has in fact been a staunch supporter of the right of videogames to move into areas of mature, adult content more commonly associated with older mediums like film.
In the case of the Hot Coffee scandal, for example, a ridiculous storm which threatened to shatter teacups across the USA, the BBFC rather sensibly opined that the tame sexual content revealed by the Hot Coffee mod did nothing to change their view that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was perfectly fit for consumption with an 18 rating.
Indeed, comparing the BBFC of now with the BBFC which reacted so strongly to Carmageddon in 1997 clearly displays the progress made in attitudes within the organisation. It seems almost certain that were Carmageddon to come before the BBFC censors today, it would pass, uncut, without the blink of an eye. We even suspect that it wouldn't garner an 18 rating in today's vastly more accepting climate.
The point here is this; Manhunt 2 is not merely the first game to be banned by the BBFC in a decade. It is also the only game to be banned by the organisation since its liberalisation.
It is a game which has been judged as being simply too cruel, callous, unpleasant and disgusting to be granted a classification, in an era when films like James Wan's Saw series and Eli Roth's Hostel make it into cinemas without even a ripple of attention - either from censors or from the tabloids.
This isn't a case of knee-jerk reaction to the controversy surrounding the first game; it's well known by now that the links made between Manhunt and the murder of a teenager in Leicestershire were tenuous at best, and weren't supported by police investigating the case.
Besides which, the BBFC doesn't succumb to knee-jerk reactions. Nor is this a case of videogames being discriminated against in classification due to being a "new" medium, and the whipping boy du jour of the conservative media. Time and time again, the BBFC has shown that it understands and respects videogames.
Our discomfort at the fact that the board has the capacity to censor at all has been allayed, for the most part, by the incredibly sparing, informed and judicious use of that capability which it has exercised in recent years.
In other words, with Manhunt 2, Rockstar has crossed the line - and crossed it at a full tilt run, it would seem, since the BBFC was unable to suggest any cuts that would bring the game in line with its guidelines.
"Unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing" is the key reason given for the ban; we would encourage readers to recall that this is judgement of a classification board which has happily classified Hostel and Saw, and indeed, the first Manhunt game.
One commonly heard argument is that being a Wii, PSP and PS2 title, it's impossible that Manhunt 2 could have the same level of realistic gore and violence seen in live-action movies like the aforementioned Hostel. However, this is an excessively simplistic way of looking at the violence contained in games like this.
It's crucial to consider that in gory films like Saw and Hostel, the viewer is placed at best in the role of an outside observer; at worst, they are given the viewpoint of the victim, a technique used by filmmakers to heighten the discomfort and reactions of the audience.
In a game like Manhunt 2, however, the player is in the role not of the hunted, or of the victim (as they are in, for example, survival horror type games); instead, they take on the role of the predator, of the serial killer, of the murderer who enjoys inflicting pain and torture.
There are certain parallels for this in literature, of course - Brett Easton Ellis' American Psycho and Iain Banks' Complicity both deal, in very different ways, with murderers portrayed in the first person.
However, the clear opinion of the BBFC - and presumably of the ESRB - is that Manhunt 2 doesn't represent the sort of insightful commentary represented by those works. This is killing, maiming and torturing for the sake of it; this may, in fact, be the game which lives up to the shrill claims of the conservative wing that games are "murder simulators".
In making such a game Rockstar has been juvenile, shameful and irresponsible. The right of creators to push the boundaries of media and society must be balanced out against a simple sense of social responsibility - something with Rockstar seems to entirely lack.
This will be seen in some quarters as a question of being the enfant terrible of the games industry, a reputation which the firm seems to relish; however, I disagree with that assessment.
At several points along the line, during the development of Manhunt 2, people in management at Rockstar and Take Two have surveyed this product and made a decision, based on pure financial logic, to continue funding its development. This is not a question of art; this is a game which, it was decided, would sell well as a commercial product.
That decision has now backfired spectacularly on Rockstar and its parent company - and while we may be uncomfortable with the way in which the game has been censored in the UK, the rapid and effective self-censorship applied by the industry in the United States is laudable.
Videogames are not murder simulators; the vast, vast bulk of the attacks by the conservative right on the videogame medium have absolutely no merit, and are based simply in a pathetic attempt to find a scapegoat for wider societal problems.
Unfortunately, Rockstar seemed to view the accusations levelled at this industry, and at this medium, as a challenge. With even the mostly liberal minds in the BBFC apparently horrified, the message here should be clear; the videogames industry as a whole doesn't condone the overreactions we've witnessed in the media and among politicians in recent years, but it fully understands where lines must be drawn.
The fact that videogames are not murder simulators is a solid defence against the attacks of the conservative right; it is not an indication of a gap in the market. Perhaps now, with an entire development budget down the drain, Rockstar will be receptive to that lesson.

just rate all games AO so we can weed out all the little turds on live.

Alot of you guys act like ratings or restrictions actually stop a curious mind (mainly children). The fact that it gets a rating that restricts them only makes them all the more excited to get/try it by any means. I'm guessing they realize this, and thats why they have moved to the next more obvious rating. Sure the mental health of the kids (or adults) would be the biggest concern, but thats not going to keep them from playing.


By that same token lets ban Alcohol and Tobacco and anything else kids can find a way of getting that has an age limit..

I just think it's just a game and if someone has a hard time telling what is fantasy and reality then it was bound to happen doing something else..

I wasn't implying that you shouldn't have the right to do whatever you want. Hopping on board of a rating increase will accomplish nothing. It will make it harder or less convienient for "mature responsible adults" to play it (not impossible), but will only stop some individuals who have no business playing it. Its not a what if thing, it is going to happen with anything. If a million people go out and kill because of a game, what do you think is going to happen? They sure as pie arent going to let it slide for all the people who have enough sense not to do it. If they banned Alcohol and Tobacco..who would that stop completely? What has been banned and actually never been used or accessed since? My main point is that you cannot regulate anything (within reason), so voting to do so is almost a waste IMO. I'm not taking sides here.

ok, here is my evil marketing/conspiracy theory. I think rockstar cooked up a way-way over the top violent version of the game KNOWING it would get an AO rating. They are getting tonnes of free press and all kinds of 15 year olds drooling at the prospect of getting their hands on this forbidden fruit. Now they'll tone it down (which they always intended it to be) and it'll pass with the 17+ rating. Publicity stunt. It's just like those 'explicit lyrics' stickers record execs used to clamour to get slapped on their releases.

What they should do is release it on PC with the AO rating (which they can indeed do), and tell the console makers to go to hell. Another thought is to offer the game exclusively to whichever company is willing to lift their ban on AO rated games. Being an Xbox or PS3 exclusive would help the system to sell and, in turn, sell more other games (and accessories) for said console. Sounds like good business to me.

it doesnt work like that, the manhunt name isn't a system seller.

i'm not sure why this game wasnt planned for 360, but that's another issue.

install base = sales.

the 360 has nearly 11 million units out there, but they'd never go for an AO game, not when the 360 is so "family friendly"

i could see the ps3 allowing AO games, but not the Wii, not in a million years.

Did anyone buy Manhunt 2? I think it was released this week.

Actually, I just read that it is not avialable on the 360. I was going to rent it for pure curiousity...

I think it is PS2 and Wii only. Pretty lame that it isn't even in HD.

It's interesting how movies and video games are treated differently.

There is a strong media bias that games are "just for kids" and that's the subtext of all of these kinds of controversies.