Nintendo says no to AO Manhunt 2

by Alisha Karabinus { Jun 20th 2007 at 7:30PM }

We take it back -- Manhunt 2 is in a more dire situation in the US than we first thought, because Nintendo will not even license or allow playback of the controversial title with an AO rating. Looks like Pachter was right: Rockstar is going to bleed money over this title, because they're either going to have to scrap the game altogether, or simply edit Manhunt 2 down until they can wrangle another rating.

It's not just Nintendo, either -- Sony's taken the same hard line on Manhunt 2. Looks like poor Daniel Lamb and Leo Kaspar are at risk from more than just the Pickman Project.

Tags: adults only, AdultsOnly, ao, controversy, manhunt 2, Manhunt2, nintendo, rating, rockstar

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Tom @ Jun 20th 2007 7:44PM

I'm gonna bash your skull in with a... Wiffle bat?! Noooooooo!

The game will most likely get delayed for a couple months until its changed enough to sneak by with the "M" rating. No big deal.

I wasn't gonna buy the game anyway.

Bill @ Jun 20th 2007 8:10PM

It's my understanding that Take-Two still has the option to appeal the decision, meaning it could conceivably come back with an M-rating. The difference between M and AO rating is a year. Here're the snippets from http://www.esrb.org :

MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

Greg2k @ Jun 20th 2007 8:19PM

They'll probably enforce the "use the Wii remote on its side and play NES-style" control scheme, that way it feels less like you're sawing through someone's neck.

Billy_McBong @ Jun 20th 2007 8:35PM

"Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."
THE WHOLE GAME IS PROLONGED SCENES OF VIOLENCE
which sucks i wanna play an unedited version not one that is less violent :(

Calvin @ Jun 20th 2007 8:50PM

The only issue that I have with Nintendo's refusal to license or allow playback of this game is that I thought that the Wii was being marketed to everyone (including adults). If Nintendo is going to continue to market the Wii as a system for everyone then they should also release a wide flavor of games, including AO rated games as well.

siege315 @ Jun 20th 2007 9:05PM

Im pretty sure this will be the most violent game ever released deffinatly no good sause!

I have experince with violent games and sometimes a line has to be drawn, rockstar has pushed the limit of games for a long while now (eg GTA) but that in no way means that games should turn into somthing horrible and not fun just for the sake of being awful!!!!!

However I am not a supporter of violent games being banned, some violent games are great (eg res4 mortal kombat, etc) but come on people dosent simulating sawing up another human by making a hacking motion a little or a lot over the line!

There has to be a limit to how bad media can get and i think this game is proof that things will be done to prevent horile things!

ps. im getting the wii re4 tonight

Gordon @ Jun 20th 2007 9:25PM

So... what's the point of AO rating if they won't get released?

theLoneYoshi @ Jun 20th 2007 9:49PM

To tell you the truth, I don't think it's either Nintendo or Sony's fault that they choose not to license an AO rated game on their systems. From a business standpoint to either of them, it doesn't make sense. AO games would rake in cash, given that they are good quality.

Now those politicians blaming video games for the end of the world... those people keep the AO games from releasing on systems.

And I agree with Gordon, what IS the point of AO if it doesn't get released? They should just replace it with another rating: B for Banned. That basically sums it up anyway.

It would look like this on their website:
BANNED
Titles rated B (Banned) have content that in not suitable for any persons. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

caffeineman315 @ Jun 20th 2007 10:14PM

B for banned is a awesome rating idea.
for dweebs
jk

joedirt131 @ Jun 20th 2007 10:43PM

@8
Exactly. The AO rating pretty much is just the ESRB's way of effectively banning a game. That could be bad, since members of the government are always talking about how the ESRB sucks, and that they should step in to fix it. If the government started running the ESRB, they could force publishers to censor their games just by giving them the AO rating.

I also agree with #5. Nintendo said they were gonna try to appeal to a wider audience. By disallowing a game of a certain rating to be playable on their system is really like they're saying "We've gotta keep the system safe for families!" and deny a large portion of potential users a game they might want to play.

I think the only way to fight this is for console makers like Sony and Nintendo to allow AO games on their systems. Sure, there can be limits to which AO games can be published on the system. But banning all AO games from their systems really does make an AO rating the "Kiss of Death".

hvnlysoldr @ Jun 20th 2007 10:45PM

It's like RoboCop. They tried 15 times resubmitting to the MPAA until finally reaching R. In hindsight all the deleted material actually made the violence seem even more violent with parts left out. With the deletions reinserted it became more over the top and less disturbing. Of course Manhunt 2 could be too gory even for that possible resurrection.

Nica @ Jun 21st 2007 3:00AM

and i don't know if any of you have thought about what this means for no more heroes, but now i doubt suda 51 will try to make the game more violent than manhunt 2 for obvious reasons. personally, i don't care for blood in games, but it definitely helps sell games. i know a lot of people that are easily amazed by blood and dismemberment. we'll see how it turns out though. hopefully the appeals process goes well for take two, i want to play the uncensored version.

soulbreather @ Jun 21st 2007 11:20AM

this is stupid, it's a good game for people that like thrillers

DemiurgeIV @ Jun 21st 2007 5:24AM

#5, Its not really fair to blame Nintendo is it? I see how only two people read the whole article and can see Sony did the same thing as well, but because Nintendo wanted a wider audience they are getting flak? Excuse them for not wanting to push forward a game which MOST RETAILERS WILL NOT STOCK ANYWAY. Releasing an AO game is about as stupid as punching yourself in the face. The only game forced to be made AO was GTA and that was pushed forward by Sony because it was ALREADY RELEASED.

And about No more heroes, thats more stylized violence, its not full on realistic bone-snapping gore. If you've played Killer7 That is. Oh yes, they still will get an M rating in America or a 18+ here, but they most likely won't get an AO for a creative artistic approach to gaming.

You also have to factor in that there are some things that children should NOT see, like hardcore S&M, which.. is in Manhunt. The rating people KNOW that children WILL get their hands on this game, be it through their parents (the ones who DON'T know what happens in game.), be it through their cousins, older siblings, or friends. They WILL get their hands on it. And the LAST thing they want is a PR fiasco wherein everything 18+ has to be denied because of "What happened when we let Manhunt 2 get out and now X, Y, and Z kids have to have therapy because they had NO FUCKING IDEA what they were getting in to."

I'll be honest, I'm 13, I've played through GTA:SA, I've seen SAW 1/2 and 3, and that is because my mother, makes sure, every time, I am fully aware of what I am getting into. She watched me go through alot of GTA. She even played through it herself.

But before you blame everyone for not releasing your favourite game, take a step back and look at what WOULD, and COULD happen if that happened.

Josh Cox @ Jun 21st 2007 6:43AM

Why's everyone so upset? The first Manhunt sucked. Who cares if it's sequel gets banned?

Squashua @ Jun 21st 2007 9:22AM

So... Godfather is pretty gruesome for the Wii; I choke a bitch all the time.

And Resident Evil 4? Scary stuff there.

What's the problem that makes Manhunt 2 any different? Having missed out on many games on PS2/XBox (GTA comes to mind), this is a title I WANT to play for the Wii.

dunnypop @ Jun 21st 2007 10:53AM

I didn't have too much of an interest with this game, since I didn't like the first one too much... but with all this publicity, this is a must have now!

I would think they should do what they did for Punisher, and just turn the screen all red, or blue, or whatever when there is graphic violence.

I think the controversy is because of the wii remote functions, which is the selling point for the game. Who wouldn't want to put a plastic bag over someone's head and pull?

oldxskoolxhlywd @ Jun 21st 2007 12:37PM

no no no damnit damnit DAMMIT

i dont get it. the wii is for EVERYONE

ps: @ 6: im getting wii and pc re4 on friday
1up'd ya!
haha jk

j.lee @ Jun 21st 2007 12:35PM

While I am upset with this decision, a part of me understands Nintendo's reasoning behind this rule. Manhunt 2 may not even be the most terrible game in the world, but if Nintendo allows it, they have to start allowing ALL AO games, and that creates a bit of a quagmire for them: though it does make their promise of making the console accessible to everyone, it begins to alienate some of their core base, i.e., the family friendly audience. I don't think that this should really stand in their way, since most retail outlets aren't going to carry AO games and obvious restrictions can be put in place to prevent the sale to minors, but at the same time I understand the decision.

Jay @ Jun 21st 2007 1:09PM

I can actually understand Nintendo's position on this. It's not the extreme violence or gore that Nintendo is concerned about. It's the rating itself.

If they allow this game, it opens up a huge can of worms. They will have a really hard time rejecting pornographic games or any other AO rated games. I believe that if the ESRB had 2 ratings... AO (for violence, drugs and f-bombs) and X (for sex) then Nintendo could possibly consider letting AO's through.

But the way it is now, I don't think Nintendo is willing to take a chance that a mom might walk in on her 13 year old boy playing Jenna Jameson's latest wii title.

Gabriel Acevedo @ Jun 21st 2007 1:42PM

That's why Nintendo is going to end up like Sega: A developer for other consoles. Mark my words!

j.lee @ Jun 21st 2007 1:42PM

@20:

Thank you for making my point.

Jay @ Jun 21st 2007 2:19PM

@22 - Glad we agree. For some reason I didn't see your previous comment, otherwise I would have given you kudos.

@21 - The GAMING INDUSTRY (not just Nintendo) has gotten along fine without Manhunt 2 class violence. I'm sure that Nintendo will recover from this "console killer" experience .

jman @ Jun 21st 2007 2:56PM

so i was at gamestop today and apparently in their computers it is under M and i was able to reserve it.....

Michael @ Jun 21st 2007 3:07PM

I seem to have problems understanding this... So... ESRB Marks a game to give it better control to parents... Parents have Parental controls on system.

What Am I Missing?

Its not Like the companies will be liable if little johnny gets scarred by a little S&M, after 1st buying a game AO (id check), and then being able to play a game in wii (parental control's)...

Oh well. AO = BANNED.