Sony, Nintendo Block Manhunt 2 Release

By Spartan_X
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Spartan_X

Posted
Posted

Sony, Nintendo Block Manhunt 2 Release

Officials from both Sony and Nintendo have confirmed that Manhunt 2 will not be approved for release on the PlayStation 2, PSP or Wii in North America in its current form ? with both console manufacturer?s restating their policy that they do not allow AO (adults only) rated games on their systems.

It was revealed on Tuesday that the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) had given Manhunt 2 an AO rating, despite comments from Rockstar Games that an M (mature) rating was more appropriate.

Most U.S. retailers, including Best Buy, GameStop and Wal-Mart, refuse to stock AO rated games as a matter of policy ? the only recent exception being Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which was retroactively given the rating following the ?Hot Coffee? incident.

As reported by consumer website GameSpot though, both Sony and Nintendo have confirmed that they will not allow the game to be released on their platforms in North America. Microsoft also has a policy not to allow AO rated games, although the game is not scheduled for release on Xbox 360.

With the game already effectively banned in the UK, and almost certain to be denied a rating in Germany and Australia, the only region in which an uncensored version of the game is likely to be released now is other mainland European countries.

Rockstar has still yet to make any comment on whether it either intends to challenge the ruling, in either the UK or North America, or make changes to the game in order to receive a less harsh ratings restrSource:ource: Gamasutra

Grand Master

NightmarE D

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm surprised Jack Thompson hasn't said anything about this game or did I miss something?

He'll attack Counter-Strike, Halo and GTA, but he stays away from the game where you can apparently rip off a mans nads with some pliers and see it all in close-up. :laugh:

  perochan said:
Rockstar has sick mind for making this kind of games for teen and kids and shame on parents for letting kids play this games.

Rockstar isn't making these games for kids and you can't always blame the parents either. When parents try to keep their children from getting certain games, it just makes the kid want it even more. Then one way or another that kid WILL find a way to get that game.

It's the people that rant about all the violence in games and how horrible it is that help sell the games. Whether they're made by Rockstar or someone else. If a group comes out against a game, more than likely that game will sell very well.

Think about GTA: San Andreas. How much actual advertising did you see for that game? The biggest piece of advertisement that game got was the news about the "hot coffee" scene and it went on to sell more copies even after that scene had been removed. All these groups do when they complain about games is give the companies that make them free advertising.

GTA: 4 is another example. All we've had of this game is some pictures and a small trailer. None of these show any violence. Yet some groups are already coming out talking about how violent it is and the usual arguments they have. The game is nowhere near done and they're already complaining.

Edited by NightmarE D
Proficient

Vista

Posted
Posted

The first reviewers gave it a 9.2. Seems to be a great horror game and improved and added a lot to the gameplay of the first game.

I think it's a disgrace that they are blocking this game. Who the hell are they to tell the console-owners what games to buy and play? It's an adults-only game, that means only adults should be able to buy this game.

Blocking it for this rating is criminal!

Grand Master

shakey

Posted
Posted

The only thing i thought was sort of wrong was the port of mh2 for Wii. They had it where you would actually have to mimic the movements. Thats getting a little to "in there" for a game dealing with murdering people. Who wants to see little jimmy pretend to strangle and then ply teeth from someone? lol

Mentor

benac

Posted
Posted
  Quote
I think it's a disgrace that they are blocking this game. Who the hell are they to tell the console-owners what games to buy and play? It's an adults-only game, that means only adults should be able to buy this game.

Blocking it for this rating is criminal!

I agree. It's a matter of choice, and It's for Adult only.

Last I saw the key demographic for gaming nowadays is the late teens (17-19) to early to mid twenties.

Veteran

bobbba

Posted
Posted
  Vista said:
The first reviewers gave it a 9.2. Seems to be a great horror game and improved and added a lot to the gameplay of the first game.

I think it's a disgrace that they are blocking this game. Who the hell are they to tell the console-owners what games to buy and play? It's an adults-only game, that means only adults should be able to buy this game.

Blocking it for this rating is criminal!

The usual healthy dutch attitude to censorship :rolleyes:

Grand Master

Ironman273

Posted
Posted
  benac said:
I agree. It's a matter of choice, and It's for Adult only.

Last I saw the key demographic for gaming nowadays is the late teens (17-19) to early to mid twenties.

You're saying that it should be Rockstar's right to make any game they want but not Nintendo and Sony's right to choose what they want or don't want to release on their consoles? :blink:

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
  bobbba said:
The usual healthy dutch attitude to censorship :rolleyes:

So you agree with censorship? Why? I feel it's up to the parents to control what their kids watch and play, not the developers. Censorship is wrong.

Grand Master

WelshBluebird

Posted
Posted
  AssassiN-X said:
He's not allowed to attack Take 2 anymore because of a Legal Ruling.

Hasn't stopped him though lol. From Kotaku

  Quote
Sure it was in an email crowing about Take-Two's recent woes over the preliminary Adults Only rating for Manhunt 2, but he said it.

Specifically, Thompson said that the ESRB has done something that "indicates is(SIC) might be trustworthy" and that "this development is a HUGE benefit to the video game industry. It fits nicely with their argument that the ESRB ratings are real and actually mean something."

There ya go, move along Jack, "problem" fixed

"This is all absolutely delicious. I warned Take-Two months ago that there would be huge problems if it went ahead with Manhunt 2. Who was right about that kiddies?

Secondly, the BBC and the world are now laughing at Take-Two Chairman Strauss Zelnick for his idiotic statement yesterday that Manhunt 2 is "a fine piece of art." Find the BBC story on that! Right, and Jack the Ripper was his generation's Rembrandt. Please.

Take-Two has been hemorrhaging cash over the last few financial quarters, and this must makes it worse. I love it. If you all would stop and think about this for a minute, this development is a HUGE benefit to the video game industry.

It fits nicely with their argument that the ESRB ratings are real and actually mean something. Responsible people within the industry, even Doug Lowenstein, have been saying for quite sometime that Take-Two had become a problem for the entire industry because it was painting a bullseye on the back of the whole industry and making it more difficult for the industry to get US politicians off its back.

Now the ESRB does something that indicates is might be trustworthy, and you nitwits go bonkers because of that development. Grow up and smell the hot coffee. This is the best thing that could have happened to the industry. The isolation and ostracism of Take-Two by the industry was long overdue. Now that it has come, rejoice."

http://kotaku.com/gaming/endorsement/jack-...work-270943.php

Grand Master

PL_ Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
  WelshBluebird said:
Hasn't stopped him though lol. From Kotaku

http://kotaku.com/gaming/endorsement/jack-...work-270943.php

This comment in the article makes SO much sense:

  Quote
Sorry in advance for the repost, I just wanted to give Mr. Thompson more of a chance to respond...

Here it is Mr. Thompson,

I'm a gamer. 24 years old. Active Duty United States Marine. I'm college educated (double major in Politcal Science and English),reasonably intelligent and consider myself a pretty serious game enthusiast. I say this because I want you to have a sense of where I'm coming from when I post. I will not call you names, threaten you, or say anything I feel is overly hostile. I say this because I want you to understand I'm a rationale human being, and not interested in drama.

If you read these posts, Mr. Thompson, I think you'll actually see a fair bit of intelligent discussion, as well as the usual dose of internet foolishness. So why antagonize everyone by calling us "kiddies"? I realize that you don't generally don't like games or the people that play them. Of course, I think you ascribe the characteristics of the worst examples of our kind into a stereotype for all of us. Please remember that gamers can be patriots, parents, intellectuals, or any other subgroup. So when you label us as "kiddies", it is you who appears childish.

Why am I saying that? Because, to a degree you're absolutely right about games. They can be dangerous in the wrong hands. They can be full of disturbing images, heinous acts, and perverse joys. Which is exactly why the ESRB and stringent controls are neccessary and good for the protection of children. I don't think it neccessitates the removal of the content, I think it necessitates the placing of the content as far away from children as possible.

I disagree that this is a "HUGE benefit" to the game industry. It does give weight to the ESRB, which is outstanding in my book. To see them unafraid to hand this rating down is a nice thing. I'd say there are other games which neccessitate AO...but the nature of AO has to change before that can be reasonable, Mr. Thompson. If AO games will never be published, then the rating won't get used-- and not having the AO rating means some extremely hard M's will be issued-- perhaps to the detriment of us all.

Consider your local video rental store. Most of the content is out there to be seen by all. From Rambo to Bambi, almost every rating is out there for children and parents to see alike. Some of the movies feature scenes as graphic as any game, including Manhunt, but aren't pushed to not be released. However, there is stuff that is so perverse it must be placed in an Adults Only section. Consider if the same were true of your local Gamestop, Mr. Thompson.

Right now, you have parents who ignore ratings for content their child sees/plays because they don't have the time or inclination to review everything their child does. They'll rent violent movies, buy violent games-- but I can almost guarantee no parent walks into a roped-off Adults-Only section to rent their child a movie. It is the very stigma of going in there that gives them pause.

What is better for our children, Mr. Thompson: a slightly-toned down version that recieves a hard "M" that is promptly ignored by parents, or a full version of this game in an area that forces a parent to feel guilty buying it? This could go for many games with a hard "M". In the end, I feel that if developers relaxed their stance on AO, and the ESRB forced retailers to sell AO games in seperate sections where children couldn't even look at them, you'd see these games that toe the line end up in less childrens' hands.

I'm a big proponant of the games-as-art argument. I think games can be artistic and deal with complicated subject matters. They can also be the equivalent of Hostel, reveling in disturbing images and violence for the sake of violence. But as with any media, effectively censoring it only increases it's desireablity. I never planned on buying Manhunt- but I will support to the end those people who want to.

The long and short is this, Mr. Thompson: many gamers support stronger laws and more stringent ratings. But often your own rhetoric places you so far from a middleground that agreeing with you becomes impossible. I think you'd find gamers and the industry as a whole more responsive to your opinions if you approched us with a litlte more decorum and stopped speaking down to us. I'm not attorney, and you may be, but I fail to see how arguing in a courtroom gives you more insight than my choice of defending the nation, which is precisely why I did not go to law school after college.

To finish my comments off, I'd love to discuss this with you, if you're up for it. My website can be found by clicking on my name here. Feel free to hop on the forums and comment there, or comment on my editorials page (which, incidentaly, features a piece written on yourself). Good day, Mr. Thompson and I hope to hear from you.

Veteran

bobbba

Posted
Posted
  gigapixels said:
So you agree with censorship? Why? I feel it's up to the parents to control what their kids watch and play, not the developers. Censorship is wrong.

Yes I fully agree with censorship, in fact I would probaby advocate slightly tighter restrictions than what we have already (Hostel 1 & 2, Man Hunt 1 for examples).

You suggest censorship is wrong so should all content be available no matter how sick or distasteful it is? Some content is just way to sick to be justified as "entertainment" imop.

As for parents, will they always make the right choices or will some let their kids watch and play pretty much anything? At least with censorship and ratings there is a framework to guide those parents who are responsible.

Mentor

benac

Posted
Posted (edited)
  Ironman273 said:
You're saying that it should be Rockstar's right to make any game they want but not Nintendo and Sony's right to choose what they want or don't want to release on their consoles? :blink:

No, I'm saying it should be up to consumer to decide whether this is something they want. This is a business, suppy and demand. If this game is in demand & has met an ESRB rating, then supply it.

Obviously Sony and Nintendo do have the right to decide what they want this to be released on their own consoles (And this post certainly won't change that), But Rockstar is a reputable company with a reputable publisher (Take-Two) that creates VIDEO GAMES. They aren't selling smack on the streets to little kids. Rockstar/Take-Two had to have the foresight to know that this game could attract controversy and possible lawsuits. Even the foresight to see it could be blocked. They know what they are doing, Controversy equals news (It's not like they haven't been sued before). Any news is good, especially if one half of your targeted systems (Sony's PS2) is losing it's ground to "Next Gen" eye candy.

If these console developers want to suddenly monitor quality and content control, Then they should stop allowing horrible movie licensed games. Many of which are clearly created to turn out a quick buck based on movie hype (Pirates of the Carribean 3 anyone?). As long as it meets an ESRB rating, and has the money to front the console license...release it.

Veteran

AdverseDeviant

Posted
Posted (edited)
  bobbba said:
Yes I fully agree with censorship, in fact I would probaby advocate slightly tighter restrictions than what we have already (Hostel 1 & 2, Man Hunt 1 for examples).

You suggest censorship is wrong so should all content be available no matter how sick or distasteful it is? Some content is just way to sick to be justified as "entertainment" imop.

As for parents, will they always make the right choices or will some let their kids watch and play pretty much anything? At least with censorship and ratings there is a framework to guide those parents who are responsible.

and who the hell decides whats not entertainment? you? seeing babies mutilated is scary, therefore entertaining to me.

i hope this game gets released somewhere cause i have a modded ps2, lol.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.