Action against the ESRB!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="kakkarott23"]The ESRB is saying that they "feel"the game is to violent. They "feel" that the public should not experience it. They "feel" they know best. Their moral objection is in direct odds with my wanting to play this game, that is how I'm affected, and one thing leads to another and soon games will all be bubble wrapped carbon copies of censored crud.I don't understand a lot of the arguments being made. The job of the ESRB is to evaluate a game and asign it a rating to inform customers. They gave it a rating. Retailers choose not to stock AO games. The console makers choose not to have these titles on their systems. That is their business right. I am sure there is a clause in the contracts that third parties sign saying that AO games will not be released.
I don't see how this is violating anyone's rights. Can anyone show me how they are personally being censored?
chris_wing
The ESRB feels that the game should be played by adults only. They did their job. Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target, Gamestop, EB Games......etc in the US do not carry AO games. this is their legal right to choose what products they carry on their shelves. Nintendo and Sony choose not to allow third parties release AO games on their systems for probably two of many reasons.
1) The games will not sell well because there will be limited places to buy the game from
2) This could effect sales of their other products due to negative publicity and possible boycotts.
None of this effects your legal rights. This is a matter of Nintendo and Sony executing their legal rights not to provide licenses to a publisher that didn't follow their contracts. Morality doesn't replace someones legal rights. You don't have a legal right to this game. You are just pissed cause you can't have it.
well, i really don't know what to say everyone is going crazy over this matter. I do have a point for the guy whose in the army though. Alright well you say that you hunt and that you've been in the army and have been forced to kill somebody(s). But this isn't really a game that forces you to kill somebody (they do froce you to kill people but its more then that) they make you torture the people like another poster said. Which is illegal even the army isnt allowed to torture people. Anyway i think the esrb was right to give the game an AO rating it won't let immature kids like my age or younger to play this game. I know if it was rated M kids would get there hands on it, parents buy games for kids (I should know). I've played violentgames such as god of war and GTA those I dnt have a problem with, sure there's gore but its not like playing a movie version of hostel. The thing i dnt agree with is all the reaction to this AO title. I was reading wikipedia about this game, and the CEO of wendy's says"Dave Thomas never would have tolerated the use of Wendy's good name to promote Nintendo's Wii, not with this game available on the Wii platform." (they were make wii toys for the promotion of the system) I think this was after JAck THompson stepped in demanding the hault of wii poromotional toys. I was never really hyped the game myself it seemed a little stupid to me.
[QUOTE="kakkarott23"][QUOTE="JustWiicredible"]The BBFC in the UK refused to give the game a cert e.g PG,12,13,18 OR EVEN R18 which can only be sold in 'special' stores this means it's banned in all but name. I therefore am not legally alound to buy it even though i a consenting adult.Here is the censorship.JustWiicredible
I didn't know there was a law that said the public had the right to demand what products are released. Also, I am not allowed to get a prostitute even though I am an adult
Hence the stupidity of the prositution laws. The only way the goverment should interfere in our lives is when there is a product or service which is so abhorrent that using it once would be fatal or lead to a life time of misery. I'm really talking about hard drugs,having speed limits,murder is illegal. I'm not a anarchist but i belive the gorvement especially in the uk is becoming to involved in what we should or should not do in our day to day lives. Foxhunting,smoking bans,knee jerk BBFC even ouruse of energyit's becoming a nanny state!
Unfortunately, that is what governments are there for. People are not as free as they think they are. Every person has rights but their rights should not superceed someone elses rights. That is where people get confused.In the US the government is not saying you can't play this game. The ESRB is not saying don't sell this game.
[QUOTE="chris_wing"]Again, check their website. They DO NOT PLAY THE GAMES THEY RATE!JordanElek
Umm....
When the game is ready for release to the public, publishers send copies of the final product to the ESRB. The game packaging is reviewed to make sure the rating information is displayed accurately and in accordance with ESRB requirements. Additionally, ESRB's in-house game experts play the final version of both a random sample of games as well as a number of hand-selected titles to verify that all the materials provided by the game's publisher during the rating process were accurate and complete.The ESRB Website
Like I said before, I'm pretty sure a game like Manhunt 2 would be one of the hand-selected games to play.
Why don't the ESRB raters actually play the games they rate?
ESRB raters do not actually play the games they rate for many reasons. First, many games have upwards of 50 hours of gameplay, and requiring a minimum of three raters to play through each of the more than 1,000 games rated by ESRB each year would not only be inefficient given the high degree of repetition in video games, but would fail to ensure that they found and had the opportunity to consider all of the pertinent content in their assignment of a rating.
Additionally, because games are player-controlled, there are many different permutations of gameplay depending on the choices the player makes. Therefore, one player may see very different types of content than another depending on the choices he or she makes while playing the game. As such, engaging in only an hour or two of gameplay as a supplement to the current rating process would offer no greater assurance that all pertinent content was disclosed and considered in the assignment of a rating. That is why it is essential that publishers be required to disclose on videotape or DVD all pertinent content in the game they submit for rating, including the most extreme elements, so that raters can thoroughly assess the game and assign an appropriate rating.
Moreover, given the manufacturing and print advertising deadlines to which publishers must adhere (which can occur 60-90 days before a game ships), games must oftentimes be submitted to ESRB for rating before they have been completed or fully tested. As a consequence, these games may be "buggy," making it difficult, if not impossible, for a rater to play the game from start to finish.
Finally, ESRB ratings are based on the consensus of independent raters whose values and judgments resemble those of the mainstream American public, particularly parents (see consumer research). Requiring all ESRB raters to be expert gamers (which they would need to be if required to play each game assigned to them for rating) would undoubtedly hinder ESRB's ability to recruit a diverse rater pool reflective of mainstream public opinion.
Though the raters do not play the games themselves, ESRB staff may play beta or alpha versions of games submitted for rating when the content disclosed in submission materials requires further clarification. Once a game has been released, ESRB's in-house game experts play the final version of both a random sample of games as well as a number of hand-selected titles to verify that all the materials provided by the game's publisher during the rating process were complete and the rating is appropriate.
CHRIS_WING
Okay, so they may play a beta version, but gamers are not even the core of this group.
"Requiring all ESRB raters to be expert gamers (which they would need to be if required to play each game assigned to them for rating) would undoubtedly hinder ESRB's ability to recruit a diverse rater pool reflective of mainstream public opinion."
This whole thing is a joke.
[QUOTE="JustWiicredible"][QUOTE="kakkarott23"][QUOTE="JustWiicredible"]The BBFC in the UK refused to give the game a cert e.g PG,12,13,18 OR EVEN R18 which can only be sold in 'special' stores this means it's banned in all but name. I therefore am not legally alound to buy it even though i a consenting adult.Here is the censorship.kakkarott23
I didn't know there was a law that said the public had the right to demand what products are released. Also, I am not allowed to get a prostitute even though I am an adult
Hence the stupidity of the prositution laws. The only way the goverment should interfere in our lives is when there is a product or service which is so abhorrent that using it once would be fatal or lead to a life time of misery. I'm really talking about hard drugs,having speed limits,murder is illegal. I'm not a anarchist but i belive the gorvement especially in the uk is becoming to involved in what we should or should not do in our day to day lives. Foxhunting,smoking bans,knee jerk BBFC even ouruse of energyit's becoming a nanny state!
Unfortunately, that is what governments are there for. People are not as free as they think they are. Every person has rights but their rights should not superceed someone elses rights. That is where people get confused.In the US the government is not saying you can't play this game. The ESRB is not saying don't sell this game.
That's the difference between the UK and the land of the free. The BBFC are saying you Will not get a chance to play this game even though the censors have where as the ERSB have just passed the game witha too higher rating for the games console that you play it on, unless Ninty does a U-turn!
[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="kakkarott23"]The ESRB is saying that they "feel"the game is to violent. They "feel" that the public should not experience it. They "feel" they know best. Their moral objection is in direct odds with my wanting to play this game, that is how I'm affected, and one thing leads to another and soon games will all be bubble wrapped carbon copies of censored crud.I don't understand a lot of the arguments being made. The job of the ESRB is to evaluate a game and asign it a rating to inform customers. They gave it a rating. Retailers choose not to stock AO games. The console makers choose not to have these titles on their systems. That is their business right. I am sure there is a clause in the contracts that third parties sign saying that AO games will not be released.
I don't see how this is violating anyone's rights. Can anyone show me how they are personally being censored?
kakkarott23
The ESRB feels that the game should be played by adults only. They did their job. Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target, Gamestop, EB Games......etc in the US do not carry AO games. this is their legal right to choose what products they carry on their shelves. Nintendo and Sony choose not to allow third parties release AO games on their systems for probably two of many reasons.
1) The games will not sell well because there will be limited places to buy the game from
2) This could effect sales of their other products due to negative publicity and possible boycotts.
None of this effects your legal rights. This is a matter of Nintendo and Sony executing their legal rights not to provide licenses to a publisher that didn't follow their contracts. Morality doesn't replace someones legal rights. You don't have a legal right to this game. You are just pissed cause you can't have it.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was the problem.Chris_Wing, please prove to us that the ESRB did not play this game? Speculation does not make for good arguments. The likelyhood points more to them playing it due to the scrutiny they faced during the Hot Coffee incedent. Given the binge politicians are on for gaming laws, I am sure they wouldn't let this pass by under the radar.
Do you honestly feel this game doesn't deserve close to an AO rating?
So whoever has the money (ie. Wendy's) wins. Okay, I'm learning more all the time.well, i really don't know what to say everyone is going crazy over this matter. I do have a point for the guy whose in the army though. Alright well you say that you hunt and that you've been in the army and have been forced to kill somebody(s). But this isn't really a game that forces you to kill somebody (they do froce you to kill people but its more then that) they make you torture the people like another poster said. Which is illegal even the army isnt allowed to torture people. Anyway i think the esrb was right to give the game an AO rating it won't let immature kids like my age or younger to play this game. I know if it was rated M kids would get there hands on it, parents buy games for kids (I should know). I've played violentgames such as god of war and GTA those I dnt have a problem with, sure there's gore but its not like playing a movie version of hostel. The thing i dnt agree with is all the reaction to this AO title. I was reading wikipedia about this game, and the CEO of wendy's says"Dave Thomas never would have tolerated the use of Wendy's good name to promote Nintendo's Wii, not with this game available on the Wii platform." (they were make wii toys for the promotion of the system) I think this was after JAck THompson stepped in demanding the hault of wii poromotional toys. I was never really hyped the game myself it seemed a little stupid to me.
Minishdriveby
[QUOTE="kakkarott23"][QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="kakkarott23"]The ESRB is saying that they "feel"the game is to violent. They "feel" that the public should not experience it. They "feel" they know best. Their moral objection is in direct odds with my wanting to play this game, that is how I'm affected, and one thing leads to another and soon games will all be bubble wrapped carbon copies of censored crud.I don't understand a lot of the arguments being made. The job of the ESRB is to evaluate a game and asign it a rating to inform customers. They gave it a rating. Retailers choose not to stock AO games. The console makers choose not to have these titles on their systems. That is their business right. I am sure there is a clause in the contracts that third parties sign saying that AO games will not be released.
I don't see how this is violating anyone's rights. Can anyone show me how they are personally being censored?
chris_wing
The ESRB feels that the game should be played by adults only. They did their job. Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target, Gamestop, EB Games......etc in the US do not carry AO games. this is their legal right to choose what products they carry on their shelves. Nintendo and Sony choose not to allow third parties release AO games on their systems for probably two of many reasons.
1) The games will not sell well because there will be limited places to buy the game from
2) This could effect sales of their other products due to negative publicity and possible boycotts.
None of this effects your legal rights. This is a matter of Nintendo and Sony executing their legal rights not to provide licenses to a publisher that didn't follow their contracts. Morality doesn't replace someones legal rights. You don't have a legal right to this game. You are just pissed cause you can't have it.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was the problem.The basis to your argument is the problem. You want to make the ESRB consider your opinion you will need facts. Based on everything that is in the game can you prove the game doesn't deserve an AO rating? This game is getting more hype being banned then it would have actually coming out.
[QUOTE="kakkarott23"]The ESRB is saying that they "feel"the game is to violent. They "feel" that the public should not experience it. They "feel" they know best. Their moral objection is in direct odds with my wanting to play this game, that is how I'm affected, and one thing leads to another and soon games will all be bubble wrapped carbon copies of censored crud.I don't understand a lot of the arguments being made. The job of the ESRB is to evaluate a game and asign it a rating to inform customers. They gave it a rating. Retailers choose not to stock AO games. The console makers choose not to have these titles on their systems. That is their business right. I am sure there is a clause in the contracts that third parties sign saying that AO games will not be released.
I don't see how this is violating anyone's rights. Can anyone show me how they are personally being censored?
chris_wing
Your assumption of their intention is based only on your anger. You really have no idea whether or not they "feel" that the public shouldn't experience it.
So much of what's been argued is frivolous and very self-seeking. It makes me wonder if so many of these posters only have 1-month memories.
The ESRB is currently on the legislative cutting block, as many states are currently enacting laws overriding their power in self-regulation. If the ESRB had rated this "M", most likely it would've received a lot of flak from lawyers and (even worse) politicians. Considering how a big election year is coming, I'm more than positive a couple of presidential candidates would've made this a cause for the sanctity of the family, working to shut down the ESRB altogether and create a government ratings board (look up Leeland Yee (D) Calif. and Hilary Clinton (D) NY).
Considering the magnifying lens placed on this industry recently, you really, really want a harsh ESRB. With a slack-jawed one, it would soon be eliminated by indignant politicians (look it up) in favor of a government board. Then we'll witness the true meaning of censorship.
[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="kakkarott23"]The ESRB is saying that they "feel"the game is to violent. They "feel" that the public should not experience it. They "feel" they know best. Their moral objection is in direct odds with my wanting to play this game, that is how I'm affected, and one thing leads to another and soon games will all be bubble wrapped carbon copies of censored crud.I don't understand a lot of the arguments being made. The job of the ESRB is to evaluate a game and asign it a rating to inform customers. They gave it a rating. Retailers choose not to stock AO games. The console makers choose not to have these titles on their systems. That is their business right. I am sure there is a clause in the contracts that third parties sign saying that AO games will not be released.
I don't see how this is violating anyone's rights. Can anyone show me how they are personally being censored?
dominae
Your assumption of their intention is based only on your anger. You really have no idea whether or not they "feel" that the public shouldn't experience it.
So much of what's been argued is frivolous and very self-seeking. It makes me wonder if so many of these posters only have 1-month memories.
The ESRB is currently on the legislative cutting block, as many states are currently enacting laws overriding their power in self-regulation. If the ESRB had rated this "M", most likely it would've received a lot of flak from lawyers and (even worse) politicians. Considering how a big election year is coming, I'm more than positive a couple of presidential candidates would've made this a cause for the sanctity of the family, working to shut down the ESRB altogether and create a government ratings board (look up Leeland Yee (D) Calif. and Hilary Clinton (D) NY).
Considering the magnifying lens placed on this industry recently, you really, really want a harsh ESRB. With a slack-jawed one, it would soon be eliminated by indignant politicians (look it up) in favor of a government board. Then we'll witness the true meaning of censorship.
Truth, topic should end on that.I already concieded that a small number of the ESRB may have played this game, but only after the knee jerk reaction of their counterparts. I'm not going to win this debate, just remember that people get the government, laws, and censorship they deserve, I just thought maybe we deserved better.Chris_Wing, please prove to us that the ESRB did not play this game? Speculation does not make for good arguments. The likelyhood points more to them playing it due to the scrutiny they faced during the Hot Coffee incedent. Given the binge politicians are on for gaming laws, I am sure they wouldn't let this pass by under the radar.
Do you honestly feel this game doesn't deserve close to an AO rating?
kakkarott23
The ESRB is run by the game industry, without them, it would be the governments of the world that would be rating and deciding what can and can't be in our games. The ESRB is what protects us from REAL censorshipMaster_HermesROFL!
mmm bring manhunt 2 to the xbox360:)maxis87
Would Bill gates have the stomach to withstand the criticism just for a few extra $$$$ in sales? Doubt that!
[QUOTE="Master_Hermes"]The ESRB is run by the game industry, without them, it would be the governments of the world that would be rating and deciding what can and can't be in our games. The ESRB is what protects us from REAL censorshipchris_wingROFL!
It sounds better than the BBFC anyway. That's censorship!
[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="kakkarott23"][QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="kakkarott23"]The ESRB is saying that they "feel"the game is to violent. They "feel" that the public should not experience it. They "feel" they know best. Their moral objection is in direct odds with my wanting to play this game, that is how I'm affected, and one thing leads to another and soon games will all be bubble wrapped carbon copies of censored crud.I don't understand a lot of the arguments being made. The job of the ESRB is to evaluate a game and asign it a rating to inform customers. They gave it a rating. Retailers choose not to stock AO games. The console makers choose not to have these titles on their systems. That is their business right. I am sure there is a clause in the contracts that third parties sign saying that AO games will not be released.
I don't see how this is violating anyone's rights. Can anyone show me how they are personally being censored?
kakkarott23
The ESRB feels that the game should be played by adults only. They did their job. Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target, Gamestop, EB Games......etc in the US do not carry AO games. this is their legal right to choose what products they carry on their shelves. Nintendo and Sony choose not to allow third parties release AO games on their systems for probably two of many reasons.
1) The games will not sell well because there will be limited places to buy the game from
2) This could effect sales of their other products due to negative publicity and possible boycotts.
None of this effects your legal rights. This is a matter of Nintendo and Sony executing their legal rights not to provide licenses to a publisher that didn't follow their contracts. Morality doesn't replace someones legal rights. You don't have a legal right to this game. You are just pissed cause you can't have it.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was the problem.The basis to your argument is the problem. You want to make the ESRB consider your opinion you will need facts. Based on everything that is in the game can you prove the game doesn't deserve an AO rating? This game is getting more hype being banned then it would have actually coming out.
Guilty untill proven innocent right.F*** the election year. You are saying that we should not be the nail that sticks up the furthest because that is the first one to get hammered down. Thats called self censorship, and only one step before thought crime.chris_wingNo, I'm saying the ESRB needs to do the job that the gov't wants to do. At least when they do it, it's without political influence. Are you saying that we should do away with the ESRB because of this? Or that it's untrustworthy? A rerate to "M" without content alteration means the board isn't credible and able to be influenced by corporations or "interest groups" (your arguments here attribute you to a very, very small one, believe it or not). This would put into question the objectivity of all other ratings, past and present. Stop thinking about yourself and consider the implications of what you're asking, please.
[QUOTE="chris_wing"]Guilty untill proven innocent right.dominaeThis isn't the American legal system. Although, if the ESRB lets up, it soon will be the business of courts to rate games. That's what you want, right?
Why does it need to be one or the other. We already have decency laws that protect us from "the really" bad stuff. I have one problem with that. Think of it this way. Lets say you are a huge Fantastic Four fan, (ya right) but at the last moment the movie was rated XXX because Jessica Alba is just to darn hot. But then they go a step further and burn every copy of the film so no one will ever see it. Maybe I don't have the right to see hot Alba, but if she wants to be seen who has the right to say no, you can't
This thread is ridiculous. The game deserves an Adults Only rating. Have you heard whats in the game? Look up a description. The game is made for adults. Therefore the rating is accurate. The rating is gonna keep the game out of kids hands and thats what the ESRB was trying to do. This game doesn't even look that good. Its just gonna use shock tactics to make you want to buy it. It's like the Hills Have Eyes, just a total disgrace to film as is Manhunt to gaming. I know my opinion will probably be unpopular but I don't really care.cradleOFfilth37
I agree. But u have to keep in mind that most of the people who r support manhunt 2 right now r mostly made up of ppl who have not really cared too much about the game, but because of this new ban/rating controversy, they have become astonishingly curious and because of that, they REALLY want to see wut the fuss is all about in its entirety. However, it does seem a little irresponsible for actually making a game in which u MUST see a person tortured and brutally murdered in order to continue. At a certain point, one must wonder whether or not if its even fun anymore and when it'd start getting very sadistic which is one of the reasons why i think this game is not really worth it. But on the other hand, it does go against the freedom of choice an adult is allowed to make towards what they want, which is the major problem for all the gamers out there. Its not the game they fight for, its the principle.
[QUOTE="dominae"][QUOTE="chris_wing"]Guilty untill proven innocent right.chris_wingThis isn't the American legal system. Although, if the ESRB lets up, it soon will be the business of courts to rate games. That's what you want, right?
Why does it need to be one or the other. We already have decency laws that protect us from "the really" bad stuff. I have one problem with that. Think of it this way. Lets say you are a huge Fantastic Four fan, (ya right) but at the last moment the movie was rated XXX because Jessica Alba is just to darn hot. But then they go a step further and burn every copy of the film so no one will ever see it. Maybe I don't have the right to see hot Alba, but if she wants to be seen who has the right to say no, you can't
The argument fails because a) the gov't doesn't "bury" movies and b) XXX stores exist.
I ask again, do you want to remove ratings altogether?
This is absolutely ridiculous. None of us have even played the game. It may very well deserve an AO rating. If you want to take action, do it against Nintendo and Sony for their policy against AO games.
The ESRB is needed just like movie ratings. I want to know the kind of content to expect from different games. This thread is testament to the naivity and immaturity of many gamers.
You can hate the rating, but this thread seems like adolescent whining to a faceless authority, or "the man."
This isn't the American legal system. Although, if the ESRB lets up, it soon will be the business of courts to rate games. That's what you want, right?[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="dominae"][QUOTE="chris_wing"]Guilty untill proven innocent right.dominae
Why does it need to be one or the other. We already have decency laws that protect us from "the really" bad stuff. I have one problem with that. Think of it this way. Lets say you are a huge Fantastic Four fan, (ya right) but at the last moment the movie was rated XXX because Jessica Alba is just to darn hot. But then they go a step further and burn every copy of the film so no one will ever see it. Maybe I don't have the right to see hot Alba, but if she wants to be seen who has the right to say no, you can't
The argument fails because a) the gov't doesn't "bury" movies and b) XXX stores exist.
I ask again, do you want to remove ratings altogether?
ditto, dominae
[QUOTE="chris_wing"]F*** the election year. You are saying that we should not be the nail that sticks up the furthest because that is the first one to get hammered down. Thats called self censorship, and only one step before thought crime.dominaeNo, I'm saying the ESRB needs to do the job that the gov't wants to do. At least when they do it, it's without political influence. Are you saying that we should do away with the ESRB because of this? Or that it's untrustworthy? A rerate to "M" without content alteration means the board isn't credible and able to be influenced by corporations or "interest groups" (your arguments here attribute you to a very, very small one, believe it or not). This would put into question the objectivity of all other ratings, past and present. Stop thinking about yourself and consider the implications of what you're asking, please.
The rating of "AO" for Manhunt2 is a preliminary rating, not set in stone, yet to be finalized. If you want to talk about the ESRB descriditing itself just look at the GTA hot coffee, and the randy Sims game with a "T" rating. Now that is a game that should have an "AO" rating. Don't blame me for the broken system.
[QUOTE="cradleOFfilth37"]This thread is ridiculous. The game deserves an Adults Only rating. Have you heard whats in the game? Look up a description. The game is made for adults. Therefore the rating is accurate. The rating is gonna keep the game out of kids hands and thats what the ESRB was trying to do. This game doesn't even look that good. Its just gonna use shock tactics to make you want to buy it. It's like the Hills Have Eyes, just a total disgrace to film as is Manhunt to gaming. I know my opinion will probably be unpopular but I don't really care.icarus212001
I agree. But u have to keep in mind that most of the people who r support manhunt 2 right now r mostly made up of ppl who have not really cared too much about the game, but because of this new ban/rating controversy, they have become astonishingly curious and because of that, they REALLY want to see wut the fuss is all about in its entirety. However, it does seem a little irresponsible for actually making a game in which u MUST see a person tortured and brutally murdered in order to continue. At a certain point, one must wonder whether or not if its even fun anymore and when it'd start getting very sadistic which is one of the reasons why i think this game is not really worth it. But on the other hand, it does go against the freedom of choice an adult is allowed to make towards what they want, which is the major problem for all the gamers out there. Its not the game they fight for, its the principle.
Thank you, I'm getting tired here.The rating of "AO" for Manhunt2 is a preliminary rating, not set in stone, yet to be finalized. If you want to talk about the ESRB descriditing itself just look at the GTA hot coffee, and the randy Sims game with a "T" rating. Now that is a game that should have an "AO" rating. Don't blame me for the broken system.chris_wingI have yet to blame you for a "broken" system.
The rerate of GTA was due to new content that was discovered after the rating, not content that was submitted originally. If Manhunt 2's rating changes without any content changes, it would crush any credibility. And if you truly believe that "The Sims" deserved an "AO", then you should take a break from this forum for a while and calm down. You aren't thinking clearly, or didn't play the game.
This isn't the American legal system. Although, if the ESRB lets up, it soon will be the business of courts to rate games. That's what you want, right?[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="dominae"][QUOTE="chris_wing"]Guilty untill proven innocent right.dominae
Why does it need to be one or the other. We already have decency laws that protect us from "the really" bad stuff. I have one problem with that. Think of it this way. Lets say you are a huge Fantastic Four fan, (ya right) but at the last moment the movie was rated XXX because Jessica Alba is just to darn hot. But then they go a step further and burn every copy of the film so no one will ever see it. Maybe I don't have the right to see hot Alba, but if she wants to be seen who has the right to say no, you can't
The argument fails because a) the gov't doesn't "bury" movies and b) XXX stores exist.
I ask again, do you want to remove ratings altogether?
My point atleast isn't about age ratings it's the removale of the product from the marketplace altogether (in the uk) and the sale restrictions that come as a direct result of a AO rating. As a grown adult i should be able to go to my nearest kwikimart or whoever wants my $$$ and be able to pick it off the shelves and buy it.To ristrict it's sale is by implication saying this product is not suitable for anyone to play!
This isn't the American legal system. Although, if the ESRB lets up, it soon will be the business of courts to rate games. That's what you want, right?[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="dominae"][QUOTE="chris_wing"]Guilty untill proven innocent right.dominae
Why does it need to be one or the other. We already have decency laws that protect us from "the really" bad stuff. I have one problem with that. Think of it this way. Lets say you are a huge Fantastic Four fan, (ya right) but at the last moment the movie was rated XXX because Jessica Alba is just to darn hot. But then they go a step further and burn every copy of the film so no one will ever see it. Maybe I don't have the right to see hot Alba, but if she wants to be seen who has the right to say no, you can't
The argument fails because a) the gov't doesn't "bury" movies and b) XXX stores exist.
I ask again, do you want to remove ratings altogether?
YES, XXX movie stores do exist. Thats why this is even worse then that. There is no store, online or not, that will sell an "AO" game for Wii, PS2, PS3, PSP, DS, etc. This is the equivilant of Manhunt2 being burned, literaly, so no one may see it. I'm all for ratings, just rate accordingly. I have never seen a movie rated XXX because of violence.[QUOTE="dominae"]This isn't the American legal system. Although, if the ESRB lets up, it soon will be the business of courts to rate games. That's what you want, right?[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="dominae"][QUOTE="chris_wing"]Guilty untill proven innocent right.JustWiicredible
Why does it need to be one or the other. We already have decency laws that protect us from "the really" bad stuff. I have one problem with that. Think of it this way. Lets say you are a huge Fantastic Four fan, (ya right) but at the last moment the movie was rated XXX because Jessica Alba is just to darn hot. But then they go a step further and burn every copy of the film so no one will ever see it. Maybe I don't have the right to see hot Alba, but if she wants to be seen who has the right to say no, you can't
The argument fails because a) the gov't doesn't "bury" movies and b) XXX stores exist.
I ask again, do you want to remove ratings altogether?
My point atleast isn't about age ratings it's the removale of the product from the marketplace altogether (in the uk) and the sale restrictions that come as a direct result of a AO rating. As a grown adult i should be able to go to my nearest kwikimart or whoever wants my $$$ and be able to pick it off the shelves and buy it.To ristrict it's sale is by implication saying this product is not suitable for anyone to play!
The UK banned the game a couple of days before the AO rating, so this is an issue with your gov't, unfortunately. And I won't presume to give advice on how your leaders should run your country. All I can say is find a formidable petition to sign and write letters to your leaders.[QUOTE="dominae"]This isn't the American legal system. Although, if the ESRB lets up, it soon will be the business of courts to rate games. That's what you want, right?[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="dominae"][QUOTE="chris_wing"]Guilty untill proven innocent right.chris_wing
Why does it need to be one or the other. We already have decency laws that protect us from "the really" bad stuff. I have one problem with that. Think of it this way. Lets say you are a huge Fantastic Four fan, (ya right) but at the last moment the movie was rated XXX because Jessica Alba is just to darn hot. But then they go a step further and burn every copy of the film so no one will ever see it. Maybe I don't have the right to see hot Alba, but if she wants to be seen who has the right to say no, you can't
The argument fails because a) the gov't doesn't "bury" movies and b) XXX stores exist.
I ask again, do you want to remove ratings altogether?
YES, XXX movie stores do exist. Thats why this is even worse then that. There is no store, online or not, that will sell an "AO" game for Wii, PS2, PS3, PSP, DS, etc. This is the equivilant of Manhunt2 being burned, literaly, so no one may see it. I'm all for ratings, just rate accordingly. I have never seen a movie rated XXX because of violence.Then again, the violence in a movie is never interactive, calling for the audience to physically kill the actors on screen.
If you're ok with the ratings board, but upset with the fact that you won't be able to play it, then please, please direct your anger to the proper channels. Yell at Nintendo and Sony for not allowing an AO game on their systems. The ESRB has no right to tell these companies how to operate, and did not set up the policy forbidding the sale of AO games on the systems.
Okay, so they may play a beta version, but gamers are not even the core of this group.chris_wing
The game was set to be released in three weeks; I'm sure they had more than a beta version available to them. And if not, they receive many, many more videos than we can access, because they request all scenes of violence or sex or anything of the more "adult" nature. And if they don't get video, they get descriptions. Even if they never touched the game itself, they have a much more intimate knowledge of the game's content than any of us has, even than any gaming reporter has.
Also, why does it mater if the raters aren't gamers themselves? Do gamers have better judgment when it comes to the content of games? We might know what plays better, but these board members seem to have a pretty good grasp on what content is appropriate for whom. I mean, how many times has a rating actually been a controversial issue since the ESRB was formed?
[QUOTE="dominae"]This isn't the American legal system. Although, if the ESRB lets up, it soon will be the business of courts to rate games. That's what you want, right?[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="dominae"][QUOTE="chris_wing"]Guilty untill proven innocent right.JustWiicredible
Why does it need to be one or the other. We already have decency laws that protect us from "the really" bad stuff. I have one problem with that. Think of it this way. Lets say you are a huge Fantastic Four fan, (ya right) but at the last moment the movie was rated XXX because Jessica Alba is just to darn hot. But then they go a step further and burn every copy of the film so no one will ever see it. Maybe I don't have the right to see hot Alba, but if she wants to be seen who has the right to say no, you can't
The argument fails because a) the gov't doesn't "bury" movies and b) XXX stores exist.
I ask again, do you want to remove ratings altogether?
My point atleast isn't about age ratings it's the removale of the product from the marketplace altogether (in the uk) and the sale restrictions that come as a direct result of a AO rating. As a grown adult i should be able to go to my nearest kwikimart or whoever wants my $$$ and be able to pick it off the shelves and buy it.To ristrict it's sale is by implication saying this product is not suitable for anyone to play!
I agree that the game shouldn't be banned form the market. But that's not the ESRB's fault. That is Nintendo and Sony's policy.
I love the fact that you referenced the Simpsons btw.
My point atleast isn't about age ratings it's the removale of the product from the marketplace altogether (in the uk) and the sale restrictions that come as a direct result of a AO rating.JustWiicredible
Yeah, this thread is a little confusing because a couple different points are being argued by a couple different people. I definitely see your point, JustWiicredible, that the British government probably shouldn't ban this product, since the government is supposed to be a representative and democratic organization, and isn't giving its citizens a choice about something that may not be harmful to many people.
But I definitely disagree with chris_wing that the ESRB is in the wrong, because we have no evidence that they're doing anything but what they're supposed to do. The ESRB has been a trustworthy organization for over a decade, and their job is simply to describe a game's content and rate it so that the consumer has at least a little knowledge of what they should expect if they choose to purchase it.
This isn't the American legal system. Although, if the ESRB lets up, it soon will be the business of courts to rate games. That's what you want, right?[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="dominae"][QUOTE="chris_wing"]Guilty untill proven innocent right.dominae
Why does it need to be one or the other. We already have decency laws that protect us from "the really" bad stuff. I have one problem with that. Think of it this way. Lets say you are a huge Fantastic Four fan, (ya right) but at the last moment the movie was rated XXX because Jessica Alba is just to darn hot. But then they go a step further and burn every copy of the film so no one will ever see it. Maybe I don't have the right to see hot Alba, but if she wants to be seen who has the right to say no, you can't
The argument fails because a) the gov't doesn't "bury" movies and b) XXX stores exist.
I ask again, do you want to remove ratings altogether?
YES, XXX movie stores do exist. Thats why this is even worse then that. There is no store, online or not, that will sell an "AO" game for Wii, PS2, PS3, PSP, DS, etc. This is the equivilant of Manhunt2 being burned, literaly, so no one may see it. I'm all for ratings, just rate accordingly. I have never seen a movie rated XXX because of violence.[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="dominae"]This isn't the American legal system. Although, if the ESRB lets up, it soon will be the business of courts to rate games. That's what you want, right?[QUOTE="chris_wing"][QUOTE="dominae"][QUOTE="chris_wing"]Guilty untill proven innocent right.dominae
Why does it need to be one or the other. We already have decency laws that protect us from "the really" bad stuff. I have one problem with that. Think of it this way. Lets say you are a huge Fantastic Four fan, (ya right) but at the last moment the movie was rated XXX because Jessica Alba is just to darn hot. But then they go a step further and burn every copy of the film so no one will ever see it. Maybe I don't have the right to see hot Alba, but if she wants to be seen who has the right to say no, you can't
The argument fails because a) the gov't doesn't "bury" movies and b) XXX stores exist.
I ask again, do you want to remove ratings altogether?
YES, XXX movie stores do exist. Thats why this is even worse then that. There is no store, online or not, that will sell an "AO" game for Wii, PS2, PS3, PSP, DS, etc. This is the equivilant of Manhunt2 being burned, literaly, so no one may see it. I'm all for ratings, just rate accordingly. I have never seen a movie rated XXX because of violence.Then again, the violence in a movie is never interactive, calling for the audience to physically kill the actors on screen.
If you're ok with the ratings board, but upset with the fact that you won't be able to play it, then please, please direct your anger to the proper channels. Yell at Nintendo and Sony for not allowing an AO game on their systems. The ESRB has no right to tell these companies how to operate, and did not set up the policy forbidding the sale of AO games on the systems.
I know that it is ultimatly Nintendo's call, I remember 14 years ago Nintendo said that they would never allow blood in any of their games or systems. Reguardless, you keep deflecting the argument. I'm not talking about ESRB vs Government rating, I'm not talking about Nintendo allowing "AO" games. What I'm arguing is that this game is not deserving of "AO", just like Fantastic Four isn't deserving of XXX. Now I know thats not a fair comparison, but you do know what I'm saying. I'm trying to speak out for freedom from censorship. Maybe I should yell at the ESRB, maybe I should yell at Nintendo, or maybe I'll keep doing what I'm doing. Yelling at the video game industry for allowing a set up that allows for developers work to be crushed at the last moment because some hyper sensitive media watchdog became offended. This is a debate over what we can put in our bodies and minds.I have an interesting question in all this Manhunt talk. Why does the ESRB even have an AO rating when no game can be released with it? None of the systems will accept the rating so I don't see the point besides the ESRB trying to ban the game (which is a possibility). I kinda wish they'd just release the game as is and let the consumer decide what they want. It's sad the politicians try to control gaming even though they don't play the games. harmonixer19
Politicans didn't say the game couldn't be sold. Nintendo and Sony said it couldn't.
This game deserved a damn M rate. Postal was banned in a lot of countries in the world (including here at Brazil, thatbanned postal and carmagedon since we are bad drivers enough without this game and we dont have any censorship for games here I guess :P) and got his M rate right away. Its just really unfair and gamespot itself said its not a big deal. The problem wiht manhunt is:
1 - The dark past from the first game (that cause instant ban in UK of course)
2 - Election year in USA
Damn Im really sad!
2 - Election year in USA
diegofsv
haha! I love it when gamers blame politics for their woes, and think that gaming is a huge issue. In the 2008 election gaming has not been, and will not be a major issue, or even a minor issue. There are much bigger problems in the world, and Congress has not put any substantial focus gaming in a long time.
[QUOTE="harmonixer19"]I have an interesting question in all this Manhunt talk. Why does the ESRB even have an AO rating when no game can be released with it? None of the systems will accept the rating so I don't see the point besides the ESRB trying to ban the game (which is a possibility). I kinda wish they'd just release the game as is and let the consumer decide what they want. It's sad the politicians try to control gaming even though they don't play the games. nakasa5
Politicans didn't say the game couldn't be sold. Nintendo and Sony said it couldn't.
That, and the PC has no "parent company", and can thus play AO games.[QUOTE="harmonixer19"]I have an interesting question in all this Manhunt talk. Why does the ESRB even have an AO rating when no game can be released with it? None of the systems will accept the rating so I don't see the point besides the ESRB trying to ban the game (which is a possibility). I kinda wish they'd just release the game as is and let the consumer decide what they want. It's sad the politicians try to control gaming even though they don't play the games. nakasa5
Politicans didn't say the game couldn't be sold. Nintendo and Sony said it couldn't.
I was being more general and not referring to only this incident. I'm referring to the politcians that blame video games for every problem in the world. It's only a matter of time before congress speaks out about this game and makes an example of it somehow. I realize not only is it sony and nintendo but also retailers that won't sell it. Too bad.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment