Topic: Manhunt 2 Receives Preliminary AO Rating from ESRB

[Pale]

The ESRB decided that they are giving Manhunt 2 an Adults Only rating.
 http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=13658

 Kotaku is reporting that Take-Two confirmed that the ESRB has given Manhunt 2 an Adults Only rating.  The rating is not Wii specific, as the PS2 version received the same.    

This announcement comes hot on the heels of a recent announcement that the game will be banned all together in the UK.  Much criticism has surrounded the game in the US up to this point, from people calling for a boycott of Wendy's because they were promoting the Wii in general, to groups campaigning to have the Wii version receive the AO rating specifically because the Wii controls made it even more interactive.    

Take-Two has three options at this point.  They can release the game with the AO rating and have most large chains not carry it because the rating is usually associated with pornography.  They can clean the game up and resubmit it for a new rating.  Lastly, they can appeal the decision and try their luck.  If the rating sticks, Manhunt 2 will be the first game to be given the rating based solely on the violence level.    

The differences between the two ratings based on their description is small.  The ESRB describes and M rated game as follows...    

"Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language."    

While an AO game is described like this...    

"Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."    

It should follow that Manhunt 2 falls into the category of "prolonged scenes of intense violence." and apparently it is the first game ever to reach that level.

[S-U-P-E-R]

This game is tearing the country apart! I'd better buy two.

[TJ Spyke]

Would Sony and Nintendo allow the game if it got an AO rating? I was under the impression that both Nintendo and Sony didn't allow AO rated games on their systems.

If they would, then I hope T2 has the balls to go ahead since it would be the first AO rated game released (not counting the hot-coffee incident, which was BS anyways since dry humping should be a M rating at most).

[that Baby guy]

Well, Nintendo wants to shed that crappy kid image people have placed in their heads, and Sony doesn't want to get upstaged by Nintendo, I think. They'll probably both allow it.

[Kairon]

You guys didn't get my submit news tip? /sad I linked to gamepolitics, not Kotaku.

[Pale]

Sorry Kai, I wasn't at my email when I saw the story at Kotaku.

[pSYCO-gAMER321]

Well, considering that Sony's take on AO rated games is a big no-no. They were strict when Leisure Suit Larry came out and published as a Mature title. However, this should be interesting. If Rockstar keeps the AO rating, this will be the first console rated game (I don't count that "Joys of Sex" on the Phillips CD-i as a AO game; not even a game anyway!)  to be rated AO and also first for violence instead of sex. Anyways, Nintendo should just take the AO rating. This game can sell and since major retailers won't carry AO games, it's not like children are going to find it. It is like getting prono: Adults know where to get it and the adult industry is still going strong. There is a risk of a financial loss, but it'll sell, but not where children are going to find it. It did well on the Playstation 2. Onto the point, just do it! Besides Rockstar, didn't you get some sort of money from Microsoft for the episodic content? Just whore out Grand Theft Auto VI for your financial gain! If Nintendo wants to shed the "k!ddy" console, take it because it'll rewind back in the Super Nintendo and Genesis on Mortal Kombat if Sony takes the game on AO rating. Wii has the advantage to take the spotlight of this game. Example: Rayman: Raving Rabbids; was multiplatform, but did awesome on Wii. This is going to be the most interesting few weeks, considering if Rockstar keeps the July 10th release date.  

[StrikerObi]

The questions here are, will Take Two tone down their game, or release it unrated, and also, does the game retail industry behave the same way that the cinema industry does, or instead like the DVD retail industry?

If a movie receives an NC-17 rating from the MPAA, most national cinema chains will not carry it. The movie is destined to fail, regardless of it's quality. It will get zero advertising and if it screens at all, it will screen in independent cinemas.

We know, at least according to this story and past history, that major retail chains will not carry a game that is marked with an "AO" rating by the ESRB.

Now, would it be possible for Take Two to release Manhunt 2 without a rating? There is nothing forcing them to accept the rating. In fact, movies sometimes do not accept their NC-17 ratings, and release "unrated".

For example, the documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated" was fated with an NC-17 rating, and released "unrated" theatrically. The director chose not to accept the MPAA's rating. (The movie is about how corrupt the MPAA is, just so you know.) In the movie business, "unrated" is as good as NC-17, at least in cinemas.

On the other hand, DVDs are released as "unrated" editions all the time. In fact, it's a big marketing tactic. "Unrated" movies are not necassarily any more violent or sexual than their rated counterparts. The unrated version is simply not the exact same film the MPAA screened. Take a movie, add a deleted scene into the feature presentation (even if it's about kittens eating ice cream), plop it on a DVD and bam, it's "unrated".

Big retailers (wal-mart, best buy, etc) all carry unrated DVDs. So, how do they treat an unrated game? Do they act like a cinema and screw it, or do they act like a retailer and sell it?

For the record, I'm not passing judgement on Take Two or Manhunt 2. I'm just posing the question of how Take Two is going to handle this. Personally, I think they should release it unrated. If they believe in the product, and think it is quality, they should let the world see it the way they want it seen, even if that view is absolutely for "adults only". If retail won't carry it unrated, they'll almost certainly buckle and change the game.

[mantidor]

I really would love to get the demographics of these types of games as I said in the other thread, because I think is delusional to think kids are a minority. Seriously, my 14 year old self would be way much more interested in this game than my 20 y/o self or my current self, and I can say the same for pretty much everyone I know.

[ShyGuy]

I can't see RockStar releasing this AO if they want to make money. Although, with the $50 million MS gave them, perhaps they have the financial breathing room to be "artistic"

I they do release it as an M title they better clean out the AO code parts because you know the hackers will be scouring the game for it.

[Jonnyboy117]

I don't know of any major game being released "unrated", although I don't see how they could do so at this point since the game was most assuredly submitted for the ratings process and assigned a rating.  Also, as an ESA member, Take Two may be obligated to submit all their games to the ESRB.

Although I personally have no qualms with playing an AO-rated game, it almost certainly spells financial doom for a game which likely had little sales potential in the first place.  Remember that the original Manhunt was not a big seller, either.

I think the official ratings descriptions Pale included in this article point out the ambiguity and lack of transparency in the ESRB ratings process.

[TJ Spyke]

The ESRB is a voluntary ratings system, game companies are not required to have their games rated (in fact, when the ESRB was first started many PC game developers chose not to use it). However, I don't think Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft would allow unrated games to be released for their systems (and I don't think major retailers like Wal-Mart and Target would sell them). I do think it's unfair though that movies can be sold unrated and that minors can buy R rated movies while most retailers wouldn't sell unrated games and that politicians want to make it illegal to sell M rated games to minors.

T2 is still struggling financially and I doubt the new execs would want to risk the limited sales an AO rating would get. I want to know what they will do in Europe, will they just not release the game like they do in Australia when the OFLC refuses to rate a game? Why does it matter what the BBFC does anyways? I though most video games use PEGI? Checking out Wikipedia, it says PEGI rates games released in the UK unless it contains certain material. So I supposed to could just get a PEGI rating and sell it in the other 28 European countries that use PEGI and ignore the UK.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

need more games with "intense scenes of prolonged Wii sex"

[that Baby guy]

I'm still waiting for Super Princess Sutra.

[StrikerObi]

Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
I don't know of any major game being released "unrated", although I don't see how they could do so at this point since the game was most assuredly submitted for the ratings process and assigned a rating.  Also, as an ESA member, Take Two may be obligated to submit all their games to the ESRB.

Although I personally have no qualms with playing an AO-rated game, it almost certainly spells financial doom for a game which likely had little sales potential in the first place.  Remember that the original Manhunt was not a big seller, either.

I think the official ratings descriptions Pale included in this article point out the ambiguity and lack of transparency in the ESRB ratings process.

That's why a parallel the movie industry. Although filmmakers are not "required" to submit their films for review, they are financially screwed if they don't because cinemas won't carry it. However, as a member of the ESA, there is a chance that Take Two is required to submit games for review and also required to publish with ratings. This is a very interesting situation, I'm eager to see how it unfolds.

[Rize]

Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
I don't know of any major game being released "unrated", although I don't see how they could do so at this point since the game was most assuredly submitted for the ratings process and assigned a rating.  Also, as an ESA member, Take Two may be obligated to submit all their games to the ESRB.

Although I personally have no qualms with playing an AO-rated game, it almost certainly spells financial doom for a game which likely had little sales potential in the first place.  Remember that the original Manhunt was not a big seller, either.

I think the official ratings descriptions Pale included in this article point out the ambiguity and lack of transparency in the ESRB ratings process.

Couldn't the controversy actually attract buyers causing it to sell better?  I think they'll keep the rating.  Someone will carry it.  If they could just get GameStop and friends on board that would be enough.

[that Baby guy]

That's the thing, how many AO games do you see on sales charts, ever?  There aren't any.  It's a question, though, of whether or not it's because the AO games are low-profile because they are niche games, or if they are low profile because they are hard to find.

I seriously think it's a combo of both, but to me, for a company like Take2, that's too risky, unless they are prepared for it.

[Kairon]

You can't have a controversy driven salesbump if audiences don't know where to buy the game.

[nickmitch]

I find this delightfully ironic.

[LuigiHann]

Quote
Originally posted by: TVman
I find this delightfully ironic.

How so?

[stevey]

Doesn't take-two have to first apply for an AO rating for the ESRB to give one out? (I remember hearing a while ago that the reason that DOA have M rating is that they apply for a M rate even though they could get a T because it cheaper/faster?)

This is bad for pretty much everyone involed. Jack tompson spent a lot of time giving the game press and raising the preoders but if stores wont carry it what will happen to people preoders. Nintendo also spent time just to get 1 Rockstar game and now it's AO.  

[TJ Spyke]

Nope, from the ESRB site (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_process.jsp):  Developers have to fill out a long questionnaire and provide a video of the most extreme moments of the game. A panel of at least 3 reviewers then review the game and recommend a rating and descriptors.

Only 23 games have gotten the AO rating, and of those:
1 was never released ("Thrill Kill" for the PS1, cancelled by EA after they purchased the developer Virgin Interactive)
1 was a temporary rating ("Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" after the Hot Coffee incident)
1 was for the CD-i ("The Joy of Sex", which was basically just an interactive version of the book of the same name)
1 was an interactive DVD ("Body Language")
The remaining 20 were PC/Macintosh "games" (not sure which are games since at least 1 is a screensaver program: "Playboy Screensaver :The Women Of Playboy")

[S-U-P-E-R]

I hope they publish without a rating, securing themselves as a badass game company that plays by their own rules . Maybe somebody can play internet detective or call some Rockstar or ESRB rep and find out if they're bound by some agreement that prevents them from doing that. Inquiring minds want to know!

[planetidiot]

I think there are enough adults in the world to support some adult only titles.  But yeah, needs more nudity.  

They can always release a paintball / freeze-tag edition for the little kids.

[UncleBob]

Most major retailers won't carry the game if it gets released with an AO rating.

Personally, I'm for releasing the Censored version as an M rated title and releasing the AO rated title through GameStop and such.

To be fair though, I have absolutly no plans to buy the game either way.