After some changes in content, Manhunt 2 will be released
Monday 27 August 2007 - 13:06:24
So, long story short: Take-two has cut a few things, and what was considered "Adults Only" by the ESRB is now M-rated.

Let me get this straight. AO means suitable only for 18 year-old gamers and older, and the major retailers won´t sell the thing, and Microsoft and Nintendo won´t license.

M-rated is suitable only for ages 17 and older, and now it´s okay!?

I mean, what´s the big difference in content that a 17-year-old cannot see?

I´d love to know your thoughts on the subject, guys... I really don´t understand these ratings.

Full article

[Submitted by Tassadar]



Comments
Since everybody knows (at least that's what they tell us) that video gaming alone can be a sufficient cause of random acts of violence, the whole self-regulatory ratings thing must give the distinct impression of being an exact science in order to keep the game-bashing politicians at bay. It's all perfectly absurd, of course...

[ Comment by Demiath :: 28 Aug : 03:37 ]


I agree with you. There´s no conclusive study showing the correlation between games and violence. Some say videogames can trigger aggression centers in the brain, while others say videogames have no significant impact in violent behaviour.

I´m not saying young children should be allowed to play Manhunt 2, or any other violent games, but the difference between AO and M-Rated games seems irrelevant. It´s totally arbitrary.


[ Comment by Tassadar :: 28 Aug : 09:01 ]


While there is a difference between "watching" and "doing", I've always found it interesting how you never hear parents, politicians, or other watchdog groups complaining about movies that glorify violence and criminal activity. It's easy to list off a number of movies that are about "the perfect heist" or organized crime families... but they somehow fly under the radar of those targeting games.

Is the only reason for the difference in reaction "watching" versus "doing"? If so, I think it could be argued that it should be the other way around. Let's assume that a certain percentage of people who like to "watch" violence and crime also want to "do" violence and crime. If they watch the movies, but don't play violent games, they have not had a safe outlet for that aggression (assuming you think of aggression like a pressure valve that needs to be opened occasionally). Perhaps violent games should be encouraged as a safe outlet for people with aggressive tendencies?

I think these aggressive tendencies are part of why the world has a history of things like public executions. I think that a certain part of the populace wants to experience that violence. That violence can now be experienced through many different forms of media, so perhaps that is why we don't have public executions anymore... not necessarily that we are more "civilized".

Anyway, I'm playing devil's advocate more than saying I'm sure I believe this, but it has certainly crossed my mind.

[ Comment by Sleepy :: 31 Aug : 09:00 ]


Sleepy, in the early '80s in the UK when VCRs were becoming popular there certainly was a concerted campaign against 'video nasties' which led to several videos being withdrawn from sale - though you could still watch these films in a cinema - I may be wrong, but I think that at the time videos were not subject to classification. Now that videos and DVDs are subject to classification I believe that many of those formerly withdrawn videos have been released on DVD - this time I have heard no outcry.

[ Comment by Alastair :: 04 Sep : 15:14 ]





You must be logged in to make comments on this site - please log in, or if you are not registered click here to signup


Stock photos courtesy of stock.xchng
All other content is copyright © 2010 intelligentgamer.com