Information available as of yesterday (6/19) indicates that the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) has given Manhunt 2 an initial Adults Only rating. If they so choose, Take-Two now has 30 days to make changes and resubmit the game for a second review or challenge the ruling directly before the rating is considered official and is released to the public. Though no details were given about Take-Two's intended response a representative of the company did express T2's belief that the game "should receive an M (Mature) rating, aligning it with similar content created in other forms of media".
Source: Gamespot [ more info ]

Where I actually support the idea of accurate ratings to help parents choose which games should be made available to their children. I feel that ratings should be consitant across all media types. This does not seem to be the case currently. The initial AO rating the ESRB has levied upon Manhunt 2 seems inconsistant with previous rating decisions for other, similar games. Lack of consistancy in this area makes me wonder if the ESRB is bowing to special interest groups.

Now, I admit that may not be a fair assessment. There could very well be elements in Manhunt 2 that make it worthy of an AO rating. But, in examining the qualifiers, the game seems to deserve the equivalent of an "R" rating (which would be M for Mature). My opinion on that matter extends from the idea that many stores will not carry an AO rated game. But, the material in Manhunt 2 seems to me to be virtually identical to that of R rated movies, which those same stores DO carry. That is to say, with this rating you wouldn't be able to buy Manhunt 2 at Walmart, but you can stroll through their DVD section and buy "Hostel" or the "Hills Have Eyes: Unrated".

So you understand my position, I'm defending the idea that the game should be rated M despite having an issue with the content of Manhunt 2. It seems to be violent for the sake of being violent and that doesn't exactly sit well with my personal sensibilities. But, that does not eliminate the need for consistant ratings that are not slanted against video games.

Have you noticed an increase in advertising from the ESRB? I am seeing TV commericials now.

I wish they would re-do the rating systems all together, in all forms of media. As in movies.. What is R anymore? One F word and it can be R? A naked person and it is R? The same for a completely violent, tons of nudity, and just for the sake of being extreme? I really wish they would would re-do these a bit.

This is one of those subject matter that I promise myself I won't comment on, but I have to say just one little thing... Why do the ratings have to have a estimated audience/age? Why can't it just have logos for what type of content are inside...like the beginning to an HBO show/movie. N=nudity, V=violent, XV=extreme violence, SC=sexual content, etc. We all know them, we've all seen them. Like Woody's points get at, the AO, M, T, PG, G type of rating is subjective to the panel at the time. I don't trust them for crap and would investigate the content specifics for child/young-person viewing regardless of the "rating" anyways.

The movie and games idustry both could use some more consitatancy. I highly recommend the movie "This film is not yet rated" I think it gives a really neat look at how ratings are handled in movies and a lot of the same issues can be carried over into games.

I kinda agree with lakoda, just labeling what kind of content is present and letting the consumer decide would seem the best way to do it to me.

In my opinion there is a slight difference between viewing violence in a movie and acting out that violence in a video game by controlling the character, controlling the violence and actually trying to be as violent as possible in order to get a better score. It has a different affect on the psyche. Personally, I love violent movies and violent video games. I think most people are fully capable of experiencing both without shooting up schools or office buildings in real life. But as far as ratings go, I certainly can see where Manhunt should have a stiffer rating than Hostel. Hostel is observed violence, Manhunt is participated violence.

From what I understand, lawmakers are trying to pass legislature that would allow them to regulate and/or enforce game ratings. I think that (right now anyway) removing the age recommendation from the ratings would do more harm than good.

For parents that actually pay attention to these ratings, they are extremely helpful. There were many customers that walked into the store I used to work at that had wanted games that fit into a specific rating. "Nothing worse than 'T'", or "It's for a 6 year old, what kind of action games do you have that are 'E'?".

There could be some more consistency in the way they rate games, but the same issue is apparent in the movie industry today. There are guidelines, but it all pretty much comes down to the opinion of a panel of individuals. If they decided that 'Manhunt 2' gets the AO rating, then they have to change something or appeal the decision to get the M. I do find it very silly that retail establishments have outright stated that they will refuse to sell an Adults Only game, regardless of the reason it got the rating. I can understand not selling porn games...but it would benefit the gaming community and parents if Adults Only was a rating that game companies could accept, knowing that this game will be strictly sold to adult gamers. (I know kids would get their hands on it anyway, but it would be yet another tool for the parents that actually pay attention.)

Well, trouble is, we don't know all that goes on in determining that rating.

For all we know there -is- some parts of Manhunt 2 that truely deserves that rating (the list of which I'm sure everyone else can think of on their own)

Never the less, if this rating is somehow related to the banning of the game in some countries just to appease some people then, yes, I feel that it's not a good decision.


Of course, having an AO rating might make the game that much more appealing to many people.

Every time they make a game like this, I always wonder if they do it just to thrive on the negative publicity. A lot of times, the idea of negative publicity is better than no publicity and I imagine people will buy this game just to see what all the fuss is about.

I do agree with you though, the ratings need to be clear cut across the board. They seem to rate games now more on press and publicity as a factor into it. I honestly wonder if the studio making a game affects the rating at all?

Heard a couple months ago that the movie rating board is considering making movies that have cigarrette smoking in them rated R. To me, who finds smoking distasteful (am allergic so start sneezing and have trouble breathing), find this hard to believe. All those old black and white movies where people are singing and dancing, not a bare knee in the whole movie, and the harshest work is "Golly Gee" rated R???

As a couple people above have stated, the whole system for all media needs to be looked at.

Would hate to see R 1.5.3 (brief nudity, side breast only, alluded swear word that was muffled in background) 24 years old or with parent.

Just to offer another perspective in respect to observed versus participated violence...

In either case the viewer is actively participating in the violence. Either by way of a controller or by way of emotional investment. In the case of most video game the participant can opt out of certain actions. In a movie the participant has no control over the outcome. They are forced to observe and mentally digest the violence in a way that does not allow for personal interpretation and resolution. Ultimately the outcome is the same, violent visual stimulus. Since individual response can not be determined before the game is played or the movie is watched, a rating can only be set fairly applied based on actual content.