I don't think it will change retail attitudes at all. I think it will just get developers to tailor their games more to guarantee that they don't get the AO rating. I also don't think it will do anything to get opportunistic and irresponsible politicians/media outlets/attorneys from banging on this industry to further their careers. That will only happen when the public gets bored and stops paying attention. Like I said, I don't necessarily think the ESRB is wrong for rating it AO (I will reserve judgment on this until I play the game) but I don't more titles getting it will change much.

These are words of great wisdom.

More depraved content -> More better.

Good. The less retail distribution this one gets, the better for the industry. We really don't need another poster child for why all gaming needs to be restricted in order to SAVES TEH CHILDRENZZ!

Personally, I want more AO games. But, I don't want them on the Wii... All this good word of mouth, all this good PR with the soccer moms screwed. I put large money on seeing demos of this game with this camera angle:

camera ---> back of television---> front of Wii ---> local/national TV anchor ---> child psychologist with horrified look

You never see "the game in question," you just know that the little white box the kids wanted now really is a murder simulator.

Never mind the fact that the ESRB is doing their job, never mind that this game will never, ever be sold to a kid, never mind all the good times we all will have with this game. Media = spin = disaster for the industry.

Wow, is the sky falling? Where's my meds at...

Aside: I want Fallout 3 to be AO.

I understand your point but a defeatist attitude is not what we need. We shouldn't start saying that any game shouldn't be made simply because we don't want idiot politicians/media/lawyers/ignorant soccer moms getting bent out of shape and wrongly blaming games. We should be fighting this battle, not conceding it. I personally didn't care for the first Manhunt and though I will try the new one, likely won't enjoy it either. But I'll be damned if I will punish Rockstar for making it just because someone might be offended. f*ck those people.

It's being used for porn games which is why I suggest creating a new second-tier M rating rather than just adopting AO. AO has history behind it and using that to categorize new types of games could be dangerous. I think it's best to leave AO for "teh gamez with b00bies".

The more people who see this game, the more people who will, rightly or wrongly, see it as an example of our industry's focus. Since the overwhelming majority of the general public who encounter it will be horrified, the fewer people who see it, the fewer people who'll write their representatives demanding that we go beyond just rating games and actually restrict the content of games. Thus, fewer copies on shelves = fewer people seeing it = less chance of more onerous restrictions in the long run.

Er... when, exactly, did I say that we shouldn't allow it to be made? I don't remember making that point, possibly because I never said that. Restricting a game to its appropriate audience based on the content of the game is in no way equal to saying it shouldn't be made. They're not 'punishing' Rockstar any more than companies that make porn are being 'punished' when they acquire a rating that prevents their movies from being carried by Blockbuster.

I strongly believe in free speech, but I also believe that the industry has a right to rate games on their content, and distributors have a right to not carry games based on that rating. The Constitution ensures that you can say virtually anything you want, but you can't insist that others react to your statement in the way you'd prefer.

The people at Rockster deliberately chose to make and market a game based almost solely on its ludicrously high level of player-induced violence, and create a version that brings the player even closer to what will almost certainly be dubbed a 'serial killing simulator' in the popular media. They've been down this road before and chose to go down it again, so my level of sympathy for them is absolutely nil. If they choose to make some sort of artistic statement with a game like this, they need to be Big Boys 'n' Girls and accept the logical consequences of their choices.

With an AO rating, Rockstar isn't going to release it. They'll take a hit on the development costs and bury it.

Maybe in a couple years it will find its way into warez channels.

The rating system proscribes narrower bands of acceptible content for various younger age groups than it does for mature audiences. This is fairly natural as we generally consider a broader range of content acceptible for older people. While it does bug me that Something About Mary and Hostel carry the same R rating, I think this kind of thing is going to be a feature of most rating systems. The ESRB's rating system strikes me as generally a lot more informative and sensibly designed than the MPAA. In application though, I think the ESRB is a little to quick to slap an M rating on some content.

Fallout 3 will have a strong M rating and will sell just fine.

You time travel or something? How does that work?

My apologies if I misinterpreted what you said KT. What I took it to mean is that you said this game shouldn't show up on shelves because it will get people up in arms. My point was that these people who get up in arms are the problem, not the game. It's the parent's job to ensure little Timmy doesn't play Manhunt 2. All the current consoles (including the Wii) have parental controls and if they don't want to spend 30 minutes learning how to set them up, they need to sit down and shut up. That being said, I don't think Rockstar has any right to whine after fully intending to create a game designed to push the limits of decency. But if that's the case, why didn't Silent Hill get an AO? Condemned? F.E.A.R.? At least the first two of those have very disturbing acts in them, many of which are committed by the player.

What bugs me is that some seem to be applauding this game not getting into the major retail channel because it will stop some idiots from getting hot and bothered about it. Disregarding the fact that those people will get hot and bothered no matter what happens, we shouldn't be doing anything to placate them. If this title becomes a poster child for why games are ruining our youth, then the industry and the gamers need to continue to take a firm stance and go "Stop blaming everyone else and do your damn job as a parent." Trying to do what these people want, even in a small way to make them go away won't do so -- it'll just make them ask for more next time.

Sure, some people will pick up Manhunt 2 just to see what the fuzz is about based on the ban decisions in other countries and the AO rating in the US - but not even remotely enough to compensate for the damage done by not being present in retail at all (UK) or being only partially available (US). Most copies of your average game are sold at places like Wal-Mart and the like.

Manhunt 2 always seemed odd anyway - it popped out of the nowhere like four months ago, it always seemed like TT didn't even really try to get some pre-release coverage, at least not compared to other Rockstar titles, including Manhunt.

Same thing when The Matrix and Hostel receive the same rating.

I haven't read all the comments yet, but I wholeheartedly support this game and all the gruesomeness inside. I can't go two steps into a Blockbuster without seeing the latest decapitation flick on the shelves, so I can't grasp why our medium can't have a similar title.

Do people forget that a little movie in the 60s, which was considered a milestone of artistic storytelling, featured a man beating a woman to death with a giant ceramic penis?

The problem is that these people don't want a rational dialogue. The politicians and lawyers are in it to further their own careers on the back of a hot button issue and the media just wants another issue to bark about. The industry has tried to open rational dialogue and instead we see dozens of unconstitutional laws getting passed (and subsequently defeated in court) and the likes of lawyer-who-I-shall-not-name. If they are willing to work with the industry rather than just yell for censorship, then they deserve our attention and respect. Otherwise, they need to stay out of people's lives.

Article from my local paper and some particulars:

http://tinyurl.com/2ct5qw