Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood Calls For Review of Manhunt 2 Re-Rating

[Andy Chalk]

Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood Calls For Review of Manhunt 2 Re-Rating

Media watchdog group Manhunt 2 [http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/index.html] from AO (Adults Only) to M (Mature).

In June, the group had issued a press release [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/73053]at the time said, "On Wii, players will not merely punch buttons or wield a joy stick, but will actually act out this violence." As it turned out, the ESRB had already reviewed the game and decided that an AO rating was warranted.

After Rockstar submitted an edited version of the game for review, however, the ESRB elected to issue an M rating [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/76303] instead, clearing the game for release. Following that decision, the CCFC issued a statement saying, "Despite industry claims to the contrary, M-rated games continue to be marketed and sold to children under seventeen," as well as calling for the investigation.

"We urge the ESRB to make public their rationale for changing Manhunt 2's rating, including detailing any content that was removed from the game," the statement says. "We call upon Rockstar Games to allow the content of Manhunt 2 to be reviewed by an independent review board with no ties to the videogame industry. We ask the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the process by which Manhunt 2's rating was downgraded from AO to M."

Manhunt 2 goes on sale October 31.


Permalink

 

[Jaunty]

I'm sure I've read articles on this topic before, but it bears mentioning; is it not a case of arguing semantics when the difference between an M rating (17+) and an AO rating (18+) is only one year? Why is one side of the nearly-invisible line practically desirable, while the other a game's death sentence?

In a case like this, since both are ostensibly targeting an adult audience why not just bump up the M rating to 18+ and hey presto the game killing AO rating becomes even more redundant than it already is and everyone should be clear on which games go to whom. It seems like the CCFC's main goal in reviewing the review procedure is to reinstate the virtual ban on the game an AO rating would give without actually having to approach the issue of an outright ban themselve, neatly avoiding issues such as censorship.

 

[Andrew Armstrong]

I recall AO games are mainly sexual material which has boosted the rating from a M. This is a very American thing it seems, that violence gets the "M" and anything with sex in gets a "AO" especially since all the console manufacturers take the ESRB's ratings and say "AO games are banned", for seemingly little reason.

To rate it AO for a console game is a death sentence, it doesn't matter what the semantics are of the actual certificate, since no one will allow it on their console.

And for the ESRB to change the ratings? Well, hell, that might fix the problem - but only so far as that the console manufacturers might need to say, for no obvious reason, "newly rated M games are now banned from our console", and that it might be considered then a broken ratings system needing the dreaded government intervention (because AO games must be like, 19+, which goes beyond the other rating system numbers I guess? no idea), which movies and music doesn't have.

This seems to be the only restriction, since other countries and the European-wide ratings system are not taken into account with restrictions on if the game can be sold on any console, this is the only case where the big 3 console makers draw the line in the sand.

Knowing why the console manufacturers use the ESRB's AO as a line should be a priority for game journalists wanting to give anyone a proper story regarding this stuff. I wonder if anyone would get anything other then a blanket statement from a PR mouthpiece about it, because I for one would be very interested in the real reasons behind a ban which 99% of people don't even know about.

I hope, I hope for that kind of story (even on the Escapist perhaps?!), but I'm not very convinced any game journalist would "risk it" though, sigh. All the console manufacturers are the problem with this "system", not the ESRB, the ratings numbers (however silly they are) or anything else (like Rockstar/Take 2 themselves), and if they are not they'd have a hard time proving it without a good story on it.