About Manhunt 2 being given an AO rating by ESRB
See this article at PCWorld about how the game “Manhunt” was given an AO (Adults Only) rating by the ESRB.
As a game developer and parent, I’m prepared to support the AO rating given to Manhunt 2 by the ESRB. (My support is contingent on my better understanding of the game’s content and the definition of AO.)
I don’t accept the argument that because certain retail stores don’t carry AO games, and no console maker at this point allows the publication of AO games, the game should not get AO “because that makes it effectively censored”. This is what the free market is all about, and allows the USA to have a better way of dealing with this game than UK and Australia and others. If stores and console makers succeed by enforcing age limits and/or excluding certain ratings, therefore building parental trust, so be it. If they fail by that policy, or if some stores and platforms succeed in a niche by *not* enforcing the limit, also so be it.
My stance remains that parents should have control over what their kids buy and consume, what stores they are allowed to go into, what platforms they play on, and the parental lockout settings on those platforms. If we don’t trust parents to have that control, then we have a much bigger problem than video games can pose.By the same token, I regret that UK and Australia and others do not have the equivalent of constitutional free speech protection. It’s one of the very few things I miss about the USA as an expat living in Australia. I continue to urge Australia to permit AO-equivalent games to be sold here. I concede that this is very unlikely because no pol is going to want to stick a neck out. And I concede that even if it were allowed, it would most likely be attached to age verification enforced by law, which is something I still feel is a violation of free speech principles, an enforcement of a nanny-state solution, and an abrogation of my rights as a parent. But I will take what I can get, and likely grimace and endorse a compromise that allows AO-equivalent games to be sold only to those over 18. I’m not expecting such a compromise anytime soon, however. As a result I probably won’t be able to legally play AO games here, even though I am a responsible adult. That’s regrettable.
As for the console makers’ current stance not to publish AO games: The market forces still apply– if no console publishes AO but there is a demand for AO games, it will drive players to the PC, or create an opportunity for a console to gain market share by allowing AO titles. Personally, I think the 360 might score more points than it loses if it decides to strt publishing AO games– it already has a good parental lockout feature, as is touted on Vista, so it is somewhat bulletproofed from the morally outraged faction, and at the same time it can stake a claim that “we know a lot of our customers are adults and we are happy to accommodate the whole range of entertainment for them”.
It’s regrettable that console makers have taken the no-AO stance thus far and it shows IMO that the factions of moral outrage and games-are-harmful are very strong, and the chilling effect created by those who advocate legislated bans is at play here. I don’t think that console makers would have taken the no-AO stance were it not for the morality and games-are-harmful factions, so grudging kudos to those factions for having accomplished that much. Those factions are more skilful and intent than the pro-gaming faction thus far… something we need to try to change…
I found an interesting petition on this subject.
So bottom line in my still-forming opinion is: I still support the giving of the AO rating (again contingent on my learning more about the game and rating definition), and the fact that console makers choose not to publish AO games is IMO a regrettable decision on their part but that does not change my opinion.
I also think that Rockstar/Take Two is getting spanked by the ESRB. If Hot Coffee had not been permitted to happen by R*, then I have a feeling the ESRB would have let Manhunt 2 by with a M rating, or worked with R* more diligently to prevent it from slipping into AO. R* got burned here, but I still think they deserve it because Hot Coffee was a really stupid thing for them to allow. In an ideal world the ESRB would not be vindictive, but in this case I don’t much care to defend Rockstar and Take Two given their past idiocy.
Update: the ESRB has issued a statement on the decision to reissue an M rating after the game was modified. This was in response to a journalist who wanted to know details of why it was changed. I can see both sides of this but I certainly don’t think the ESRB is obligated, by law or moral imperative, to reveal their inner workings. However, I think it’s best to err on the side of transparency whenever possible.
Tags: censorship, game-ratings, harmful-games, Industry, kids, parental-consent, Parenting, rockstar
