Fri 22 Jun 2007
1:31 am
It was announced earlier today that Rockstar Games has “temporarily suspended” the release of their brutally violent stealth/survival game Manhunt 2 across all platforms. This comes as a reaction to the ESRB’s decision to assign the game an AO rating for graphic violent content.
This wouldn’t be a death sentence, except console manufacturers - namely Sony and Nintendo - have denied licenses to games that receive an AO rating. This effectively endows the ESRB with the absolute power of censorship. The ESRB knows this, and it gives them incentive to be more generous in assigning the dreaded Adults Only brand to games it disapproves of. After all, the ESRB is a privately owned body with no public or legal accountability for fairness and consistency.
Never did the ESRB consider giving the first Manhunt such a rating, but now, just a few years later, they’re being rewarded for doing so as the arbiters of good taste, and robbing you of your choice as a consumer. Australia has faced a similar crisis. Its Office of Film and Literature Classification rates games based on content, and certification by the OFLC is required for sale within Australian borders. The OFLC has refused to rate games that it doesn’t approve of, effectively banning their sale. Such was the case with Grand Theft Auto III.
Now we don’t have government intrusion in this case. While there have been attempts at legislation to require the rating of games sold in the US, they have been largely unsuccessful. Our constitution does a good job of preventing government censorship, but it is of little help when an entire industry is controlled by three companies that have conspired to give the ESRB absolute authority.
Yeah, Rockstar could port the game to the PC, the last bastion of open development, free from license approval, but it shouldn’t have to. First parties wield too much power, and at this point it seems unclear why we even need them. Why can’t we have an open, industry-wide standard like DVD that imposes no such restrictions on content? I’ve been sick to death of games being denied because they’re 2D or they’re not commercial enough, and when we toss censorship into the mix, it becomes increasingly clear that this model is bad for publishers, and, in many ways, for consumers as well.
Get pissed off, people.
Leave a Reply
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:43 am
I couldn’t agree more. I have no problem with Manhunt 2 receiving an AO rating but the fact that Sony and Nintendo (and retailers everywhere) have decided for me that I can’t play such a game is utterly ridiculous.
For better or worse the ESRB is the body that the industry has entrusted to rate its output. So why does the AO rating even exist if it is completely untouchable?
The bottom line is, video games are still considered to be for kids, no matter how inappropriate the content. The debates always revolve around how “these games”, which are clearly not intended for children, will effect children.
Until the public at large can wrap their heads around the fact that, just like every other form of entertainment, not all games are appropriate for kids, this crap is going to continue.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
This demonstrates the need for a re-tooling of the ratings system into something actually usable. “Why does AO exist if it’s unusable” is exactly the point.
A big area of improvement has to be restricting the sale of games to minors - I think a lot of gamers resist this because they remember playing M games when they were younger, but for any ratings system the ESRB implements to actually work, they need rigorous enforcement.
Sullivan’s right about games being considered as “for children,” because one thing that keeps coming up is that Manhunt is “teaching kids to be murderers.” The game should NOT be played by kids! I’m fine with an AO rating also, but how the hell can it get distributed?
One big growth area seems to be DLC - when (and if) publishers can use XBLA, VC, and Steam to sell direct, then “adult” content can’t be censored by Wal-Mart.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Restricting sale of games by rating would be a tragic mistake. This just giving rating more power. That’s up to stores and parents. If you get law involved in it, we go down an even more dangerous path.
The problem, really, is that AO is a fake distinction. No one really thinks Manhunt 2 is more appropriate for an 18 year old than for his 17 year old brother. The rating was never used at all until it was given power, and now that it is, they’ve been throwing it around more liberally.
The problem is first parties have right of censorship. That’s BS, and always has been since Nintendo made them gray the blood in Mortal Kombat.
July 1st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
[...] Personally, I am not shocked by this knee-jerk reaction. In an era where hugs supposedly solve every crisis on the planet, it is to be expected. But why was the British Board of Film Classification not all over this? It is their responsibility to review, rate, and censor games that contain objectionable material. If the enigmatic bad word in question is so unbelievably horrible, why did they fail to protect us from its evil grasp? Perhaps they were too busy stifling creative freedom elsewhere. [...]