Manhunt 2 Receives AO Rating

[luke-o 0]

but the BBFC situation is wholly unreasonable. It's their job to rate games, not tell people what they can and can't play. If not rating a game means it can't be sold, that's exactly what they're doing, and it's inarguably wrong. Given the content of the game, I can't imagine too many people trying to fight for it in the legal sense, even if its treatment is unethical.

 

I recently interviewed a member of the BBFC for my dissertation so I'm quite up on how the company works as far as ratings go.

 

The BBFC have always seen themselves as "protectors of the public" and they got A LOT of flack for some of the choices they have made. Passing Dirty Sanchez Movie or Destricted got them into serious trouble with many people trying to get everyone fired and replaced with people who know what they are doing.

 

With the growing violence in the UK, it's not suprising to me at all that BBFC have refused to rate it.

 

I'm not saying that people who play this game will go out and copy the actions as I believe that people make their own choices and are NOT affected by TV/Games/Music. But a lot of people (the Daily Mail in particular) believe they do.

 

The BBFC are just covering their backs. And as I already stated, the UK doesnt have an equvilant AO rating over here, the closest thing we have would be an R-18, meaning it can only be sold in licensed sex shops with the rest of the porn.

 

Having said all that, I'm not sure I want to play a game where I can rape a headless corpse. Lord knows what you have to do with the Wiimote for that...

[dubq 0]

From IGN.com..

 

NIMF: Manhunt 2 Delay is Victory

"The ESRB has sent a strong message" to the industry.

by Daemon Hatfield

 

June 22, 2007 - Media watchdog the National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF) has issued a statement in response to the news that Take-Two has suspended the release of the ultra-violent Manhunt 2. It's been a stormy week for the sequel to 2003's Manhunt, with the title being banned in the UK and receiving an "AO" rating from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB). An AO rating basically means a game cannot be sold or manufactured in its current form. NIMF appears to be quite happy with the news.

 

"Take-Two's decision to temporarily suspend distribution of Manhunt 2 is a victory for parents and children," the statement reads. "Because of the their thoughtful decision to give Manhunt 2 its strongest rating, 'Adults Only,' the ESRB has sent a strong message to Take-Two and other game makers that they no longer can push the envelope on gratuitous violence in videogames. The ESRB showed real leadership in assigning this rating and further evidence it is making significant progress in keeping extremely violent and graphic materials out of children's hands."

 

NIMF is apparently keeping a close eye on other upcoming games that could prove controversial.

 

"Hopefully Take-Two has learned from its Manhunt 2 experience and will undertake preventive measures to ensure its future games, including Grand Theft Auto IV, are appropriate for families and gamers."

 

Even though it is the organization's mission to inform consumers as to the content in videogames, NIMF seems a little misinformed as it refers to Manhunt 2 as a "first-player shooter." The title is a third-person action game.

 

"As gaming technology continues to change, we hope to continue to work with the ESRB to ensure that future games have appropriate content and context for children. The uniqueness of Nintendo's Wii gives game raters a new challenge when it comes to first-player shooter games. We take the ESRB's decision about Manhunt 2 as a positive step in addressing this new challenge."

 

NIMF confirmed to IGN that the organization has not played the game, and it is basing its decision that the title is unfit for release on the same trailers we have all seen (which don't show any gameplay that is more violent than numerous past games). What is particularly alarming to the Institute is the Wii control which allows players to act out the gruesome killings with the Wiimote.

 

Gee thanks. I'm so glad that they're working toward making sure that games intended for adults have appropriate content for childen. *sigh* Fucking mutants...

[EricMM 0]

Look.

 

I think that it was the Wii Remote options that led to this game getting the higher rating.

 

But I could be wrong. Anyways, it's not like ultraviolence would have made it a good game.

 

Is it even supposed to be that good a game?

[dubq 0]

The PS2 version was also rated AO, and it doesn't have Wiimote controls, so...

 

Anyway, I've said it before, I have the right to play this game in the way it was meant to be played. I like the ultraviolence/splatter genre - in any medium. I thought the first game was great, sue me. I like to pick up and play and not have to invest hours and hours into a game - because I don't have that kind of time.

 

Fuck man, if Clive Barker can make movies like Hellraiser and write books like the Books of Blood - all of which kids can EASILY get their hands on - then Rockstar should be able to make Manhunt 2 without this sort of obstructionist bullshit. Hell, most Friday the 13th movies are much more gruesome than the Manhunt series. This kind of shit is nothing new, it's just that we once again have a "watchdog group" telling us what we can and can't view/play/read just because parents can't seem to take responsibility for what their children are consuming.

[luke-o 0]

The problem is that ratings boards are more strict with games than films as, they believe, that a child watching a violent movie is not as bad as a child PERFORMING the actions on the screen.

 

I'm not agreeing with them and I don't believe in censoring art blah blah blah, but they are doing a smart thing.

[AndrewTS 0]

Look.

 

I think that it was the Wii Remote options that led to this game getting the higher rating.

 

You're completely wrong.

 

ESRB looks at videos of the in-game content, and PS2 got the same rating. It's true that some papers have editorials sensationalizing the "murder-simulator" potential of Wii, but it's irrelevant to the rating.

 

"Hopefully Take-Two has learned from its Manhunt 2 experience and will undertake preventive measures to ensure its future games, including Grand Theft Auto IV, are appropriate for families and gamers."

 

LOL

 

Is it even supposed to be that good a game?

 

Manhunt was a POS. However, nobody has really reviewed Manhunt 2 since the final retail build wasn't available....and won't be for a while now. But all the previews so far undoubtedly scaled back criticism of the gameplay quality because that stuff is usually saved for reviews.

[Karc 0]

This is what happens when politics take over video games. Not surprised.

[dubq 0]

Manhunt was a POS. However, nobody has really reviewed Manhunt 2 since the final retail build wasn't available....and won't be for a while now. But all the previews so far undoubtedly scaled back criticism of the gameplay quality because that stuff is usually saved for reviews.

 

I just can't take AndrewTS comments on Rockstar game seriously, because they're always negative. I don't even like the stealth genre (with the exception of Tenchu Wrath of Heaven) but I found Manhunt to be a fun breath of fresh air. I don't see what was so horrible about the gameplay that makes it a piece of shit.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Not a bad idea, for any developer really. He probably hasn't even played it. The first game did get decent reviews though, and this one could be really fun with the wiimote. I'm sure the game will sell well too, given all of this publicity. Parents may not buy it for their kids, but I can see a lot of older teenagers/young adults chomping at the bit to see what all the fuss is about.

[AndrewTS 0]

Manhunt was a POS. However, nobody has really reviewed Manhunt 2 since the final retail build wasn't available....and won't be for a while now. But all the previews so far undoubtedly scaled back criticism of the gameplay quality because that stuff is usually saved for reviews.

 

I just can't take AndrewTS comments on Rockstar game seriously, because they're always negative.

 

Besides Manhunt, what R* games have I "unfairly" bashed? I've actually defended GTA on more than one occasion. And if I haven't been unfairly bashing GTA, what the hell are you talking about? GTA series and Manhunt are the only games of note they've made, assuming we're talking about R* North, and not R* Vancouver who have only made Bully. You've always been a Manhunt apologist.

 

I'm not alone in thinking it's a POS; many top mags/sites say the same thing. Maxim and IGN seem to love it, though. The levels are dull, the AI sucks, the lighting is terrible, and the stealth is done a million times better in much better examples of the genre. The game's uniqueness begins and ends with the presentation and cutscenes. Otherwise, you may as well be playing the newest half-ass Tenchu game.

 

The game lets its "horror" theme define it too much. Imagine a grindhouse horror flick with a guy sneaking around...slowing...killing people. Pretty much just that. For hours and hours. F'ed up cutscene now and then. Everything is hideous to look at. That's pretty much the game. Manhunt 2 actually looks a bit brighter and with more well-defined action segments.

 

Anyone curious about how the first game looked--go to youtube. That should tell you all you need to know, whether you'll like it or not.

[luke-o 0]

I personally thought Manhunt was a bit shit too. But thats only because I don't like games where I have to sneak around. I can't stand stealthy games.

[AntiLeaf33 0]

I'm not too big into stealthy games (just don't have the time to spend hours of trial and error) but I was a fan on Manhunt. It was a stealthy game where being stealthy was fairly easy. The levels were pretty linear which probably took a lot of the trial and error out of it. Wasn't a POS, but it wasn't the best game of all time. I'd probably give it a 7.5/10.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

So, the first Manhunt... worth a rental, or a download? All this crap about the second has me a little curious about the first. Brian Cox as the sadistic director certainly helps.

[AndrewTS 0]

FWIW, the people who seemed to go insane for it seemed to be taking advantage of the headset. It's supposed to add a lot to the "experience."

 

As for buy/rent--it's a 10 dollar used game these days you should be able to find at a pawn shop. So unless you have Hollywood's MVP/Gamefly/Blockbuster's flat fee plan, renting is going to cost almost as much to buy.

 

I'd say download it if you have the means.

 

[AntiLeaf33 0]

yeah, its worth a download at least. If you like it, then maybe buy it, but don't spend more then $10-$15 for it.

[dubq 0]

Manhunt was a POS. However, nobody has really reviewed Manhunt 2 since the final retail build wasn't available....and won't be for a while now. But all the previews so far undoubtedly scaled back criticism of the gameplay quality because that stuff is usually saved for reviews.

 

I just can't take AndrewTS comments on Rockstar game seriously, because they're always negative.

 

Besides Manhunt, what R* games have I "unfairly" bashed? I've actually defended GTA on more than one occasion. And if I haven't been unfairly bashing GTA, what the hell are you talking about? GTA series and Manhunt are the only games of note they've made, assuming we're talking about R* North, and not R* Vancouver who have only made Bully. You've always been a Manhunt apologist.

 

I wasn't trying to start anything with that comment - I'm just pointing out that everytime I see you mention anything about a Rockstar game - it's usually negative. Manhunt, IMO, is the only game you've unfairly bashed - but I've yet to witness a positive comment from you about any Rockstar games and what you'd do to improve them. I'm not claming that I read every post in this forum, but I'm just saying I haven't seen it and what I have seen has always been negative.

 

I'm not alone in thinking it's a POS; many top mags/sites say the same thing. Maxim and IGN seem to love it, though. The levels are dull, the AI sucks, the lighting is terrible, and the stealth is done a million times better in much better examples of the genre. The game's uniqueness begins and ends with the presentation and cutscenes. Otherwise, you may as well be playing the newest half-ass Tenchu game.

 

Give me some specific examples of how the levels are dull and how the AI sucks... because I thought they were both very passable and enjoyable. You'd make a noise and the hunters would run after you - if they give up, they go back to walking the grounds. I don't see how complicated it has to be to please you. The lighting is low because that's the tone of the game. The game has a brightness feature in it, and the last time I checked, so do most televisions. Not that hard to fix if it really bothers you that much.

 

The game lets its "horror" theme define it too much. Imagine a grindhouse horror flick with a guy sneaking around...slowing...killing people. Pretty much just that. For hours and hours. F'ed up cutscene now and then. Everything is hideous to look at. That's pretty much the game. Manhunt 2 actually looks a bit brighter and with more well-defined action segments.

 

Slowly killing people... isn't that what stealth is? Avoiding them. Figuring out their pattern. Sneaking up on them. Killing them. Sounds about right to me.

Did you play through the entire game, btw? Because the latter half of the game is mostly shooting and sniping and rarely gives you a chance to use the stealth killing as often as you do in the first half of the game.

 

What's hideous to look at? That's a pretty broad statement without any real reasoning being given.

The graphics? The rendering? The static effect that overlays the screen?

 

You've said it's a piece of shit many many many many times, and you offer "reasons" for thinking this way - but you never really give expanations as to how you've come to those conclusions.

[MrRant 0]

Rockstar could just sell through their site. Problem solved.

[AndrewTS 0]

I wasn't trying to start anything with that comment - I'm just pointing out that everytime I see you mention anything about a Rockstar game - it's usually negative. Manhunt, IMO, is the only game you've unfairly bashed - but I've yet to witness a positive comment from you about any Rockstar games and what you'd do to improve them. I'm not claming that I read every post in this forum, but I'm just saying I haven't seen it and what I have seen has always been negative.

 

When Invictus was decrying how same-y all the GTAs are, I actually pointed out some significant advances between them, and it was unfair to label them expansion packs and directly compare them to Madden, etc. However, if you want me to talk about how to improve them--I'd definitely suggest tighting up the controls and changing the aiming of weapons to make it more like Saint's Row.

 

The bolded part is a a discussion absolutely nobody cares about, because most people seem to think the games are fine the way they are or perfect. I've played the games, but wouldn't count myself a fan. That's separate from my opinion of R*--I'm not a fan, because the content/mood/theme of GTA holds little appeal for me.

 

Give me some specific examples of how the levels are dull and how the AI sucks... because I thought they were both very passable and enjoyable. You'd make a noise and the hunters would run after you - if they give up, they go back to walking the grounds. I don't see how complicated it has to be to please you. The lighting is low because that's the tone of the game. The game has a brightness feature in it, and the last time I checked, so do most televisions. Not that hard to fix if it really bothers you that much.

 

I've not played the game for years, but the levels were extremely linear, there wasn't a whole lot you could do within them--like jump to higher places and attack from below. You couldn't really hide aside from just running into the dark and behind static objects, instead of having more options like making use of the environment to give yourself different types of cover.

 

And about that AI...about "if they give up, they go back to walking the grounds?"

 

Well, the way that's done was kind of silly.

 

*runs in front of hunter*

"I see you! I see you! I'm coming to kill you! I'm chasing you! RUN! RUN! RUN! You ran into the dark! I know you're there! I called your mother a whore! I smell your funky ***!! WHERE ARE YOU!? I KNOW YOU'RE THERE!! HUNTER COMING UP THE THE HELL RIGHT NOW!!....I CAN'T FIND YOU! I DON'T SEE YOU but I know you went there! I! I! I...aw, **** it, I'm going to get laid. I'm turning my back now. I'm turning my back completely, and I'm just barely out of the dark! I'm safe! You're not there!...

 

AHHHH!! *gag,choke* YA KILLED ME!! YA KILLED ME!! *head bashed in with baseball bat*!"

 

 

Slowly killing people... isn't that what stealth is? Avoiding them. Figuring out their pattern. Sneaking up on them. Killing them. Sounds about right to me.

Did you play through the entire game, btw? Because the latter half of the game is mostly shooting and sniping and rarely gives you a chance to use the stealth killing as often as you do in the first half of the game.

 

The stealth and killing was basically all you had to do, at least for the portions I played. Other stealth games have more to them--exploring, item hunting, big explosive boss battles, platforming, etc. And no, I didn't play the entire game. I didn't put up with it that long. So I missed those parts where the gameplay actually expanded beyond that. I've heard of AI issues from that, too (guys standing in one place as you shoot them over and over), but I can't say I've experienced them first hand.

 

What's hideous to look at? That's a pretty broad statement without any real reasoning being given.

The graphics? The rendering? The static effect that overlays the screen?

.

 

I'd say the lighting and the bland environments. Everything seemed to look alike, there seemed hardly any variation. The static effect I know was intentional, but it wasn't that common. I know it's a design choice, of course. Too many areas that practically looked like a sewer, even if it was above-ground.

 

Rockstar could just sell through their site. Problem solved.

 

Sony and Nintendo still won't license the game, no matter where it is sold. Even through the website. Problem not solved until the game is a) edited and re-rated to an M , or b) the game is distributed on PC in some fashion.

[AndrewTS 0]

Retarded:

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/25/esrb-see...-game-trailers/

 

Bullshit:

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3160522

[Ripper 0]

You can add me to the "Manhunt fucking sucked" crowd too. God awful game.

[luke-o 0]

I think AndewTS hit the mark with everything that was wrong with the game.

[dubq 0]

I've not played the game for years, but the levels were extremely linear, there wasn't a whole lot you could do within them--like jump to higher places and attack from below. You couldn't really hide aside from just running into the dark and behind static objects, instead of having more options like making use of the environment to give yourself different types of cover.

 

And about that AI...about "if they give up, they go back to walking the grounds?"

 

Well, the way that's done was kind of silly.

 

*runs in front of hunter*

"I see you! I see you! I'm coming to kill you! I'm chasing you! RUN! RUN! RUN! You ran into the dark! I know you're there! I called your mother a whore! I smell your funky ***!! WHERE ARE YOU!? I KNOW YOU'RE THERE!! HUNTER COMING UP THE THE HELL RIGHT NOW!!....I CAN'T FIND YOU! I DON'T SEE YOU but I know you went there! I! I! I...aw, **** it, I'm going to get laid. I'm turning my back now. I'm turning my back completely, and I'm just barely out of the dark! I'm safe! You're not there!...

 

AHHHH!! *gag,choke* YA KILLED ME!! YA KILLED ME!! *head bashed in with baseball bat*!"

 

The stealth and killing was basically all you had to do, at least for the portions I played. Other stealth games have more to them--exploring, item hunting, big explosive boss battles, platforming, etc. And no, I didn't play the entire game. I didn't put up with it that long. So I missed those parts where the gameplay actually expanded beyond that. I've heard of AI issues from that, too (guys standing in one place as you shoot them over and over), but I can't say I've experienced them first hand.

 

I'd say the lighting and the bland environments. Everything seemed to look alike, there seemed hardly any variation. The static effect I know was intentional, but it wasn't that common. I know it's a design choice, of course. Too many areas that practically looked like a sewer, even if it was above-ground.

 

Really.. all these opinions of why the game sucked so bad are based on the first in a series. For a game to get it 100% perfect and please everyone on it's first iteration is really rare. I'll give you the AI, sure. But harping on not having enough things to hide behind, the style of stealth and killing, and the lighting and look of the levels I just can't give you. Especially when you admit you didn't even play through the entire game. If you didn't play through the game then you're only basing these opinions on the first few levels? The levels get drastically different. Yes, they're all pretty dark, but they're not all linear and exactly the same.

 

A lot of this stuff I could see as minor points in a review of how to make the sequel a little better - but these things aren't making it this horrible shitfest of a game you're making it out to be. Like I said before, I'm not a fan of the stealth genre aside from that one Tenchu game. I don't like Splinter Cell or Hitman or any of those games but I loved Manhunt because it was dark, twisted and a really fun "pick up and play" style of game.

[AndrewTS 0]

Fair enough--some people who pick it up for 12 bucks now may find value in it far exceeding the original price tag. Yet when a game's first few levels--heck the first half perhaps as you seemed to indicate earlier--seem to suffer from problems like that, it's offputting. So either you don't finish the game and you hate it, you finish the game and your opinion changes, or you finish the game and say "you know, I thought this game sucked when I first played it. Now that I've completed it, I *know* it sucks!"

 

I think the first situation will be far more common on the whole than the 2nd, and eventually the 3rd. Unless it's a well-known issue with that particular game (like, nearly all RPGs have crap beginnings, and many action titles have nearly insulting tutorials that drag on seemingly for many levels).

[Ravenbomb 0]

Most of the problems I had with Manhunt I would forgive immediately if they would just let you skip the cut scenes.

[dubq 0]

Pretty good blog entry from IGN...

http://blogs.ign.com/matt-ign

 

Adults Not Welcome

Software company executives love to draw parallels between the videogame industry and Hollywood, but I think the recent Manhunt 2 debacle shows how different the two remain. Hollywood makes movies for kids, for teens, and for adults. If you so desire, you can see an NC-17-rated movie -- you have that choice. However, according to console manufacturers like Nintendo and Sony, adult-targeted software is not welcome on Wii and PlayStation 2 respectively. You have been removed from the equation.

 

I recently gave an interview to USA Today where I spoke about how seemingly broken the videogame rating system appears to be -- partly by fault of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, which takes a look at the most offensive content in videogames and then assigns them a rating - but also because the big publishers won't license titles that don't fit snugly within the confines of the E to M standards. And also because the big retailers won't carry AO-rated titles, even if they somehow slipped by the watchdogs at the console companies.

 

So you have to wonder, why does an Adults Only rating even exist if nobody save for uncensored PC users could possibly even buy these games?

 

Nintendo calls itself "an 'and' company, not an 'or' company," and yet it has specifically told third party Rockstar that Manhunt 2 must make an M rating "or" it may as well go crawl under a rock and die. Wii is designed for everybody, from "age eight to eighty," as we've been told so many times in official Nintendo hyperbole, so I'm curious, do Adult Only games somehow miss this 72-years-wide demographic? Perhaps you need to be 81 to appreciate Manhunt 2.

 

According to the ESRB, an M-rated game should only be played by gamers ages 17-years-old and up. Mature titles encapsulate content that "may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language." I have played several hours of Manhunt 2 and I can tell you that this description very accurately describes the content housed within the game. Is it violent? Absolutely. Is the violence intense? Yes. Does it include blood and gore? Yes. What about sexual content and strong language? Check and check. That is why we have an M rating.

 

What, then, makes a game cross that unseen chasm that separates M-rated games, which frequently sell into the millions (just ask Rockstar about its GTA series) and AO-rated titles, which aren't licensed or carried by retailers, thus guaranteeing financial disaster? Well, let's go back to the ESRB ratings descriptors. Apparently, 17-year-olds just don't have the stomach for these AO-rated games and that's the real distinguisher. Sorry, teens, you're just not ready for this type of content. But tell you what, on your next birthday, it's all good. Turn 18 and you're fit for AO, baby! A mere 365 days is what distinguishes the two ratings, from what I can tell, because the qualifier for Adult Only software is otherwise unspecific at best.

 

AO-rated games may include "prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." There's the difference. Now, you could say that Manhunt 2 features prolonged scenes of violence, but that depends on how you define prolonged. As has been established, there are some particularly brutal and grotesque situations in the title, but are they prolonged? No, not really. No more than any other violent games. What is the difference between a five-second death animation in Manhunt 2 and a three-minute-long chainsaw massacre created as a gameplay objective in Scarface: The World is Yours? I would argue that the latter is more violent in many ways. At least in Manhunt 2 you're only killing one person at a time and not 10 or more. And yet, Scarface had no problem obtaining that coveted, beautiful M.

 

I think early coverage hype for Manhunt 2 may have contributed to its undoing. Too often, critics cite Manhunt 2's main character's ability to use weapons to mutilate an opponent's testicles, a mechanic only unveiled after initial eyes-on impressions by enthusiast press. Maybe it was the early buzz or the fact that Rockstar is again pushing the digital content boundaries, or maybe it's just because Manhunt 2 is coming to the family-friendly Wii, but I think the ESRB buckled, lost its nerve, and smacked the title with an unfair rating. By the Board's own definitions for M and AO-ranked software, Manhunt 2's content is at the very least open to interpretation and while it is incredibly violent, neither its violence nor sexual scenarios are more prolonged than the majority of M-rated games on the market.

 

Nintendo and Sony had the chance here to step up and to mimic Hollywood, but they both proved that even as they trumpet that videogames are all grown up, they are unwilling to let the games speak for themselves and for buyers to make up their own minds. Maybe they are collectively afraid of backlash. Certainly Nintendo has something to lose if Wii's squeaky clean image becomes tarnished by an AO game, right? I can understand that point of view, but if that is the case, let's stop with all the talk about how Wii is for everybody, unless you want AO software.

 

Imagine if DVD manufacturers like Hitachi and Samsung came out and said, "Sorry, folks, but you're NC-17 movies won't be allowed on our players." These hardware manufacturers create the platforms, but they don't police them. There is another difference between the two industries.

 

Manhunt 2 is a landmark game because it brings these issues to the forefront. Clearly, something is not quite right when consumers are not even given the option to buy a title that receives an acceptable rating by the ESRB. And clearly there is something wrong when the ESRB seems to hold some games to different standards than others. When you get a chance to play it for yourself, you will understand that it is one of the most violent and in many ways disgusting games to ever grace a console, assuming it does, but also that its content falls within the boundaries of an M rating. If not, well, then that's another bag of worms because it means there are several other M-rated titles that could just as well be rated AO, too, in my opinion.

Right now, this is just one game, but as software makers grow as storytellers, there will come a time when many games are concepted for and targeted specifically to adults. Whenever this shift happens, the ratings system will definitely need some new definitions, bare minimum, and quite possibly a complete overhaul. Perhaps then, console makers like Nintendo and Sony will also consider the possibility that their respective audiences may actually want to make their own choices about the games they buy.

 

Very well put, IMO.

[AndrewTS 0]

MS would have to be the first to make the move. Nintendo would be the very last to make a choice like that, and Sony has a far younger overall user base than the MS consoles.

[luke-o 0]

That blog was pure bullshit and missed the point with the boards desicion. And I think a lot of people have missed the point that (probably) the main reason Sony or Nintendo aren't putting this game out is to cover their own backs.

 

Nintendo calls itself "an 'and' company, not an 'or' company," and yet it has specifically told third party Rockstar that Manhunt 2 must make an M rating "or" it may as well go crawl under a rock and die. Wii is designed for everybody, from "age eight to eighty," as we've been told so many times in official Nintendo hyperbole, so I'm curious, do Adult Only games somehow miss this 72-years-wide demographic? Perhaps you need to be 81 to appreciate Manhunt 2.

 

Imagine if you will, Nintendo are the only company to put this game out. A week or so later, a teen goes out and kills someone in a brutal way. Now this kid is probably mentally disturbed and would have committed this awful crime no matter what, but the police discover a Nintendo Wii and a copy of Manhunt 2 in his room. Who are the police and more importanly the media going to point the finger at? Rockstar and of course, Nintendo. Rockstar get a lot of bad publicity as it as and they will most likley see it as a good thing, but "family friendly" Nintendo will not take it so well. They will have media bashings for ever and ever being "blamed" for this crime as they were the ONLY ones to put the game out. The same goes for Sony or MS.

 

The American ratings board are giving this game an AO rating to cover thier backs and Sony/Nintendo/MS are not putting these games out to cover thier backs.

 

I can fully understand the fear of rating games like this. It is different to watching a film, just as ratings boards look again at films when rating them on DVD. Its not only the fact that you as a player are doing these truly horrible things, but theres also the replay value.

 

Now im sure many people here will argue with it and a lot of internet geeks will piss and moan because they cant play a game where they can more than likely rip out someones testicles whilst raping a cat and watching porn all the while taking class A drugs and poking their victims eyes out with a rusty screwdriver, but the point still stands.

 

Having said all of that, the only thing that all this media hoo-har has done has made people want to play the game more. So if and when Rockstar change the game, people are going to go ape shit for buying this game just too see what the fuss was about. And after all that, they will more than likely realise that the game is just as shit, if not shitter, than the first game.

[AndrewTS 0]

Having said all of that, the only thing that all this media hoo-har has done has made people want to play the game more. So if and when Rockstar change the game, people are going to go ape shit for buying this game just too see what the fuss was about. And after all that, they will more than likely realise that the game is just as shit, if not shitter, than the first game.

 

If the game isn't solid, though, the only ones who will rush out and buy it are going to be the small amount of gamers who adore the first title. WOM can kill in hardcore gaming circles, considering most gamers are young, net-savvy, opinionated folks. Plus R* games aren't low-profile titles that can be easily moneyhatted to respectable sales. GTAIV may be money in the bank waiting to happen, but MH2 is going to be under a lot of critical scrutiny when and if it does release.

[luke-o 0]

I agree on some levels, but when the Church of England (Manchester in particular) kicked up a fuss about Resitance: Fall Of Man due to you shooting in a church based on the one found in Manchester, we (Gamestation) sold a lot more copies of the game. People who owned PS3's bought the game to see what the fuss was about and people who had traded the game back to us bought it again for similar reasons.

[AndrewTS 0]

Maybe, but how long did that last?