[Flipside]

Exactly, in fact, I'd be arrested nowadays if I did what I used to do as a child, we used to run around with plastic or metal gun toys that were practically indistinguishable from the real thing, often they fired those little rolls of 'caps'.

If you did that nowadays, there'd be a public outcry for 'training children to use guns' and almost no doubt 'Terrorism' would be mentioned at some point or another.

[Turey]

Exactly, in fact, I'd be arrested nowadays if I did what I used to do as a child, we used to run around with plastic or metal gun toys that were practically indistinguishable from the real thing, often they fired those little rolls of 'caps'.

My brother's still got one of those, but we can't find the caps for it. 

[blackhole]

Well actually cap guns are not illegal, provided they are bright green with a red tip on the barrel. I remember playing with one of those not 3 years ago.

[Rand al Thor]

I gotta say I agree with the AO rating the game received. Like any artistic undertaking (well, the parts of game development that are artistic/creative, like concept and graphic design (the main culprits here) I believe that there should only the most extreme application of complete bans. In my mind this would apply to games that say, put you in the role of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, and set you to find, as your primary aim, the most efficient and quickest way to exterminate the relevant (in the case of these people) race/social class.

I gotta say though, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, a game like Manhunt, where the primary gameplay, if not plot aspect, is to butcher people and aspire to do it in the most gruesome possible way, is in my opinion, very close to that ban.

I mean (and this spreads across to the ol' parenting issue) even if a game is given the highest rating, it will still, somehow, find its way into the hands of young kids somewhere, and it's definately not suitable material. In a perfect world with a 100% reliable Adults Only rating there'd be no problem, but the possibility of children playing this is pretty dodgey to me.

And I would also think that Rockstar purposely pushed the limits with Manhunt to get publicity. That their plan worked too well is something they'll have to accept. Some might say 'justice'.

[Flipside]

If the UK had rated it 18+ or even 'Restricted', I would have been more prepared to accept the rating.

I suppose the problem is that the rating system in the UK is broken, the Trading Standards offices do their best, but the fact is that it is simple to get 18 certificate, and even pirate videos from market stalls across the country.

The simple fact that people are prepared to pay for movies someone else downloaded shows the kind of uphill struggle faced.

The thing is, if they banned this game because they couldn't be sure that, even with an 18+ certificate, that children wouldn't get their hands on it, then that isn't R*'s fault, it's a question of enforcement at their end.

[Flipside]

Double Post, but...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/arts/25manh.html?%23038;adxnnlx=1182795068-Z5i6Ykvcdx5EAUL6ZvwFuw&%23038;ex=1340424000&ei=5088&en=ec4fd372982463d3&adxnnl=1&%23038;emc=rss&%23038;partner=rssnyt&adxnnlx=1182924839-cp+x5fU7Cs0R1YCdBAg8eQ&%23038;adxnnl=1

[IPAndrews]

It's rated for adults only. So what? The rating is justified. If people want the game they will buy it, regardless of boycotts imposed by the chain stores. If there's a market for games like this then the big stores will see the smaller outlets who stock it making a profit and be more likely to stock a similar game next time. Take Two / Rockstar shuold get on with releasing it and let the market economy do it's thing.

[Maxwell]

The rating system itself is not a problem, its how retailers respond to it.  Some people would have still bought the game but, with less access to storefronts, the publisher feels they wont meet the needed number of sales to justify shipping it as things are.

That means the developers would be forced to go back in and cut out any trouble making content or features then resubmit it for a better review... Which means whatever ships will be less than what they intended to deliver, and less of an experience to the paying fans.

Of course this still works for the publishers. They can say: "We have found for you a spectacle of gore, violence, and horror that you absolutely must play to believe! ...but, darn those censors, you'll never get to see THAT version.".
Even if the game turns out to be crap they score points towards future legal action and for free advertising.   The only ones who lose out are players.

[Flipside]

The main problem is that neither Sony nor Nintendo will ever allow the release of AO rated games on their hardware, it's a vicious circle.

[IPAndrews]

They should not have that control.

[Nuclear1]

Why?  It's their product, and to protect themselves from legal action by idiots like J*ck T*omps*n (so he doesn't Google search his name and find me ), they have to say "no" to something.  It's the same reason DVDs come with "content of the commentaries does not reflect the views of Paramount/20th Cent. Fox/etc." as a disclaimer.

[karajorma]

But why shouldn't the game simply carry a disclaimer similar to the one you mention? Remember that Sony invented the compact disc too. What if they'd decided not to allow any CDs to be created with content they considered questionable?

That said if there is a market for AO games they'll find out to their cost when people buy them on other platforms.

[IPAndrews]

It's the same reason DVDs come with "content of the commentaries does not reflect the views of Paramount/20th Cent. Fox/etc." as a disclaimer.

Actually no. Your argument is more akin to the people producing DVD players determining what DVDs other companies are allowed to release. Or for that matter manufacturers of CD players determining what CDs can and cannot be released. Do you see where I'm going here? I would be very, very surprised if this stood up in court. It just takes somone to challenge it - and win.

[Mongoose]

This is completely different from those examples, IPAndrews.  Game developers who release games on a console do so for a proprietary, closed standard controlled by a single private company, not for a universal industry-wide open format standard.  Rockstar was making this game specifically for the PS3 and Wii consoles, owned by Sony and Nintendo, not for a "console game" standard for which any company can build a compatible player.  Both companies control the certification and compatibility of games released on their respective consoles; it's completely within their rights to deny use of their console to a game they choose not to support.

As for the game itself, the whole story gets a royal "meh" from me.  I'm with those who say that Rockstar seems to "push the limit" for the pure sake of doing so, and I find it rather annoying.  They obviously have a ton of game development talent; why can't they utilize it on games not seemingly solely intended to piss off as many soccer moms as possible?

[Flipside]

Thing is, if it wasn't Rockstar they were targetting, it would be Runs with Scissors, or whoever made Resident Evil 4 etc. Unfortunately, bandwagon-jumpers really do love the slogan 'Protect the Children', it gives you an excuse to do almost anything.

I'm pretty much 'Meh' about the game itself too, but then, I approach Hitman 2 like Unreal Tournament, it's odd, I like strategies and building games, but don't have the patience to stand outside a door for ten minutes looking like a pillock with a bottle of Chloroform in my hand.

I fully agree with the AO rating, though I'm not so certain about the banning in the UK, but I don't really think this is really so much about Rockstar (except for one person, who does have a personal vendetta) as it is about the whole idea of accepting the idea that many gamers are in their 20's and 30's.

[karajorma]

Both companies control the certification and compatibility of games released on their respective consoles; it's completely within their rights to deny use of their console to a game they choose not to support.

Legally it's different because Sony and N made it clear that they want to control the content on their machines.

Morally it's not. Like I said Sony did invent the CD. They could legally have done the exact same thing there. Would you consider it acceptable if Sony controlled which CDs were available to buy and everything they didn't like came out on Vinyl?

[Turnsky]

i reckon it's a safe bet that it'll be a while before it makes it past the australian censor board.

[WMCoolmon]

Both companies control the certification and compatibility of games released on their respective consoles; it's completely within their rights to deny use of their console to a game they choose not to support.

Legally it's different because Sony and N made it clear that they want to control the content on their machines.

Morally it's not. Like I said Sony did invent the CD. They could legally have done the exact same thing there. Would you consider it acceptable if Sony controlled which CDs were available to buy and everything they didn't like came out on Vinyl?

A console and a CD are two very different pieces of technology with two very different purposes. Many people also have very different perspectives on CDs compared to gaming consoles. Technology, people's familiarity with it, and people's views on it, have also radically changed since the advent of the CD.

Morally, it is very different.

[Mefustae]

i reckon it's a safe bet that it'll be a while before it makes it past the australian censor board.

Hell, i'm surprised light can make it past the Australian censor board.