I'm now starting to believe that Rockstar is doing everything it can to drum up publicity for ANY product they make other than GTA. It's starting to reek of desperation.

"Look, we really do make things besides GTA, and they're edgy too."

You send a video clip to the ESRB for rating that includes genital mutilation, and then you cry about getting an "AO" rating. Now you fire back on the BBFC for refusing to rate it, effectively banning the game. When an editorial calls you out on this, saying that you've crossed the line, you ponder how banning your game "support the industry or further the development of the medium?"

You're all for a well-run ratings system. I call bullsh*t on that one.

You knew that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft wouldn't allow an "AO" game on their consoles. You've dumped millions in development into this title and I honestly believe you can't back it out to the point where it will get a "M" rating. What's considered "M" versus "AO" has shifted. That's a risk with ratings boards and public opinion. Movies that would have been X-rated 25 years ago are now R, and they might shift back toward NC-17, who knows? What do you do when you can't make enough changes to get a "M"? You complain about censorship, banning, and every other empty gripe Rockstar has made in some vain hope of getting the rules changed by the console makers.

The bottom line is there is a venue for "AO" games. It's the PC through downloads only, and you'll probably only sell 10% of what you might have done on the consoles and retail stores. You won't recoup your development costs. That's the risk when you push the envelope.

Is it fair? I honestly don't care. This isn't just a free market. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all risk their reputations and probably some legal liability for every title they license for their consoles. Something that's going to be branded a "authentic murder simulator" by the Jack Thompsons of the world has got to make the corporate legal teams a little nervous. They make the hardware, they shoulder the marketing costs for the hardware and they set the rules on what's acceptable on their systems. Just because I want to grab the ball with my hands in soccer, and I'm not the goalie, doesn't make it OK. It's not impinging on my athletic freedom, it's part of the rules, deal with it.

I agree with to a point, and in some ways I agree with what rockstar has said. In addition I don't believe that what rockstar is saying is entirely in tune with its actions. You're right rockstar took a huge risk in pushing the envelope as far as they did, and obviously it has come to full circle to bite them in the ass. To cry for an overhaul of the rating system to try and cover up for the million dollar mistakes they made is a cheap blow.

I do agree that the video game industry is one of the most regulated forms of media in todays economy, some of the stuff I have seen in movies boggles my mind how it got the rating it did, but that is the extent I agree with what rockstar has written. They say that they support a well run rating system...the system was working fine until you tried to get mutilated genitals passed to people that are "mature", the definition of which is questionable these days. Some things just go too far and in my opinion they deserve the AO rating they got because that is something that I think only adults could handle. They need to stop crying about how the system is broken just because it didn't work in their favor. Scale back the game so its an M rating and the platforms will support you or try the "push the envelope" route and see how much of a profit you can turn as a downloadable pc game, you have to play within the rules of the industry or you will be torn apart.

AO is an ESRB rating in North America (?). The British rating systems refused to rate the game, effectively banning it, as no stores will stock an unrated game. At least, that's the way I understand it.

I agree. If a game is rated Adults Only then why the f*** can't adults play it? That's asinine. We all paid good money for our consoles and it should be the adult consumers choice whether they want to play Manhunt or any other AO title on a given console. I don't understand why Sony, MS, and Nintendo are so afraid of allowing this content to be played. The game is a reflection of the devs creative genius and no one should be upset with the three big companies for giving their consumers content they are legally allowed to access. The whole this is BS...and I'm starting to hope for a ESRB ratings restructuring.

Great post, but I'm not sure that's the best analogy given that the topic is a game notorious for testical mutilation.

It's not like they have complete freedom to pick and choose what they put in the clip, it has to be "comprehensive" while at the same time not leaving anything hugely offensive out that could cause blowback on them later. Let's say they left out that piece, and a newspaper crucified them later, the ratings board wouldn't lightly sock them on the cheek and say, "You rascal, Rockstar you."

Now if we're discussing their decision to include genital mutilation in the first place, that's a completely different subject.

It's called learning from the past. Before the big gaming crash console makers didn't control what came out on their systems and it was a mess, which helped contribute to the crash. Sony, MS, and Nintendo have every right to control what games come out for their consoles and they rightly do so. When a parent sees a kid playing a game they think they shouldn't be, most parents don't immediately say you will never play another game made by (place developer name here) they say that's it no more xbox, playstation or Nintendo for you. MS, Sony and Nintendo have the most exposure when it comes to back lash because it's their systems the games are played on. They need to protect themselves and making choices like the ones they did for Manhunt 2 are very reasonable. If you don't like it, than don't buy their systems, no one is forcing you to.

If you want to own a system without this type of control than buy a gaming PC and you can play whatever kind of game you want. Developers just don't want to limit themselves to the PC market anymore.

And as far as ratings reform goes. I see a lot of complaining about it but I have yet to see anyone lay out a plan for what type of reform is necessary. Remember in North America the ESRB is not government run it is run by the industry. That means the video game industry themselves agreed on this kind of control. That is a good thing! So calling the ESRB's decision censorship means it's self censorship by the video game industry which is a whole hell of a lot better than some government controlled third party.

What happened in Europe I agree went a little too far. They should have just given the game the strictest rating they could and left it at that. Not giving a rating at all is really lazy on their part and went too far. In the end it didn't matter anyway, the console makers were never going to let an AO game on their systems anyway.

I'll further clarify my post from above.

I personally find Manhunt and Manhunt 2 to be some of the most abhorrent, irresponsible, and immature content available in a videogame that I'm aware of. I have zero interest in the games, and honestly do question how someone could find that degree of depraved violence entertaining. That might piss off some of you, but it's my honest opinion.

That said, I still stand by the fact that I oppose censorship. I am in full support of ratings systems, and while it can be said that Nintendo/Sony/MS/whomever would be playing "nanny" by refusing to grant approval for a game to be licensed on their consoles, as a private enterprise, they have full rights to say who can and who can't publish games for their consoles.

I was under the impression that Britain actually banned the game. I objected to that. But if they didn't ban the game, just made it difficult to distribute by refusing to rate it, well, that's what online or mail order game stores are for. In the US, the game can get an "AO" rating and deal with it. I don't object to "Faces of Death" not having an R-rating or less so it can be carried in Blockbuster Video.

So despite being totally opposed to the ideals that put together a game like this or lead someone to enjoy it, I am still in support of the freedom to create it if so desired. Censorship is a bad thing, and never really leads to a good place.

To be honest, the whole problem State-side of the AO rating being disallowed comes across as a bit of a non-issue. Sony and Nintendo are multinational corporations with a vested interest in making money, they have absolutely no desire to fight the good fight or protect people's liberties. More importantly, Rockstar still have retail options available to them, namely a PC release.

Whining about the fact that your game got slapped with a harsh certificate is pointless since every other game goes through the same process and gets the same treatment. Sorry Rockstar, your game ticked all the boxes for AO including genital mutilation. Why the hell did you expect anything different?

What tickles me slightly about the current furor regarding the ratings is the huge perceived gap between a 17 year old who's allowed to view content rated M and an 18 year old who's allowed to view content rated AO. One year makes that much difference?

The thing is, there are plenty of 18-rated games out here in the UK for all the major consoles(Scarface is a good multi-platform example), so if the BBFC had passed it, it would have gone to retail without problems.

Fair enough, a more transparent rating system might be a good idea then. Still, noone knows the honest reason behind the AO classification. Speculating about political agendas is fun but doesn't really move the argument along significantly.

In a literal sense, a set of boxes to tick doesn't make a good rating system. Tick boxes don't account for context and stylistic approach. However, the people who rate the games, the three or so members of New York's metropolitan area who may very well have experience working with children, will have some sense of whats come before and what seperates M and AO rated games.

Sure, kick up a fuss about the rating but theres an appeals board for a reason and I'm sure Rockstar are either pursuing that process or they secretly know very well that they've got an AO worthy game on their hands.

Now see, I was going to be nice and avoid bringing that comment up.

My theoretical to you in all seriousness dude is this: Say this was another developer who didn't have a history of releasing envelope-pushing violent games. Say they decided to go in another direction and release a grotesque game and say it was even a licensed property like Saw or Hostel. Say the same thing happened with the ESRB and they gave the same reaction. Would you use the same term to describe them?

No, but that's like saying if you were eating green beans instead of those nachos with chilli peppers and jalepenos would you still call it too spicy? It's their history that defines them.

OH NOES!!111

No, but a friend of mine played it and based upon his impressions (he and I tend to feel similarly along the lines of what's fun and worthwhile in games) I never bothered. To him (and almost certainly me as a result), it was a mediocre game that got by on the gimmick of graphic violence that tried to push the envelope of what most guys' inner 13-year-old self seems to want. However, beyond that it had no redeeming qualities other than being a mediocre game.

No, but you can keep putting words in my mouth if you feel it helps your counterpoint to my post.

I think that the gore-pr0n films are just as bad as what I've read/seen about Manhunt 2. Again, I don't believe they should be censored. But I can still have an opinion on them. And since I don't think you've been witness to my crazy utopian humanitarian viewpoint on humanity in the P&C before, I'll just summarize it this way: our civilization has some serious issues at our core, and those issues are expressed in a number of ways. I don't think that playing or enjoying a violent game makes one a monster. I do question the degree to which some people seem to really need to defend how great a game like this is. *shrugs*

I enjoy games and movies for various reasons. Gears of War has a lot of great tactical gameplay and as a co-op or team-based experience is one of the best games I've played for tactical action. The violence isn't really part of the appeal to me, but I don't find it objectionable in and of itself (which you seem to think I do). Manhunt was about the violence, the trappings were merely there as an excuse to have and glorify the violence, much like how the "plot" in a pr0n film is there merely as an excuse to have and glorify the sex.

I find graphic violence for the sake of graphic violence to be the most abhorrent and immature thing that can be done in entertainment. It's really hard to explain why, other than that it's a direct contradiction to my view of what humanity could and should be. Violence happens, and showing realistic violence for a purpose other than to make gore-pr0n (great term, btw, hadn't heard it before this thread) can be an unpleasant necessity. "Saving Private Ryan", for instance, is an example of that. The violence isn't the goal, it's a tool used to convey a message.

Geez, I didn't even know about that. That is censorship and I object to it.

So to try to reiterate my core point: I object to what's going on with parts of our entertainment industries, not just games, because I think that the glorification of violence is a symptom of a harmful problem with humanity at any point in history or the present. However, I believe just as strongly in the free exchange of ideas, thoughts, expression, whatever, and stridently object to censorship in pretty much any form. I think that censorship is even more harmful.

You asked a question about my perception and history informs the perception. I have no problem with the ratings board handing down an AO rating and I have no problem with companys making decisions about whether they want to market AO material. Rockstar can pull this victim, boo-hoo BS line all they like - I suppose they must considering how much this is costing them - but they have a history of pushing the envelope and don't come crying to me when you shove your game right off the end of that envelope and into the abyss.

Note: This is still not a ban.