The ESRB: The Achilles' Heel of Creativity Within This Medium

A few month ago I wrote a lengthy post regarding the parallels between the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Electronic Software Ratings Board (ESRB) My thesis essentially stated that these two entities were literally interchangeable in their respective capacities and that both organizations had implemented a ratings system that was arbitrary and simultaneously harmful to the creative process. Both the ESRB and the MPAA employ the feedback of non-artistic people to decide the ratings of both motion pictures and videogame software. These pedestrians then utilize an unpublished rubric to determine the rating a game or film will receive based on the content of the submitted product. As most of you are aware, this rating in turn greatly affects the way a film or game will be marketed as well as where the product can be distributed to consumers. All of this can affect potential revenue and the difference between a PG-13 and an R or an M and AO can literally be millions of dollars.

The real controversy began when Manhunt 2 was assigned an ESRB rating of AO (Adults Only), meaning the game wouldn't be allowed on any of the current consoles due to the restrictions of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Even assuming the big three relaxed or abolished this archaic policy, most retailers, including Wal-Mart, will not carry AO rated titles. Basically, this reduces the AO rating to something completely useless since the rating has no practical application. It is the equivalent of manufacturing a car that can't be legally driven on any public road on the planet.

The crux of my argument was that the AO rating, much like the MPAA rating of NC-17, is a mostly useless brand that forces artists, developers and designers to censor their work or risk losing millions. These respective ratings, decided by soccer moms, religious leaders and other non-artistic individuals, are wielded like a blunt form of censorship, forcing creative minds to tone down and alter their work for the sake of a rating.

Fast forward to present day. Manhunt 2 is being toned downed and re-released with an M rating. How extensive the editing was to achieve this M rating hasn't been made public but the developers have not been shy in stating that the M rated version of Manhunt 2 is different from their original vision. Many people have greeted this news with a mixture of relief and annoyance but the general consensus is that those of us who wanted to play this game are happy to do so regardless of the edits. Even I find myself placated by this news despite my strong misgivings regarding the roundabout censorship facilitated by the flawed ESRB rating system. A compromised product is better than no product at all, right?

Maybe not.

This last weekend I picked up the Director's Cut of the film Troy, an epic motion picture based on the Homer classic The Iliad. The term director's cut is tossed around liberally in the DVD marketplace and usually denotes a gimmick that has five or ten extra minutes of useless footage spliced into the theatrical cut. Occasionally however, a studio will actually invest money into a restoration project and allow a film to be professionally re-edited and re-mixed to create an entirely new and often superior cut of the film. Most recently this was done to Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, which received a significant overhaul including nearly an hour of added footage and subsequently completely outclassed the theatrical version.

Wolfgang Peterson, the director of Troy, was also given permission and resources by Warner Bros. to re-cut and alter the film to match his original vision. The end result is a version that adds nearly forty minutes of footage, replaces an entire soundtrack, and ultimately forges a superior print of an already solid film.

What struck me as particularly interesting while watching this Director's Cut was the increased violence quotient that saturated every battle scene. Peterson's original intent was to show war as a horrific, violent and brutal venture, particularly during the age of the sword and spear. The MPAA forced him to tone down the level of violence and gore before they would assign it an R rating, essentially muting his original artistic vision and compromising the integrity of his work. Having seen the theatrical cut numerous times, I can attest to the striking differences between it and the Director's Cut. Blood flows more freely and the consequences of violence are shown without the relief afforded by cutting away from the spectacle. When Achilles' cousin is slain by Hector, the uncut version shows his open throat wound, a gaping, ragged slit that convulses as the boy dies. This violence is neither gratuitous nor excessive but rather an honest and accurate representation of violence in this era.

This superior cut of the film got me thinking about the impending release of Manhunt 2. With the game being toned downed and altered to meet the M rating, I sincerely ponder what the original game played like before being censored. While some people may argue that a few bits of trimmed down gore and sexuality will not overtly alter the quality of the game, I can't say I feel secure in that assessment after seeing firsthand what a few seconds of added footage can do for a scene in a film. The truth is that Manhunt 2, regardless of quality, isn't being released as intended by its creators and that is a reality I consider unfortunate.

Those of you indifferent to violent games like Manhunt 2 hopefully still watch these recent events with interest, as this issue isn't merely about one game but rather a rating system that impedes free expression and limits our choices as consumers. To be fair, much of the responsibility falls to Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony for allowing the ESRB to wield so much power unchecked and for their respective policies barring the release of AO games on their consoles. What these companies and their rating system are essentially doing is taking the choice out of your hands and deciding the limits of content for all of us. Like I stated in my earlier discussion, offering a rating that has no viable application is the equivalent of not offering such a rating at all. It is censorship by default and by allowing an independent board to decide the ratings of videogames, these companies are effectively distancing themselves from any fallout over expression and censorship issues.

Whether or not you personally object to the content of games like Manhunt 2 is incidental. In any society that elevates and promotes freedom of the individual as the ultimate ideology, censorship and the restriction of creativity should never be tolerated. At the same time, what, if anything, can we do as consumers?

In all truthfulness I'm a bit torn. I was a fan of Manhunt and I very much want to play Manhunt 2 but at the same time I feel uncomfortable supporting this type of backhanded censorship. The big three are passing the buck to the ESRB, a panel of people who don't share our interests as consumers. We pay good money for these games and the thought of playing something that was edited and dulled based on the whim of a pedestrian makes my physically ill.

I'll probably end up buying Manhunt 2 when it releases next month. What the hell, I'm weak. But I can't help but wonder what could have been and what I'm missing out on and I remain very unhappy with the ratings system and the way it is being implemented.For the prices we are paying for software, we deserve the right to make these choices for ourselves.

Great post. Just like in that other thread, I fully agree with your stance on this matter. After the whole Manhunt issue, I decided to take things a bit further than the ocassional blog rant, and actually sent emails to Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and the ESRB.

This is, verbatim, the response I got from the ESRB:

Thank you for contacting the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). We are always interested to hear from those who use the ratings, and appreciate your taking the time to write to us with your thoughts and comments.

It's important to note that the ESRBis an organization that rates computer and video games in terms of content and age-appropriateness so that consumers, especially parents, can make educated purchase decisions.We do not create, publish, sell or distribute any entertainment software, nor is it our role to censor games that are submitted to be rated. Our job is to ensure that the product isreliably labeled andappropriately marketed.

ESRB raters are trained to consider a wide range of pertinent content and other elements in assigning a rating. Pertinent content is any content that accurately reflects both the most extreme content of the final product - in terms of relevant rating criteria such as violence, language, sexuality, gambling, and alcohol, tobacco and drug reference or use; and the final product as a whole - demonstrating the game's context (such as setting, storyline and objectives) and relative frequency of extreme content. Due to the unique interactive characteristics of games, the ESRB rating system goes beyond other entertainment systems by also taking into account elements such as the reward system and the degree of player control.

As you are aware, ESRB has assigned an AO (Adults Only 18+) rating to Manhunt 2 for the Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation 2 (PS2) and Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP). The publisher of the game now has a couple of options (e.g., modify the game's content and resubmit it for rating or appeal the rating to an appeals board) to explore. In the meantime, ESRB stands firmly behind the rating assigned to the original submission of the game. The AO rating is our most restrictive rating, and it was assigned in this case based on the consideration of numerous factors that raters take into account each time they rate a game. We are aware of the fact that the AO rating does pose a challenge to game publishers, in that most major retailers currently choose not to sell AO-rated games, and the console manufacturers (Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony) have not allowed AO-rated games to be published for their platforms.

These circumstances, which are beyond the ESRB's control and do not factor into our rating assignments, are a significant reason why most games which receive the AO rating from ESRB end up being modified and resubmitted in order to receive a rating that would allow for them to be played on game systems and sold to the public. The ESRB rating system is designed to ensure that all games are evaluated as fairly andreliably as possible. However, in a country as diverse as ours, with its broad spectrum of values and tastes, it is inevitable that some will disagree. That being said, the ESRB regularly commissions independent researchers to measure public awareness, use and agreement with the ratings. Our most recent surveys found that the vast majority of the time (82%), parents agree with the rating assigned by ESRB, while 5% of the time they thought the rating was "too strict." This level of agreement reflects the cultural norm in this diverse country of ours, and we will continue to ensure that our ratings continue to reliably reflect that norm.

The interests of gamers, parents, and other consumers are best served by having an effective self-regulatory body, whose actions are objective, judicious and fair. We regret that you did not find the ESRB rating in this caseto be useful or in agreement with your individual tastes, but sincerely appreciate your taking the time to express your opinion on this issue.

Regards, Entertainment Software Rating Board

This was Nintendo of America's response:

Hello,

We appreciate your sharing your comments regarding Manhunt 2. I'd like to point out that at this time the ESRB has not provided us with an official rating for this title. However, I can confirm that Nintendo does not allow any AO-rated content on its systems, nor do we comment on independent third-party projects--including ones that have yet to receive an official rating from the ESRB.

That said, I will pass along your comments to the appropriate department for further review. As soon as we get information concerning the release of Manhunt 2, we'll be sure to post those details on our website (www.nintendo.com). Please stay tuned!


Nintendo of America Inc.
R.M. Rickets

This was Sony's response:

Thank you for writing us.

We value your input and appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Please rest assured that we
will convey your feedback to Sony Computer Entertainment America's ("SCEA") appropriate management.

I've yet to receive Microsoft's response.

Like I wrote elsewhere, this wasn't merely about what exactly had to be cut off from the game, but mainly because of the fact that a developer studio had to alter their original vision in order to comply with some murky set of guidelines which would allow the software to see daylight.

I proposed a point to someone a while ago regarding this whole issue. Some people talk about how some content shouldn't be on the market at all, because of the notion that no matter what is done, children will get their hands on it. The problem with such a premise is that you are presented with two extremes:

1. Remove all restraints regarding what sort of content can be created, and be made available to the public, while having restraints on the retailer/parental level to prevent minors from getting direct access at content that would be possibly problematic, which places responsibility into the hands of consumers and individuals regarding what they (and their children) view.

or

2. Remove content that might be problematic for children in the first place, and remove responsibility from everyone by having stark levels of censorship at the creation level.

As you say, the problem in this whole realm is not that there's a board administering ratings, but the fact that there's a rating that these boards can administer that effectively turns into a ban on the movie/game. Realistically, no one benefits from such a system, at all, outside of people who don't want to take responsibility and try to control access to products in a better fashion.

I know someone that's working on Manhunt 2. Suffice to say, he wasn't too thrilled about the rating they were given.

I'm from Europe and I'm still not sure what version of the game are we going to get here. Most European countries can't ban games regardless of their rating, but Rockstar is still waiting for the British ban to get resolved. Even though Britain is one of the bigger markets, I still wish Rockstar would just release the uncensored version in the rest of Europe. However, there is hope that the BBFC's decision will be overturned as was the case with Carmageddon - the only other gamethat was (initially) banned in Britain. If the ban holds up, there's also the grim possibility that Rockstar chooses to release the censored game world-wide so that all versions remain the same.

I've talked a lot about this and at this point there's not much that comes to mind except that I'm not happy. I'm sad, disappointed, and frustrated with the direction the game industry is heading - sending a clear message that games are meant--first and foremost--for children. The ESRB is just part of the problem - reality is that ESRB, ESA, console manufacturers, and retailers are all just covering each others asses and leaving Rockstar (and other creative developers) high and dry.

They are sending a message that themes on real-world issues are simply not appropriate for the medium. If the problem was really within the violence itself, then how are games like Gears of War and The Darkness getting M ratings? Did anyone see Ninja Gaiden 2? The level of violence and its portrayal is far more graphic than in Manhunt. The only conclusion that I have managed to come to is that splitting a humanoid creature apart with a chainsaw, decapitating and maiming ninjas, and killing humans in horrific ways with the help of a couple of tenticles and goblins is a-ok...I suppose that if Manhunt was set in Forgotten Realms and depicted the slaughtering of elves and orcs, it would be a-ok as well.

The truly unfortunate aspect of games is that they are not afforded a Director's Cut. Films can be released unrated in retail outlets and most stores will carry these uncut versions without concern.

There is no way we will get the AO version of Manhunt in the U.S. unless the entire industry shifts.

Film makers have an outlet for the unrated or NC-17 films with their DVD releases. Game developers also have an outlet for AO games if they are truly interested. There isn't anything preventing them from releasing AO versions on the PC. Even if they develop two versions, not too different from what the film industry does to release a copy mainstream, they could capitalize on the stores with an MA version and have an AO version availble through direct download. The additional cost to release a boxed version would probably be price comparable to the cost of age verification (probably credit card and driver's license) on the direct download copy allowing them to be priced the same. About the only downside is in regards to additional resources spent during development. But, if you use Manhunt 2 as an example, they had to spend those extra resources anyways to release an MA version.

However, I just don't see good AO games being made until a developer finally grows some balls and decides to release an AO game via direct download. It'd be nice to see an actual AO game, that's good, rather than the current AO "games" that that are really just interactive porn.

Film makers have an outlet for the unrated or NC-17 films with their DVD releases. Game developers also have an outlet for AO games if they are truly interested. There isn't anything preventing them from releasing AO versions on the PC. Even if they develop two versions, not too different from what the film industry does to release a copy mainstream, they could capitalize on the stores with an MA version and have an AO version availble through direct download. The additional cost to release a boxed version would easily pay for age verification (probably credit card and driver's license) on the direct download copy allowing them to be priced the same. About the only downside is in regards to additional resources spent during development. But, if you use Manhunt 2 as an example, they had to spend those extra resources anyways to release an MA version.

However, I just don't see good AO games being made until a developer finally grows some balls and decides to release an AO game via direct download. It'd be nice to see an actual AO game, that's good, rather than the current AO "games" that that are really just interactive porn.

Skie7

The problem with direct download is that the percentage of consumers who actually use it is relatively small. Even if publishers opted to go this route, it would still do nothing for consoles.

As for AO games being interactive porn, that really is a misnomer. THQ's The Punisher was threatened with an AO rating until they scaled down the violence and the Manhunt 2rating is supposedly also rooted primarily in violence. People assume AO equals sexual situations but more often than not the reason for the AO rating is violence.

Film makers have an outlet for the unrated or NC-17 films with their DVD releases. Game developers also have an outlet for AO games if they are truly interested. There isn't anything preventing them from releasing AO versions on the PC.Skie7

It's not really the same at all. Unrated films can still be sold at any retailer and can be played on any DVD-player out there. An AO-rated game can only be sold through digital download and can be played on PC only. It has no chance of reaching the same audience as an unrated film and would most likely end up being a commercial disaster. I do agree that Rockstar should definitely release an unrated version of Manhunt 2 through Steam, or something.

The problem with direct download is that the percentage of consumers who actually use it is relatively small. Even if publishers opted to go this route, it would still do nothing for consoles.

As for AO games being interactive porn, that really is a misnomer. THQ's The Punisher was threatened with an AO rating until they scaled down the violence and the Manhunt 2rating is supposedly also rooted primarily in violence. People assume AO equals sexual situations but more often than not the reason for the AO rating is violence.Grammaton-Cleric

You're right, DD doesn't bring nearly the same amount of sales as having a game on store shelves which is why they release two versions. Considering companies have to go back and adjust their game to remove content for an MA rating anyways, there's little reason these days not to release the AO copy.

The real problem is development on consoles, which is primarily about the developer and/or publisher wanting to get the most money out of the game. With that, I think it's ridiculous for the developers and/or gamers to cry about not being able to release or play an AO game. The developers are choosing the console over a platform that does not prohibit AO games. The gamers are choosing to purchase a platform that prohibits AO games.

While sexual content isn't necessarily the reason for an AO rating, games with sexual content are, almost exclusively, the only AO games released to the market.

Unrated films can still be sold at any retailer and can be played on any DVD-player out there. An AO-rated game can only be sold through digital download and can be played on PC only. It has no chance of reaching the same audience as an unrated film and would most likely end up being a commercial disaster.UpInFlames

Consoles aren't the same as DVD-players. I can't just put any game in one and start playing it. I can't throw Halo 3 into my Wii and start playing. It's really uncomparable because games have to be licensed (or risk legal action) for a game to be released on the console.

Considering the PC is the platform that has been paving the way for innovation and revolution in gaming for 30-40 years now, I don't see how it's a bad thing that it's the only place AO is, currently, able to be released. (Yeah, it sucks if you want to play an AO game and you're not a PC gamer, but you choose a platform that doesn't allow AO.) It'd probably only take a few good and successful AO games hitting the PC to make the big three look at changing their current AO strategy.

AO games have other options than direct download. You can obtain AO games through Amazon. There's nothing to prevent a retailer from selling AO games. Many retailers have a policy where they won't sell them, but the choice is made by their executives. But, that doesn't prevent you from opening a gaming store and selling AO games.

UpInFlames Games
We sell AO* games.
AO* - Must be 18 or older

I think you're making a mountain over a molehill. I dont think its really that big of an issue.

The developers can still make the version however they want. Its not illegal by any means and the developers are certainly not forced to censor their work at all. It just so happens that other retailers follow the ESRB as a standard. Thats not really ESRB's fault that Walmart chooses not to stock AO titles that were rated by the ESRB.

Also i have less sympathy for this issue because it largely remains as single incident of this problem, and its very obvious the developer's entire idea was to get sales by distinguishing their game with high levels of gore and shock value. Not that i have anything agaisnt gore and blood, but im pretty agaisnt using something so lame as a gimmick for extra sales.... hardly "artistic freedom" in my definition and more of "edgy marketing."

I also find myself torn about whether to get this game or not, if we do get the butchered version in Europe.

I don't know whether playing the censored version is really preferable to not playing the game at all. I also don't know whether buying the game is a sign of support to Rockstar anymore than it's a sign of support to the people responsible for this whole mess.

Our most recent surveys found that the vast majority of the time (82%), parents agree with the rating assigned by ESRB, while 5% of the time they thought the rating was "too strict."SteelAttack

I think you're making a mountain over a molehill. I dont think its really that big of an issue.

The developers can still make the version however they want. Its not illegal by any means and the developers are certainly not forced to censor their work at all. It just so happens that other retailers follow the ESRB as a standard. Thats not really ESRB's fault that Walmart chooses not to stock AO titles that were rated by the ESRB.

Also i have less sympathy for this issue because it largely remains as single incident of this problem, and its very obvious the developer's entire idea was to get sales by distinguishing their game with high levels of gore and shock value. Not that i have anything agaisnt gore and blood, but im pretty agaisnt using something so lame as a gimmick for extra sales.... hardly "artistic freedom" in my definition and more of "edgy marketing."

XaosII

Furthermore, how can you substantiate the claim that the level of violence/gore in Manhunt 2 was /only/ used as a gimmick for extra sales, and not done because it was asetetically appropriate to do so given the genre of the game, and the type of emotions that the developer wanted to evoke through the game? You can claim it to be obvious, but as far as I'm concerned, it's nothing but your opinion on the matter, and hardly anything that can be treated as a statement of truth, personally.

[QUOTE="SteelAttack"]Our most recent surveys found that the vast majority of the time (82%), parents agree with the rating assigned by ESRB, while 5% of the time they thought the rating was "too strict."Greyhound222

It's an issue that involves several parties outside of the ESRB, for sure, but part of the matter is the ESRB's somewhat inconsistant approach to rating games at times, and how the ratings tend to treat games in a stronger light as something that's /meant/ for children first and foremost, and not a medium that can have equal appeal and intention for a much wider audience.

The real problem is Art vs. Commercial Product. If designers are creating games to be Art, then they should realize that it will never be commercially viable. Art is a very niche product that only a few can make successful. In the industry today, its all about a commercial product selling than creating a piece of art, and commercial product is subject to the values of the common consumer and the perceptions of said consumer.Brain3000

The decisions by the ESRB, and moreso retailers and console manfuacturers, removes the values of the common consumer from the equation ultimately, because they're making choices /for/ you, as opposed you to making choices for yourself.

[QUOTE="Brain3000"]The real problem is Art vs. Commercial Product. If designers are creating games to be Art, then they should realize that it will never be commercially viable. Art is a very niche product that only a few can make successful. In the industry today, its all about a commercial product selling than creating a piece of art, and commercial product is subject to the values of the common consumer and the perceptions of said consumer.Skylock00

Which is also why I said the perceptions of said consumer too. Like it or not, the gaming industry still has the stigma of not being something for adults, so in the interest of selling product, the companies that make most of their money off of those games(console makers) make sure not to harm said image.
Brain3000

The perception is one that is imposed and retained by people who don't have a point of reference regarding this industry, and shouldn't be affecting this industry in the manner that they are (if at all).

Again, even if this was the case, if we're talking about the common consumer, there's only one realm where the common consumer has the choice regarding whether something is appropraite for their own purchasing ability - the actual retail front. If something is removed from being in that front, then all talks about the perception and values of the common consumer are gone, because there is no opportunity for it to be even expressed.

You can say what you want, but the point of the matter is that Manhunt 2 isn't the first game that had to alter its content to be able to be made commercially available to the public (especially for reasons that we'll probably never know, which I'm still upset about), it won't be the last game to make the same sort of changes, and the basis by which the ESRB administers ratings is anything but consistant.

Furthermore, how can you substantiate the claim that the level of violence/gore in Manhunt 2 was /only/ used as a gimmick for extra sales, and not done because it was asetetically appropriate to do so given the genre of the game, and the type of emotions that the developer wanted to evoke through the game? You can claim it to be obvious, but as far as I'm concerned, it's nothing but your opinion on the matter, and hardly anything that can be treated as a statement of truth, personally.Skylock00

Yeah, im not stating anything as fact. Just my opinion. I think only the developers themselves could state the truth.

I think that they were realying on the heavy gore aspect for sales, but they are changing it because they need to get a larger audience availiable. If it truly was for the "artistic expression" then why not release it as AO and let the title speak for itself?

I guess the easiest argument to that is "Well, they have to make a profit and they'd likely lose considerably sales by making AO only." You're absultely right, but thats the exact reason why think they implemented the heavy gore in the first place (with the assumption that they were going to get M rating only) - to make a profit attracting considerable sales from heavy gore.

I dont think the gore is only for sales. It obviously fits into the theme of the game. But to the level that they must have had it was solely only for artistic expression? thats just as unlikely as the gore being only for sales.

I think that they were realying on the heavy gore aspect for sales, but they are changing it because they need to get a larger audience availiable. If it truly was for the "artistic expression" then why not release it as AO and let the title speak for itself?

I guess the easiest argument to that is "Well, they have to make a profit and they'd likely lose considerably sales by making AO only." You're absultely right, but thats the exact reason why think they implemented the heavy gore in the first place (with the assumption that they were going to get M rating only) - to make a profit attracting considerable sales from heavy gore.

I dont think the gore is only for sales. It obviously fits into the theme of the game. But to the level that they must have had it was solely only for artistic expression? thats just as unlikely as the gore being only for sales.XaosII

The point being though is that even if they were doing things like this 'only' for sales, that's part of giving people artistic/creative freedom, to make anything they want for whatever reason they want. Furthermore, we can't comment on the extent of the gore, because we have never actually been shown what the extent of the gore originally was, and aside from a few comments from some previewers regarding a particular action that could be done here and there, most impressions stated that the level of gore was no worse , really, than the original Manhunt, which was rated M. In a sense, Manhunt 2 is going to be more tame than Manhunt 1, given what new impressions claim.

Now, the point regarding releasing the game as AO, I don't think developers would have a problem doing that...if there was any sort of reasonable, viable means of doing so, which there isn't. As indicated by others, movies can be releaed, un-rated, in stores like Walmart for consumer consumption without anyone batting an eyelash, so it just seems sort of counterproductive for people like walmart and console manufacturers to have the sort of mentality they do regarding AO games.

An AO rating flat out means that you can't lisence the game on any major console, and you can't have the game be carried in retail markets, making the only means of even selling the game being through online dealers and direct download measures, neither of which would probably be able to work well enough to allow the publisher to make a return on their investment, especially given a probable lack of ability to effectively advertise the product, as well.

[QUOTE="Greyhound222"][QUOTE="SteelAttack"]Our most recent surveys found that the vast majority of the time (82%), parents agree with the rating assigned by ESRB, while 5% of the time they thought the rating was "too strict."Skylock00

It's an issue that involves several parties outside of the ESRB, for sure, but part of the matter is the ESRB's somewhat inconsistant approach to rating games at times, and how the ratings tend to treat games in a stronger light as something that's /meant/ for children first and foremost, and not a medium that can have equal appeal and intention for a much wider audience.

Yes,and the fact that they give this game an AO to prevent children from getting it is sad,if anything.If it's sold to minors,it's the retailer's problem.Greyhound222

No, it's the parents' problem.

Great post man, well thought out and somewhat eloquent in its writing. I agree totally with all of your points. If a game gets an AO rating that should be the end of it but no you can't play it because its not safe for people who are old enough to buy it.

I believe that's an incorrect statement of free speech law, and it'd be wiser to be careful and hesitant, like Grammaton's posts, but that never stopped anyone here from running roughshod over vast expanses of law and politics.

I remember what Stanley Kubrick was made to do in the American version of his final film. Place fake-looking cut-outs of people all over certain scenes.

Consoles aren't the same as DVD-players. I can't just put any game in one and start playing it. I can't throw Halo 3 into my Wii and start playing. It's really uncomparable because games have to be licensed (or risk legal action) for a game to be released on the console.Skie7

You were the one making a comparison, I was stating how your example was flawed and non-comparable.

In what possible way is having a single platform that allows AO-rated games (to an extent) a good thing? You also need to understand that Manhunt 2 is NOT a PC game, and all the evidence indicates that the ESRB's decision is one made out of fear of backlash as most previews (along with the leaked footage I've personally seen) indicate that Manhunt 2 is now actually tamer than its predecessor.

I think the ESRB is fairly wacky, but it is an industry created organization isn't it? It is not government censorship, and in the end without the ESRB wouldn't there almost certainly be some government involvement? or yet another industry organization created?

I'm not sure I see many alternatives.

I'm also never sure how to approach these issues when it comes to the issue of artistic freedom. People can make whatever games they wish. Nobody can stop people from making these games. Selling them in stores on the other hand the ESRB has a pretty good lock on as the retailers use it as a guide. So then what are we talking about? Artistic freedom or the ability to make a buck?duxup

I think the solution is very simple - an independant ratings panel that doesn't have the ability to ban games and making all the ratings applicable in the real world (the AO rating is arbitrary and useless as it is equal to a game without a rating). Of course, a lot of people in power have a vested interest that that doesn't happen as games are still widely percieved as entertainment--first and foremost--for children.

I don't think artistic freedom automatically cancels the commercial aspect of the game and vice versa. The ESRB along with console manifacturers and retailers are indeed stopping developers from making certain games - the argument that developers can release these games while sacrificing other factors in the process is a weak one, in my opinion. They are doing everything they possibly can to stop these games from reaching the market, and are also denying the consumers right to decide for themselves.

I never made any actual claims as to what the intent of the creator is, because I have no basis for making such a claim.

The point being though is that even if they were doing things like this 'only' for sales, that's part of giving people artistic/creative freedom, to make anything they want for whatever reason they want. Furthermore, we can't comment on the extent of the gore, because we have never actually been shown what the extent of the gore originally was, and aside from a few comments from some previewers regarding a particular action that could be done here and there, most impressions stated that the level of gore was no worse , really, than the original Manhunt, which was rated M. In a sense, Manhunt 2 is going to be more tame than Manhunt 1, given what new impressions claim.

Now, the point regarding releasing the game as AO, I don't think developers would have a problem doing that...if there was any sort of reasonable, viable means of doing so, which there isn't. As indicated by others, movies can be releaed, un-rated, in stores like Walmart for consumer consumption without anyone batting an eyelash, so it just seems sort of counterproductive for people like walmart and console manufacturers to have the sort of mentality they do regarding AO games.

An AO rating flat out means that you can't lisence the game on any major console, and you can't have the game be carried in retail markets, making the only means of even selling the game being through online dealers and direct download measures, neither of which would probably be able to work well enough to allow the publisher to make a return on their investment, especially given a probable lack of ability to effectively advertise the product, as well.

Skylock00

My claim for stating the creators intent isnt anything more than my own speculation. Of course, we can agree or disagree and we'll never know since im very doubtful we'll hear the truth from the developers.

Where am i coming up with this claim? I think its a bit obvious that their need to create a profitable product exceeds that of expressing themselves artistically. Based on their reaction, i think, they'd rather want the game on shelves and an M rating than even bother contesting the AO rating for sake of their artistic expression. Funnily enough though, ESRB might be a censor, but in this particular case its much more likely that the publisher was the real censor by telling the developers to tone it down for the sake of having an accessible product. Im aware of the implications of an AO console title being far too risky to effectively market and sell it.

Is it the ESRB's fault that Ninty, Sony, and MS have a no AO policy? I dont think so.

Is it the ESRB's fault for giving it an AO rating? I dont think so either. Their job is to rate, not actually suppress the content within the game.

Is it the publishers fault for suppressing content in order to sell? Not exactly either. Its reasonable for a company to make investments to maximize their returns, even if it includes censoring content on one of their products.

The ESRB doesnt control what a publisher's game has and doesnt have. The console manufacturers doesnt control the ESRB's rating. The publishers dont control the manufacturer's policies. The limited amount of power each party has makes it a bit strange in a situation like this. And in this situation its the publisher that decided to censor rather than fight for "the developer's artistic freedom." And in the end, i dont think its a big deal. Its one incident that no party felt it was worth fighting for.

In what possible way is having a single platform that allows AO-rated games (to an extent) a good thing? You also need to understand that Manhunt 2 is NOT a PC game, and all the evidence indicates that the ESRB's decision is one made out of fear of backlash as most previews (along with the leaked footage I've personally seen) indicate that Manhunt 2 is now actually tamer than its predecessor.UpInFlames

Having a platform that allows AO content means that developers can make AO games. That's why it's a good thing. I honestly don't see Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo suddenly opening their consoles to AO rated games. Since their is no licensing requirement for the PC, it's going to be the platform to open the door for mainstream AO games.

I understand Manhunt 2 is not a PC game. The point is that there is a platform where developers have the artistic freedom to release AO content. It doesn't really matter the reasons why ESRB gave it an AO rating. It happened and the game had to be edited to release it on the intended platforms.

I think the ESRB is fairly wacky, but it is an industry created organization isn't it? It is not government censorship, and in the end without the ESRB wouldn't there almost certainly be some government involvement? or yet another industry organization created?

I'm not sure I see many alternatives.

I'm also never sure how to approach these issues when it comes to the issue of artistic freedom. People can make whatever games they wish. Nobody can stop people from making these games. Selling them in stores on the other hand the ESRB has a pretty good lock on as the retailers use it as a guide. So then what are we talking about? Artistic freedom or the ability to make a buck?duxup

I think the solution is very simple - an independant ratings panel that doesn't have the ability to ban games and making all the ratings applicable in the real world (the AO rating is arbitrary and useless as it is equal to a game without a rating). Of course, a lot of people in power have a vested interest that that doesn't happen as games are still widely percieved as entertainment--first and foremost--for children.

I don't think artistic freedom automatically cancels the commercial aspect of the game and vice versa. The ESRB along with console manifacturers and retailers are indeed stopping developers from making certain games - the argument that developers can release these games while sacrificing other factors in the process is a weak one, in my opinion. They are doing everything they possibly can to stop these games from reaching the market, and are also denying the consumers right to decide for themselves.UpInFlames

I really don't think an independent ratings panel is going to be much different the ESRB. You're still going to end up with a rating that's the equivelant of AO. You're still going to end up with a panel that is influenced by the world it lives in. And, you're still going to have a panel of humans that results in inconsistent ratings. And, you're still going to have console manufacturers that refuse to license games with a certain rating.

But, developers can bypass console manufacturers and retailers with PC and direct download. Because of this, I would say they're just as responsible for the lack of AO games. An AO game may not be commercially viable, but when developers go back and cut content to get the commercially viable MA rating there's nothing preventing them from releasing two versions.

The ESRB doesnt control what a publisher's game has and doesnt have. The console manufacturers doesnt control the ESRB's rating. The publishers dont control the manufacturer's policies. The limited amount of power each party has makes it a bit strange in a situation like this. And in this situation its the publisher that decided to censor rather than fight for "the developer's artistic freedom." And in the end, i dont think its a big deal. Its one incident that no party felt it was worth fighting for.XaosII

I think this paragraph really sums everything up nicely. If there was a thumbs up or a clap emoticon, I'd add it.

Personally, I don't think R* is trying to make any resounding artistic statement with Manhunt. In my opinion, the gratuitous use of much more cynical and sadistic displays of violence generates interest from you, the public. With your interest peaked, you will now be more likely to purchase the game in order to support their "vision." They're using what's "taboo" as a marketing tactic. (Maybe I'm wrong about Rockstar on this, though. :-D)

Granted, I do agree with you about the effects of ratings system. It's unnecessary and unfortunate that we are forced to accept adulterated forms of games at the discretion of the ESRB. I'm not against classifying age appropriateness, but I don't like the fact that developers are forced to compromise some aspects of their projects in order to get it to market.

When Achilles' cousin is slain by Hector, the uncut version shows his open throat wound, a gaping, ragged slit that convulses as the boy dies. This violence is neither gratuitous nor excessive but rather an honest and accurate representation of violence in this era. Grammaton-Cleric

This is a complete aside, but I recently saw Eastern Promises in a theatre last week and saw two people killed in the exact same manner. In fact, it could be deemed even more gruesome due to the use of a straight edge and a vicious sawing motion. I'm not sure if the MPAA standards have changed in the last few years, but this seems like a glaring inconsistency to me.

Also, I found an interesting link regarding the ESRB and marketing. Apparently the ESRB has a subset that deals with advertising called ARC. While I'm not much of a fan of advertising, it's still an interesting read nonetheless.