One of the more interesting developments in the gaming world over the last few days has involved a new game known as "Manhunt 2", which was set for release in July. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out what "Manhunt 2" is about - it, like it's predecessor "Manhunt" is a game deeply entrenched in violence. A title of this nature is sort of par for Rockstar's course - the creators of the Grand Theft Auto series have shown more than once that they don't mind pushing a few of societies buttons, and are more than willing to make their games as extreme as they can, regardless of public outcry.
But with Manhunt, Rockstar went a little further than they intended.
It started early in the week, when the BBFC (the British Board of Film Classification) announced that it was refusing to rate "Manhunt 2" which means "it cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK". Ireland's IFCO followed suit shortly after, with their own ban of Manhunt 2 in Ireland.
America's ESRB (Entertainment Software Review Board) was slightly less heavy handed with "Manhunt 2", slapping it with an "AO - Adults Only" rating. For those who know movies, AO is akin to an NC-17 rating, however AO titles are restricted to those 18 and older.
Though an AO rating doesnt officially ban "Manhunt 2" in America, it does come with a brick in the face. Some of the more popular game rental vendors, such as Blockbuster and Gamefly refuse to carry AO titles. So do major family oriented retailers such as Walmart . But the biggest hit of all is that Nintendo and Sony (who run the Wii and Playstation) do not allow adult only content to be liscensed for their systems. This is a particularly significant problem, being as "Manhunt 2" was being designed for the Wii and the Playstation.
Game over, if you will.
I'm not sure if this makes me a bad person or not, but I find myself sitting on both sides of the fence on this particular issue.
On the one hand, I have no real pitty for Rockstar. They are a company who has made their name living on the edge since the first Grand Theft Auto, and when you live on the edge, sometimes you fall off. They knew what an AO rating would mean with distributors, retailers, and their gaming platforms, and they choose to push anyway. Not to mention, they chose to develop for Nintendo and Sony, as opposed to Microsoft (which does allow AO content on their Xbox).
But on the other hand, I'm forced to wonder if this is fair. I think it is most certainly the right of stores like Blockbuster and Walmart to choose what games they distribute. But should gaming platforms have the same right?
Think of it this way. You are developing a game for the Playstation. If Walmart says "we choose not to carry this product because of X, Y, or Z", life goes on. Walmart is a huge retailer, but it is not the only retailer, and consumers who are interested in purchasing your product can go somewhere else. But if Sony says "we choose not to allow your playstation game because of X, Y, or Z" then its over. You game has effectively been censored out of existence.
So the million dollar question is this - do gaming platforms have the right to deny their users certain types of content?
And I've gotta say, I don't think they should. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting "Manhunt 2". Some of the descriptions of MH2 gameplay were enough to make me cringe, and I've played through a lot of violent games in my life. But I do think that I should have the right to purchase a game if I have a desire to do so. It may be difficult based on the policies of retailers, but it should not be impossible because of the policies of platforms. A governing body rates the games for the purpose of allowing consumers to make informed decisions about the products they buy. If someone else is making those decisions for you, all you have is censorship - and that dont jive well with Stub's turkey.
I've been following this story as well. I have the first game and am a big fan of it. I knew that Rockstar would up the ante on the sequel, and, from what I have seen and heard about Manhunt 2, that is an underdstatement. The way I see it, though, is that Rockstar knows what Nintendo's and Sony's policies are (or at least they should) regarding the games that they license for their respective systems. With that in mind, it makes me ask the question didn't Rockstar have a clue that this was going to happen?
I understand your point of censorship, and I pretty much agree. I think the fact that the UK has banned the game is ridiculous. For one thing, it is just a videogame after all. The characters all have a stylized look (yes they do look human, but in a cartoony way). IT'S NOT REAL. Not even close. And it should be up to the consumers to be able to purchase the game if they want to. I have always been of the opinion that those who play violent video games or watch violent movies or TV shows, etc. aren't being brainwashed into killers or anti-social types (they may very well be those things, but, if that is the case, I think there is more going on with them than just the fact that they play some gory video games). And it should be up to the parents or guardians to keep their impressionable 10 year olds from playing the game if they feel that it is so bad. Let's put some responsibility on the consumer and not treat us all as though someone else knows what's best for us.
Rockstar's been in this situation before. Hot Coffee anyone? I have an original copy of San Andreas where you can actually do the Hot Coffee code (I don't know how to make it work, though). So what do they do now? Delay the game and tone it down to get an M rating? Scrap it altogether? Or somehow get Sony and/or Nintendo to change their minds? Again, they had to know that this was a real possibility when they were developing the game. I hope they can work something out, because I want to get this game. Taking the gore factor and adult themes out of it, the first one was an engaging stealth, action game that I really enjoyed. I wanted to experience some more of that.