• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Manhunt 2 won't be released in UK

S

Sule

Member
I would like to point out to the people that didn't see the link on the other page that NGamer (UK Nintendo magazine) has given Manhunt 2 a 9,2 (review). Now I don't know about you guys but I don't think a game where the violence has no context (like the censor's say) meaning no story etc. would ever get a high score like that. Violence pour le violence doesn't get you a 9,2.

This is a quote from the Irish censor's:

''graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context''

Then I would like to point out to this quote from the UK censor's:

''According to BBFC's Sue Clark, five or six examiners played through "several hours of the game." Using cheat codes, they were able to play the "tops of each level."''

If you only play parts of the game you just can't determine if the violence is an ''element within the overall context of the work''. I think the ESRB in the US also does this. They ask for videos of parts of the game.

IMHO the only way to determine the context in which violence is used, especially with the Manhunt games where apparently the story is a very important part of the game, you HAVE to play the whole game. Also the fact that only six people played parts of the game (UK) doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

You need more people playing the whole game. people from all age groups and not only mothers with 3 children at home who want to ''protect our children''.

Off course it could just be Rockstar made one effed up game, in which case I hope Holland doesn't ban it :)

EDIT after reading other posts:

I think it's clear from the NGamer review that this game is more than just shock value to the max just to sell.
 
C

cultofweaver

Member
This is very surprising news since, as mentioned by previous posters, the BBFC since James Ferman stepped down as Director taken a much more liberal attitude towards classification, to the point where even the producers and creators of previously outcast works have praised them.

A lot of people in this thread seem unaware of exactly what the BBFC is and does which is causing some confusion. As previously mentioned the BBFC is NOT a government body and recieves it's funding through the distributors of works that it classifies. The policies of current Government or whatever zeigiest the media is currently riding about violence and sex doesn't come into it.

The work is submitted and then examined by a panel of examiners drawn from relevant backgrounds. Most are social workers, psychologists or academics who look at the work and apply it to the checklist. If it breaches any of the 'Hard Rules' (anything that breaks the law like instructional drug use, cruelty to animals, non-consensual sex etc.) it is rejected and processed outright. If it features anything that the examining panel deems difficult in relation to the other areas of the checklist (excessive and gratuitous violence, sex etc.) it is usually re-examined and then deemed to either pass, fail with recommendation or, very rarely, fail outright.

The distributor will then either recieve their notification of certificate if it passes, a copy of the checklist and notations on what broke the guidelines and needs to be removed in the second event, or a notice of the refusal of certificate in the last case. If it failed, the distributor can appeal to the Video Appeals Commitee, or resubmit a new cut of the work for a second examination.

The decision of the BBFC and VAC are legally binding and any retailer selling a work that is not certified correctly faces a very large fine and possible imprisonment. There is no getting around the BBFC in the end.

In this case it seems that the BBFC have deemed Manhunt 2 to be, if you like, unsalvageable. That is that the whole point of the game revolves around torture and murder without any mitigation on the part of the narrative, and that the atmosphere of the game is such that they deem it unsuitable. One of the few previous examples of this kind of ruling was The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which was famously rejected and was deemed "uncuttable" by Ferman becuse no single act of violence was the tipping point, the whole thing was too powerful.

This is a problem if true for Manhunt since it couldn't just be cut as you would an excessively violent scene in a film. The whole narrative and gameplay would need restructuring, and essentially a whole new game would need to be made.

I don't personally agree with this decision. I've long been involved in the study of censorhip issues and the BBFC and have been an advocate of the idea that, outside hard ethical boundaries, 18 should never be cut. However this is not the same as a US Senator or Jack Thompson decrying a new GTA. The BBFC are higly professional trained examiners who judge a work without influence. The only way an examiner is influenced by outside forces or the work itself is if they deem that it has an important social or artistic merit. Scum was mentioned before, which breaks at least 3 guidelines even today. But the socal and political message was deemed necessary for a wider audience and it was passed.

If Manhunt 2 had a true social or political, or even artistic, message it would be passed. The BBFC has decided that it doesn't and tasks players with no option but to engage in gratuitous violence with little reasoning as to the cause. Manhunt 1 was the same, but the structure of the narrative was such that Cash was being hunted and therefore HAD to kill to avoid death, and didn't kill unnecessarily or act against the innocent.

I think the decision is wrong, but there is a REASON that it has been taken and should be discussed as such, not simply disregarded as a witchhunt by the UK government.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Stop It said:
I did, but only a bit (I have to admit my ownership of a PS2 didn't last very long), but I have played to completion all of the GTA games (From the top down to today), and regularly enjoy killing people in CS, and have done for years, I am not against violent games, and to be fair I havent seen the current build of Manhunt 2, so I cannot comment on the game directly, but I respect the BBFC enough to realise that if they deem a game too hot to rate, I'll respect that.

I'll be honest here, society has shown on multiple occasions that it cannot be trusted as a whole, if it could, there wouldn't be any laws at all, and people would self regulate, the fact that statute books round the world are so huge reflects the fact that we cannot be trusted just to do what we want, and the media is included within that, in my honest opinion, any game/film that cannot pass through the BBFC has no place in retailers or for general release full stop.
Click to expand...
the BBFC aren't infallible.

in the early eighties they banned a number of horror movies. amongst them was The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which as anyone who has seen it knows, has hardly any onscreen violence, and is far from sadistic.

that same film is now available in the Uk uncut, as it always should have been...

did the world change to the point where such a film is now acceptable, or was it always acceptable? if the world did change why do you trust the BBFC to know when it's reached the point that such a thing is acceptable?

but then it doesn't matter to me if manhunt 2 is the most morally corrupt and overtly violent game ever made. it still shouldn't be banned.

if it was the most morally corrupt game ever made, if not for this kind of publicity the sales would demonstrate societies feeling towards the game.
 
S

Stop It

Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
loosus said:
So basically, you want someone to think for you because you feel incapable of doing it yourself because society supposedly can't be trusted?
Click to expand...

Hey, It's what we've been doing since the dawn of modern society, you know Governments, that what they do, make the big decisions so we don't have to, laws exist because as a whole, society needs them, without them they cannot be trusted, indeed with them, they cannot be trusted, hence the police exist.

Brandiul, you appear to have a lack of respect for authority, why? the BBFC are well respected in the UK, because they represent the industry, and usually, the will of the people, trust me, if there was a mass protest about this being rejected, then the BBFC will take a good long hard look at their decision, the fact is though there wont, because I think it's a safe bet that the majority of people in the UK will back them.

plagiarize said:
the BBFC aren't infallible.

in the early eighties they banned a number of horror movies. amongst them was The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which as anyone who has seen it knows, has hardly any onscreen violence, and is far from sadistic.

that same film is now available in the Uk uncut, as it always should have been...

did the world change to the point where such a film is now acceptable, or was it always acceptable? if the world did change why do you trust the BBFC to know when it's reached the point that such a thing is acceptable?

but then it doesn't matter to me if manhunt 2 is the most morally corrupt and overtly violent game ever made. it still shouldn't be banned.

if it was the most morally corrupt game ever made, if not for this kind of publicity the sales would demonstrate societies feeling towards the game.
Click to expand...

Yes, British society did change, it became desensitized to such things over time, when the Exorsist was made, it drew HUGE criticism, as it tackled a topic considered taboo at the time, now it is shown without any warning, as society moved on, there may be a time where the level of violence shown in Manhunt 2 is acceptable, but that is not yet, as the BBFC have judged.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Stop It said:
Hey, It's what we've been doing since the dawn of modern society, you know Governments, that what they do, make the big decisions so we don't have to, laws exist because as a whole, society needs them, without them they cannot be trusted, indeed with them, they cannot be trusted, hence the police exist.

Brandiul, you appear to have a lack of respect for authority, why? the BBFC are well respected in the UK, because they represent the industry, and usually, the will of the people, trust me, if there was a mass protest about this being rejected, then the BBFC will take a good long hard look at their decision, the fact is though there wont, because I think it's a safe bet that the majority of people in the UK will back them.
Click to expand...
why should the majority of the people in the UK prevent a small minority from engaging in a harmless passtime they enjoy?

the BBFC already incorrectly went down this path in the eighties with the whole video nasties debacle. they were wrong then and they are wrong now.
 
B

Branduil

Member
I don't have a lack of respect for authority. I just don't assume that authorities always do the right thing for the right reason.
 
N

Natsume

Member
Stop It said:
Brandiul, you appear to have a lack of respect for authority, why? the BBFC are well respected in the UK, because they represent the industry, and usually, the will of the people, trust me, if there was a mass protest about this being rejected, then the BBFC will take a good long hard look at their decision, the fact is though there wont, because I think it's a safe bet that the majority of people in the UK will back them.
Click to expand...

That's because the majority of people in the UK aren't gamers and don't understand gaming nor have any will to do so. I doubt there will be a big fuss made in the media or in terms of protest because gamers will import. We have done when we get screwed over many times before, this time is no different. Whether it is a game being delayed a long time or, as in this instance banned, those who want it will import and those who don't won't care. All the BBFC has done is stop such a game being available to the greater public over here.
 
Stitch

Stitch

Gold Member
Hammer24 said:
How would this be possible? AFAIK a game can´t go on sale before it has been reviewed by the USK?
Click to expand...

Yes, it can. An unrated game (or movie) is automatically only for adults. Even if it would be something about Mickey Mouse...
It's not forbidden to sell unrated games, most stores just don't sell them, maybe it's to much trouble for them, i don't know. But sometimes they do, Total Overdose was unrated and El Matador was unrated too.
 
H

hellclerk

Everything is tsundere to me
damn, this is pretty crazy. i originally had no intention of buying this game though now i think i might have to aquire it before i go to Ireland for university. oh noez, i've become a R* sheep :lol

anyway, i think this might get an AO stamp from the ESRB if its that bad. say goodbye to walmart and target support. EB/GS might carry it, but probably only on preorder. Nintendo probably wont revoke their license, seeing as theyr not ones to regulate what 3rd parties put onto their system anymore, aside from the quality is passable, but i dont think that this game will do incredibly well now, simply because of the issues here.
 
S

Segata Sanshiro

Member
doomed1 said:
damn, this is pretty crazy. i originally had no intention of buying this game though now i think i might have to aquire it before i go to Ireland for university. oh noez, i've become a R* sheep :lol

anyway, i think this might get an AO stamp from the ESRB if its that bad. say goodbye to walmart and target support. EB/GS might carry it, but probably only on preorder. Nintendo probably wont revoke their license, seeing as theyr not ones to regulate what 3rd parties put onto their system anymore, aside from the quality is passable, but i dont think that this game will do incredibly well now, simply because of the issues here.
Click to expand...
My friend, you forget - in North America, you can never get an AO through violence. Now, if there were consensual sex between two adults in the game, you can bet that AO would come down like a hammer from God herself.
 
S

Stop It

Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
plagiarize said:
why should the majority of the people in the UK prevent a small minority from engaging in a harmless passtime they enjoy?

the BBFC already incorrectly went down this path in the eighties with the whole video nasties debacle. they were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that the BBFC really got it wrong in the 80's, they were a bit heavyhanded, but at the time the films faced a huge backlash here, they were socially unacceptable.

It is also important to note that this is the first game to be rejected a rating since 97, the BBFC do not have a real record of banning games, it is not like they have built up to this either,so they must have a decent reason.

Branduil said:
I don't have a lack of respect for authority. I just don't assume that authorities always do the right thing for the right reason.
Click to expand...

Why do you not think that the BBFC have acted in good faith then, they are a body created by the (Mostly film)industry, it is not in their interest to ban games, or films for that matter, they have no alterior motive, so why do you not respect their views?
 
L

loosus

Banned
Stop It said:
Hey, It's what we've been doing since the dawn of modern society, you know Governments, that what they do, make the big decisions so we don't have to, laws exist because as a whole, society needs them, without them they cannot be trusted, indeed with them, they cannot be trusted, hence the police exist.

Brandiul, you appear to have a lack of respect for authority, why? the BBFC are well respected in the UK, because they represent the industry, and usually, the will of the people, trust me, if there was a mass protest about this being rejected, then the BBFC will take a good long hard look at their decision, the fact is though there wont, because I think it's a safe bet that the majority of people in the UK will back them.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that the UK people are just dumb or what?

You know, you can put the blame on anyone you want, but there IS definitely a problem here. Sure, not many people may make a big fuss over this, but that's because most folks are too busy to care very much. Outright censorship like this is just asking for something more. Why does this group get to decide what you get to watch and play? And why do you not care? And why do they have to stop there? Why can't they ban anything? Just because you might agree with this decision doesn't mean you'll agree with all their bannings.

You could outright ban the Torah or Quran. A lot of people would argue that these books are infinitely more inciteful than any videogame has been to date. I'm not for a ban of these books, but if you want to take that "protect the people" route, then that's exactly what you're asking for.
 
Haunted

Haunted

Member
Segata Sanshiro said:
My friend, you forget - in North America, you can never get an AO through violence. Now, if there were consensual sex between two adults in the game, you can bet that AO would come down like a hammer from God herself.
Click to expand...
:lol
 
S

Segata Sanshiro

Member
Stop It said:
Why do you not think that the BBFC have acted in good faith then, they are a body created by the (Mostly film)industry, it is not in their interest to ban games, or films for that matter, they have no alterior motive, so why do you not respect their views?
Click to expand...
Personally, I feel the pork industry should get to choose which games I get to play.
 
R

Razoric

Banned
Segata Sanshiro said:
My friend, you forget - in North America, you can never get an AO through violence. Now, if there were consensual sex between two adults in the game, you can bet that AO would come down like a hammer from God herself.
Click to expand...

Actually The Punisher (PS2) got censored for violence because it almost received an AO rating.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Stop It said:
Yes, British society did change, it became desensitized to such things over time, when the Exorsist was made, it drew HUGE criticism, as it tackled a topic considered taboo at the time, now it is shown without any warning, as society moved on, there may be a time where the level of violence shown in Manhunt 2 is acceptable, but that is not yet, as the BBFC have judged.
Click to expand...
my point is simple. why do the BBFC get to judge? what metric do they judge by? how are people selected to be on the panel? do you know any of this?

you just presume they do a good job. you just presume that the stuff they prevent you from seeing is for the better.

but you haven't told me how society changed with regards to TCM. i can see how The Exorcist plays differently to a modern audience, but not how TCM does.

i remember the eighties and early nineties. i remember the stupid moral outrage over the fact that some people enjoyed horror movies (and it's not a question of gorey or sadistic as many of the banned films were neither) and the majority championing the banning of films and the stupid raids on video stores.

why did they get to tell me that i wasn't allowed to watch a film because it was 'intense' or 'scary' as they did with TCM?

i *have* seen many of the films they thought unfit for the general public, and some of the films they still haven't passed either uncut or at all. i have zero reason to trust them and i don't see why you do.
 
L

loosus

Banned
And really, morals haven't changed all that much. You know, my parents still don't like The Exorcist. But they're also not in the streets picketing for its banning, either.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Razoric said:
Actually The Punisher (PS2) got censored for violence because it almost received an AO rating.
Click to expand...
lets not forget though that america is very different and that The Punisher was censored not by the ERSB but the publishers of the game that didn't want to release the game with an AO rating, due to the fact that they'd make more money releasing an M.
 
R

Razoric

Banned
plagiarize said:
lets not forget though that america is very different and that The Punisher was censored not by the ERSB but the publishers of the game that didn't want to release the game with an AO rating, due to the fact that they'd make more money releasing an M.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I was just pointing out the fact that games in America could receive an AO rating on violence alone.
 
V

Visualante

Member
Reggie really needs to play the game I think. So he can field the inevitable questions he will get. He went on record saying he wanted mature games on Wii and that he was in talks with Take2.

Either that or just notmyproblem.gif it.
 
S

Segata Sanshiro

Member
Razoric said:
:p

It's true though, which is why Saints Row (same dev) lacks pretty much any blood whatsoever.
Click to expand...
That comes around to another interesting point. Allow me to preface this by saying that earlier, in that well-written post, someone mentioned that social workers, psychologists, and academics were involved in these decisions. I work in a field with all three professions (MYSTERY - I AM ONE OF THESE THREE), and let me just say that I wouldn't trust a collective group of these people to order lunch for me, let alone decide what I should or shouldn't consume as entertainment.

Anyway, why is it that the violence becomes okay once the blood is taken out? There is precious little research to back up any sort of argument of causality with video games and violence (and nothing to separate it from television, which is one of the bigger problems for proponents of "Video games are more interactive, therefore more damaging"), and there is certainly nothing with any sort of credit behind it saying that removing blood severs that correlation at all.

So why does cleaning the blood out of a violent game whilst leaving the violent act in make everything okay for these ratings boards, I wonder?
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Segata Sanshiro said:
That comes around to another interesting point. Allow me to preface this by saying that earlier, in that well-written post, someone mentioned that social workers, psychologists, and academics were involved in these decisions. I work in a field with all three professions (MYSTERY - I AM ONE OF THESE THREE), and let me just say that I wouldn't trust a collective group of these people to order lunch for me, let alone decide what I should or shouldn't consume as entertainment.

Anyway, why is it that the violence becomes okay once the blood is taken out? There is precious little research to back up any sort of argument of causality with video games and violence (and nothing to separate it from television, which is one of the bigger problems for proponents of "Video games are more interactive, therefore more damaging"), and there is certainly nothing with any sort of credit behind it saying that removing blood severs that correlation at all.

So why does cleaning the blood out of a violent game whilst leaving the violent act in make everything okay for these ratings boards, I wonder?
Click to expand...
it's the same rational that says you can show someone being raped so long as you don't show the penetration.

ie... a crazy one.
 
T

test_account

XP-39C²
AltogetherAndrews said:
It was all over-the-top comedy though. Piss and kill comedy without much funny, but comedy nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Ye, i guess the style was abit different than Manhunt. Maybe thats why it was allowed for sale. Still a very violent game tho.
 
S

Stop It

Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
Segata Sanshiro said:
That comes around to another interesting point. Allow me to preface this by saying that earlier, in that well-written post, someone mentioned that social workers, psychologists, and academics were involved in these decisions. I work in a field with all three professions (MYSTERY - I AM ONE OF THESE THREE), and let me just say that I wouldn't trust a collective group of these people to order lunch for me, let alone decide what I should or shouldn't consume as entertainment.

Anyway, why is it that the violence becomes okay once the blood is taken out? There is precious little research to back up any sort of argument of causality with video games and violence (and nothing to separate it from television, which is one of the bigger problems for proponents of "Video games are more interactive, therefore more damaging"), and there is certainly nothing with any sort of credit behind it saying that removing blood severs that correlation at all.

So why does cleaning the blood out of a violent game whilst leaving the violent act in make everything okay for these ratings boards, I wonder?
Click to expand...

[Devils advocate mode]

Because it takes away the reality from the situation, if you cut/shoot someone and blood comes out, it makes consquences of the action more real, if you do the same and all that happens is the victim just falls over, it removes the realism from that, thus being disconnected enough from reality to be acceptable [/Devils Advocate Mode]

Thats the official view, I think, I actually disagree, if an action is violent and nasty, taking the blood away from it wont change much.
 
R

Razoric

Banned
Segata Sanshiro said:
and let me just say that I wouldn't trust a collective group of these people to order lunch for me, let alone decide what I should or shouldn't consume as entertainment.
Click to expand...

It goes back to what I said earlier, you can't trust these 'watch dogs'. If they truly cared about society they would be going after the big fish. The content to reaches millions of mainstream people day in and day out. Instead they go for the easy target... the one that might effect 50-200k hardcore gamers at best... the one where no mainstream UKer would stand up to and fight against (probably because they didn't even know it existed until it was banned). In doing so they have given themselves press, power and relevance again.
 
S

Segata Sanshiro

Member
Stop It said:
[Devils advocate mode]

Because it takes away the reality from the situation, if you cut/shoot someone and blood comes out, it makes consquences of the action more real, if you do the same and all that happens is the victim just falls over, it removes the realism from that, thus being disconnected enough from reality to be acceptable [/Devils Advocate Mode]

Thats the official view, I think, I actually disagree, if an action is violent and nasty, taking the blood away from it wont change much.
Click to expand...
I'm aware that's the official view, I'm also aware that actual research hasn't borne that out at all. I believe that makes it an "Old Wives' Tale".
 
youta

youta

Member
Stop It said:
I'll be honest here, society has shown on multiple occasions that it cannot be trusted as a whole, if it could, there wouldn't be any laws at all, and people would self regulate, the fact that statute books round the world are so huge reflects the fact that we cannot be trusted just to do what we want, and the media is included within that, in my honest opinion, any game/film that cannot pass through the BBFC has no place in retailers or for general release full stop.
Click to expand...
I agree.

BTW, your avatar is a copyright violation of FOX's intellectual property, and
you distributing a "Family Guy" image without permission is against the law.
 
G

guise

Member
Hold on, wasn't there a rape scene in Killer7 where
the maid chick essentially raped Harman?
Not to mention the gratuitous amounts of killing in the game. Yet no banning there.
 
H

hellclerk

Everything is tsundere to me
Segata Sanshiro said:
My friend, you forget - in North America, you can never get an AO through violence. Now, if there were consensual sex between two adults in the game, you can bet that AO would come down like a hammer from God herself.
Click to expand...
well, um...
 
S

Stop It

Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
youta said:
I agree.

BTW, your avatar is a copyright violation of FOX's intellectual property, and
you distributing a "Family Guy" image without permission is against the law.
Click to expand...

Much like most peoples here (And I'll love to see Fox go to the effort of sending a trans-atlantic writ through to me, thats for sure), but thats for another thread :p

doomed1 said:
well, um...
Click to expand...

Er, what is this? banned link, so we can't tell :p
 
A

AndyMoogle

Member
Setanta said:
:(

That is 2 jurisdictions in Western Europe that usually are leniant towards such things putting an outright ban on it!

COMPLETELY rules out an English language PAL release with this news!! Horrible!

If I was an American or Canadian I would be optimistic of ever getting to play it, if going by reports that the ESRB are slightly more strict.
What are Rockstar/TTwo going to do now? A huge loss of money if you ask me, considering the Republic of Ireland, U.K (now banned) and more than likely Germany and Australia slapping a ban as well.
Click to expand...
Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland have English versions. I am sure there are other countries as well that will have an English version of this game.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
doomed1 said:
anyway, i think this might get an AO stamp from the ESRB if its that bad.
Click to expand...

They won't release it if it gets an AO rating.


If they go back and edit the game so that you have to resuce a bunch of lost puppies & kittens between brutal killings, will it then be OK since the there is a break from the violence?

That is what that article seems to indicate.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
guise said:
Hold on, wasn't there a rape scene in Killer7 where
the maid chick essentially raped Harman?
Not to mention the gratuitous amounts of killing in the game. Yet no banning there.
Click to expand...
that gets by because of it's art style no doubt.

comically unrealistic amounts of blood are seen as 'better' than a realistic amount of blood, though obviously not better than no blood at all.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Visualante said:
Reggie really needs to play the game I think. So he can field the inevitable questions he will get. He went on record saying he wanted mature games on Wii and that he was in talks with Take2.

Either that or just notmyproblem.gif it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is kinda funny that he went and asked R* to make some Wii games . . . R* responded with Manhunt 2 . . . and then it gets banned. :lol
 
youta

youta

Member
Stop It said:
Much like most peoples here (And I'll love to see Fox go to the effort of sending a trans-atlantic writ through to me, thats for sure), but thats for another thread :p
Click to expand...
Stop It, you appear to have a lack of respect for authority, why? Is your
country not party to the Berne Convention?

But, as you say, that's for another thread...
 
S

Stop It

Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
speculawyer said:
Yeah, it is kinda funny that he went and asked R* to make some Wii games . . . R* responded with Manhunt 2 . . . and then it gets banned. :lol
Click to expand...

I can imagine Reggies response if Rockstar do the almost impossible and gets the game banned in the US, lets just say it'll be worse than anything portrayed in Manhunt 2, hehe.

On that note, any musings on what this game is being rated as? the top level outside of AO, which is R I presume?
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Stop It said:
I can imagine Reggies response if Rockstar do the almost impossible and gets the game banned in the US, lets just say it'll be worse than anything portrayed in Manhunt 2, hehe.

On that note, any musings on what this game is being rated as? the top level outside of AO, which is R I presume?
Click to expand...
M for mature most likely, even if they have to make some cuts...

but the ESRB haven't rated it yet.
 
S

Segata Sanshiro

Member
Stop It said:
I can imagine Reggies response if Rockstar do the almost impossible and gets the game banned in the US, lets just say it'll be worse than anything portrayed in Manhunt 2, hehe.

On that note, any musings on what this game is being rated as? the top level outside of AO, which is R I presume?
Click to expand...
AO is the highest ESRB rating and corresponds with an NC-17 (aka 'X') rating in the film industry. M corresponds to "R", T corresponds to "PG-13", E10+ to "PG", and E to "G".

So most likely "M" with a pile of content descriptors.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
cultofweaver said:
If Manhunt 2 had a true social or political, or even artistic, message it would be passed. The BBFC has decided that it doesn't and tasks players with no option but to engage in gratuitous violence with little reasoning as to the cause. Manhunt 1 was the same, but the structure of the narrative was such that Cash was being hunted and therefore HAD to kill to avoid death, and didn't kill unnecessarily or act against the innocent.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. Manhunt 2 does have a similar backstory where he needs to kill to escape.
 
S

Stop It

Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
Segata Sanshiro said:
AO is the highest ESRB rating and corresponds with an NC-17 (aka 'X') rating in the film industry. M corresponds to "R", T corresponds to "PG-13", E10+ to "PG", and E to "G".

So most likely "M" with a pile of content descriptors.
Click to expand...

Right, Sorry I have to admit I do suck when it comes to content ratings over the pond, I do apologise :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Manhunt - Rockstar's grimy, daring and macabre masterpiece
24
2K
Chuck Berry replied
Dragon's Dogma 2 players use impressive character creator to make Kratos, Pikachu, Kojima...
Community
11
1K
KàIRóS replied
Nintendo Insider Leaks Remake Of Xenoblade Chronicles X As Potential Switch 2 Title
Rumor 2 3
137
10K
StueyDuck replied
Dragon’s Dogma 2 flies up Steam’s best sellers weeks before launch
Sales-Age 2
70
3K
Schmendrick replied
Dragon’s Dogma 2 players discover you can mass kill NPCs to gain more FPS
Community
40
2K
Cramoss replied
Top Bottom