Manhunt 2 – Do They Think Parents Are Stupid?
Whew! Look at this cover. Scary stuff, huh? I mean, you can tell just looking at it (the M-rating is another clue and the descriptors speak of extreme violence, gore, “strong sexual content” and “use of drugs”) that this is a horror game made for adults. The game is called Manhunt 2 and if you haven’t been following the controversy, here it is in a nutshell.
Manhunt 2 is a sequel to one of the most vile and violent games ever made. The plot casts the player as a serial killer trapped in a nightmare where it’s kill or be killed with other serial killers and crazies. The game got an AO -Adults Only rating from the ESRB a few months ago and they did something, cut some content, to make that an M-Mature. Several countries have banned the game outright, despite the changes, with the highest profile being the British Board of Film Classification, which kept the ban despite the changes. The game, fittingly, comes out in stores on October 31st. Okay, with me so far?
Good.
GamerDad’s official take on the controversy is that, in a perfect world, Manhunt 2 would get an AO rating. It deserves it when compared to other M-rated games, and, after all, we will more than likely be giving it our own ADULT Age Seal. But we can’t support the AO rating because it’s not a real rating at all. See, the problem with the AO rating, and why it’s unacceptable, is that it’s the kiss of death. No retailer will stock an AO title and no platform will allow it (Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo strongly police the games released for their systems as is their right). AO is a censorship or ban rating and GamerDad is against all forms of censorship. We also don’t fear the content. We believe kids should NOT be exposed to Manhunt 2, but we understand that films like Saw, Hostel, and Cabin Fever are far more violent and extreme and just two days ago I caught part of a Sci-Fi channel movie about zombies in a prison. Yeah, it featured that whole “gang of zombies surrounds guard and pull pig intestines out of his guts. Realistic enough. Blood everywhere. So, in disbelief I hit the GUIDE button and noticed it was rated TV-14.
So it’s clear that TV and movie ratings are far more lenient than the ESRB. No surprise there. This will continue to be true so long as video games remain the culture war’s front line and for as long as the absurd notion that these games “teach” killing because they’re interactive goes away.
Recently a non-profit called CommonSense Media.org. (Disclosure, I work for their video game division as a reviewer.) CSM quickly opted to use Manhunt 2 as a press opportunity and they’ve planned a press conference to “help” parents.
Anyway, CSM has urged a nationwide ban on the game on the part of parents. GamerDad has no problem joining CSM in saying this because it’s so freaking obvious: Parents! Be careful! Don’t buy this for your kids! Look at that cover! Look at that rating! See? It’s not for kids!
From their Press Release
“Research suggests that nearly 60 percent [unreferenced study] of kids play M-rated games on a regular basis. And data from the Federal Trade Commission shows that underage kids can purchase M-rated games more than four out of ten times [during “stings”]. Before “Manhunt 2” hits shelves on Halloween, Common Sense wants to make sure that parents know this game is NOT okay for kids.”
Brackets added by me.
Look at that box cover again. Do parents need warning? Are parents stupid or do people just assume they are? I do a lot of outreach work giving speeches and talking to mainstream parents and let me assure you of at least two things:
1. Parents understand the ratings system because, well, it’s pretty easy to understand and no matter how much people want to believe it – parents are not stupid.
2. Parents know how to judge a book or game by the cover too. And the screenshots on the back.
Sure, there’s a percentage of parents who ARE stupid but those parents aren’t going to pay attention to CSM’s press conference or press release anyway. There’s no point in trying to reach them this way
So, why are 60% (or whatever) of kids playing M-rated games regularly? I’ll tell you why. Because their parents LET them. I talk to parents appalled by game violence and others who remember, fondly, watching bloody horror movies with dad. The former won’t buy Manhunt 2 anyway and the latter? Well, they probably will buy it.
Like CSM we also urge parents to avoid adult titles for kids. Especially games THIS extreme. But we don’t judge the parents who choose to and most of all. . . we don’t believe parents are stupid.
Wouldn’t it be more productive to have a press conference about a game, y’know, less obviously “for adults”? One that parents who’d heed a warning or need a warning for instead? For example We think Halo 3 is okay for teenagers because it’s nowhere near as violent as most games rated M and, for the most part, equal with several T-rated games (the Medal of Honor series comes to mind).
There.
That statement is what curious parents are really concerned about.
Discuss.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I really wish that the AO rating could *mean* something … and I completely agree with you, Andrew!
October 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Thanks Mike. It’s idiotic that the result of NC-17 and AO isn’t protecting kids, informing parents, or allowing creativity to test adult boundaries. It means: “They probably won’t release it now, or they have to compromise it.”
I’d prefer AO games to be sold in stores (put it behind glass or something) and that developers make creative decisions based on taste and market forces.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:20 am
I keep hearing this statement that, inarguably, movie ratings are more lenient than game ratings and I have to disagree. Since things are rated highly based mostly on violence and sexual content I’ll go through some examples of those.
First violence. In every editorial on the subject people say that Saw and Hostel got R ratings and so Manhunt should get an M rating. I don’t think that this comparison is apt. In the whole of the Saw Saw series so far, how many characters have been killed? I haven’t kept a tally but I’d say it’s fewer than 20. Now look at Manhunt. How many characters does the player character brutally kill? While the gore level is almost always going to be higher in a horror movie than a horror game, the kill count will always be higher in a horror game due to their length and the fact that games are all about repetition. I think you can easily make the argument that games get a way with far more violence due to the huge difference in quantity of the acts.
Now, sex may be a bit trickier of a topic. The few games that I can think of that have AO ratings or were recut for America are Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit, GTA:SA and the latest Leisure Suit Larry game which had an M and AO version. Of course, hentai games get rated AO when rated but I don’t think we need to look at those since they are just straight up porn. Now, just two days ago I watched the documentary on the MPAA, This Film is Not Yet Rated so I’ll mostly be drawing from that. In the film all of the movies that were pointed out as having an NC-17 rating got it either for featuring long, graphic displays of sex, “abnormal sex acts,” , gay sex, females enjoying sex more than the raters apparently wanted them to and shots of pubic hair. While not all of these relate directly to these games (and there will be exceptions, like Brokeback Mountain) the systems are similar in most ways. While I disagree with the rating of San Andreas based on orphaned content, if you accept that it should be counted then the rating seems equal to movies that were rated NC-17 for long sex scenes. The filmmakers in the movie talked about how there was probably a “thrust count” that raters use to decide if a scene is too long. I can easily see how an interactive and long lasting sex scene would fit the bill to get an AO. The same goes for Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit whose M rates cut, as far as I know, just removed the interactive sex scene between Lucas and his ex-girlfriend and had a later scene edited so that the player busted in on a couple wearing their underwear rather than being nude. The LSL game also had very little removed as far as I know. The only difference between the AO and M rated versions is that the M rated version has censor bars over the genitals of female characters and the AO version removes the bar. This seems equivalent to the film that was given an AO for showing a glimpse of a woman’s pubic hair during a sex scene.
I’m sure there are holes in this argument (I don’t know what to say about the whole Atari blocking the nipples in the sex cards in The Witcher, for example, though they did that without getting an AO first) but I think that people stating that films, without a doubt, get more leniency than games are not really thinking things through fully.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Thanks for a very thoughtful post! You got your facts right too. Most people misunderstood the Hot Coffee debacle. It’s worth mentioning that in GTA San Andreas the “orphaned code” had the figures clothed and it was far less graphic than the silly marionette sex from Team America, but that’s neither here nor there because I’d wager we won’t see that happen again.
Good point about the number of kills in games versus films – that is a mitigating factor I find more compelling than the “interactive therefore worse” angle. The real problem isn’t that games get an AO for sex or violence reasons, it’s that AO games can’t be sold and in cases outside of the PC, can’t be made. The other problem, as I see it, is that a game like The Witcher or Manhunt 2 is rated the same as Halo 3, while the slightly less bloody Medal of Honor series gets a T-Teen.
I guess our argument can be boiled down to, how many fake looking virtual kills equal a single example of “torture film” like a Saw or Hostel. Is there anything in videogames NEARLY as graphic as that scene in Hostel 2 where a nude woman is suspended over another woman and has her throat slit? Is there anything in gaming to equal or for parity with the scene in that same movie where a man gets his genitals cut off?
Also, in videogames you almost never (I can’t think of an example) see/hear the victim cry, beg for mercy, or dies in a gruesome and horrible way. In games they blow up, get shot, stabbed, etc., but the death is actually clean and not really any more upsetting than watching a wooden duck get hit at a carnival rifle game. The screaming, slowness, and sadism is almost completely absent from gaming – but it’s rife on film at the Rated R level.
I guess what it boils down to, for me and a lot of parents, is that games offer violence but much of it is cartoon violence or bloodless violence, while movies like Saw and Hostel are more difficult to sit through because it feels like sadistic voyeurism.
Then there’s the “rendered” versus “actor” factor. Graphics have advanced, but even on the best HD with the best videocard, nobody could confuse these character models with actual people. In movies, the virtual violence looks real because it’s practiced on real actors. Maybe games should be compared to cartoons or anime. As a parent I’m less concerned about anime violence than I am film – because of the realism – even though, as a parent, I’m not exposing my kids to either until they’re older.
All that said, I have no problem with those films being rated R. 17 year olds are, as Mike mentioned, one year away from being able to kill or be killed in war and it seems strange to spend time defending them or shielding them from virtual violence. 17 is the MPAA and ESRB cut off. I guess it might be notable that at GamerDad we go with 18+ for our Adult Seal but really my post was a reaction to that TV-14 Zombie movie I mentioned. It was more graphic than George Romero’s stuff. Watching Zombies on the sci-fi channel tearing open stomachs and smearing pig intestines on their faces sort of makes the argument about whether the blood spray in Halo3 is harmful seem… absurd.
Btw:
I haven’t seen that MPAA documentary. Thanks for the reminder that I really should.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Oh and for the record, the ESRB claims in public and private that they don’t have “lines in the sand” or anything like that “thrust count” the MPAA apparently uses. I’m not sure how they determine ratings – and I’ve been lobbying hard for them to include more parents – but I thought I should mention that.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“in videogames you almost never (I can’t think of an example) see/hear the victim cry, beg for mercy, or dies in a gruesome and horrible way.”
The only example I can think of is Soldier of Fortune II, where your hear people gurgling blood, screaming in agony, and so on … but again it isn’t torturous, it is just the ‘death cry’.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Good point. I mean that death in videogames is far less realistic than it is in movies, and therefore far less visceral. I’m still not endorsing it for children, of course, but that’s a decision parents should make based on solid information rather than social agenda or “culture wars.”
October 31st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
GamerDad: I may not be a parent–but I am an adult and I agree with your views over this (sometimes tiring) controversy of video games. That being said, there is one thing I’m wondering about: Do parents [gamers and non-gamers] know about the opinions and concerns about adult gamers and game-developers? Many of us say “Yes, we agree, violent games like Manhunt are not for children!” But at the same time, we look at the verbage of many public officials, and cry out “Your legislation and way of wording things is preventing adults the choice of buying and playing adult games!”
I apologize that I really can’t make that more clear. But it does go back to the whole bit about letting Parents regulate the games they buy for kids and teens, rather than try to legislate and regulate retailers or (worse) developers. Have you ever posed this point to parents? If so, what was their reaction?
October 31st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I agree Silphion. I tend to place the crosshairs of my argument on 18 year olds – our politicians will gladly send hundreds of thousands to die all over the world for no good reason, yet get outraged and feel teh need to protect these same kids from seeing nipples or pubies.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Hee hee, Sorry that I was not more clear. I had meant to say “What are the reactions of parents to the opinions of adult gamers/developers?” My above post seems to have rambled.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I’ve spoken to a lot of people at the ESRB, ESA, and ECA and without naming names I’ve been told, basically, that the politicians know the legislation is unconstitutional – they do it to get votes from the older demographic who has no stake – or no real knowledge/experience with – video games.
I’ve yet to meet a moderate or “reasonable” anti-video game person or parent. Generally the type that’s anti-games is the type who, whether far left or far right, wants to ban a lot of other things too. Some people are VERY fearful of violence, even virtual violence, and they want the government to intercede against what they see as a real danger and social ill. These people WANT studies to come out that show games cause violence. It’s almost like they WANT games to be dangerous, so they can be eradicated. Does that make sense? Not to me. But then again I’ve noticed that most people don’t get involved unless they have a stake. Very few politicians are gamers, so attacking this industry is – at this time in history – a “win” even if they lose.
It’s very frustrating because I’m idealistic enough to be surprised whenever I meet anyone who doesn’t really understand the First Amendment and what it’s for.
Then again, Britain, Germany and Australia ban games all the time. So there are entire countries who fail to see the danger of regulation of thought or ideas – even vile thought or ideas.
Does that answer your question Silphion?
October 31st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
In a way, it does. I just went through the CBS website for placing comments about their news shots. This one in particular struck me as, well “Yikes”, in a word. It goes along exactly with what you state.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/10/30/couricandco/entry3432898.shtml#ccmm
In the first page, along the way, you will see a man named “Peter” who applauds Britain for the wholesale banning of games, and calls for the U.S. government to do the same. It’s like they do not even hear the opinions or reasonings of the people who ARE gamers, aged anywhere from 20 to 35 years old. That demographic doesn’t seem to exist to them–and similarly, their comments don’t exist as well.
It’s disconcerting. But then I hear about a Guam Senator (link below) who kicks back to a game of WoW, and I feel my faith in humanity rise again. You’re right–at this moment, the older generation of law-makers are making laws that’s most convenient for them–they don’t even know what games really are like today. I always thought people who made that comment were exaggerating or kidding. Now I’m making it (another “Yikes” moment).
http://www.thegamergene.com/pc/guam-senator-is-also-a-level-70-dwarf-priest-in-wow/
Maybe five years down the road, things will get better. Right now, it seems like the gaming industry is facing some of the harshest criticism since the days of Mortal Kombat’s green blood, which spawned the ESRB in the first place.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:28 am
I don’t usually follow links, unless it’s JT trolling on about murders by videogamers, but I thought i’d kill some time.
However, this is more than killing time. It’s reading the thoughts of a well informed man, who isn’t up in arms about Manhunt. Now that is a paradox in it’s own right.
But then, it’s GamerDad i’m talking about. The best man the Industry has to speak out against these bans and ratings and all the other shit we get thrown at us by 90-year olds who think we’re all murderers.
Keep on truckin’, ’cause it was a pleasure to read this. Almost as good as my day off today.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:30 am
“Then again, Britain, Germany and Australia ban games all the time”
Hold on there, the last game the BBFC banned was Carmageddon. Well, before Manhunt 2.
Germany is far too tight, and Australia is a joke. They don’t even have an 18+ Rating (that’s roughly similar to an M for all the Yanks reading this. Yes, all three of you online).
November 1st, 2007 at 2:33 am
“I’ve been lobbying hard”
I can tell you’re not familiar with the quick way of doing things. But then, it is Illegal.. *ahem*
Still, lobbying doesn’t usually work.
April 14th, 2012 at 8:58 am
this is so violent i love it only game where u can shove a saw up a guy ass i got the A version
and i pulled his heart out long live manhunt
May 2nd, 2013 at 3:15 am
You all disappoint me now Leo’s gonna come and take u s away u shouldn’t have ignored him. Now u suffer I’m sorry