Take Two takes Manhunt 2 and puts it back on the shelf
by David Hinkle 
{ Jun 21st 2007 at 7:44PM }
Even though the certain execs find the upcoming game to be a piece of fine art, Take Two is apparently shelving the game for the moment. And for those who haven't been following the story (everyone is practically ramming it down your throat, so you should know), the title received an Adults Only rating, subsequently banning it from certain game sites and the UK, plus Ireland. Some are even saying this whole debacle is going to cost the company millions of dollars in revenue. Well, Take Two took the only way out they could think of and have shelved the game for the time being. A Take Two rep stated the company "has temporarily suspended plans to distribute Manhunt 2 for the Wii or PlayStation platforms while it reviews its options with regard to the recent decisions made by the British Board of Film Classification and Entertainment Software Rating Board."
We bet you a few folk in Florida are happy about all of this ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mirage @ Jun 21st 2007 8:06PM
Since none of the console manufacturers have the "stones" to grow up and allow AO games on their consoles, Rockstar and Take-Two don't really have a choice.
Laz @ Jun 21st 2007 8:15PM
Is there some sort of petition we could start to show that a good number of us are actually interested in playing this game?
beaus27 @ Jun 21st 2007 9:21PM
@ # 2. I hear Laz, petitions have the power to shift peoples minds.....but then again, no matter how many Earthbound petitions I have signed, Nintendo is too stoned stupid to bring EB 0 or EB 2 stateside.
As for Manhunt 2, can't Take Two slap a mature rating on the game, NOT edit the content, BUT place a warning label in the cover like what they did with Conker's BFD: "WARNING: THIS GAME IS NOT SUITABLE FOR ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 17".
I know this has been asked several times, how much worse is a "AO" rated game than a "M" game. I worked for E.B for several years, never sold a "M" game to anyone without a valid I.D or an adult.
Tom @ Jun 21st 2007 11:23PM
@beaus27
The publisher doesn't rate the game, the ESRB does. Publishers don't get to call the shots, that's the ESRB's sole responsibility. That's why the ESRB exists. Conker's BFD was given an "M" rating by the ESRB, not by Nintendo.
Kenny @ Jun 21st 2007 11:50PM
It's really no surprise Take Two is bleeding money and going through countless restructuring.
Hopefully, Manhunt 2 will be released for the 360 and the market can determine if there's an audience for AO rated games or not. I'm betting Nintendo and Sony made the right call, though.
L @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:03AM
yey i think also if this was on 360 it would still come out =S
i guess now where allgoing to get a CUT up verof the game **CRAP**
Kiet @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:05AM
I don't understand why no cosole manufacturer allows AO games to be sold for their consoles. Man Hunt can't be any worse then movies like Saw or Hostel.
Churchy @ Jun 24th 2007 7:14AM
Well, well, well - its this whole debate that people say that it will influence people into committing violent acts - well all against the game haven't realised that violence breeds violence - we wouldnt have violent media if violence didnt already exist!! Out of interest will it be shipping to other countries in Europe?!!!
Dennis @ Jun 22nd 2007 6:55AM
How about Europe?
Europe has a different rating organisation than the ESRB.
So, just because they said AO means that the PEGI cant rate it a maybe make it appear in Europe first?
habrdash @ Jun 22nd 2007 8:02AM
@Dennis: In Europe, it's not solely PEGI that's responsible for rating a game which contains realistic violence. In the UK, for example, the game goes on to the BBFC (who also rate movies) who rate it on the same basis as they do movies (allegedly) and provide the final classification. In Manhunt 2's case, they chose an outright ban, as did the Irish board.
EricLMcCormick @ Jun 22nd 2007 10:52AM
I think I'm a bit ignorant on this subject, maybe someone can explain it to me but how can a company like Nintendo or Sony say they won't let a company sell a game that works on their system. If they made this game for the PC, could Microsoft or HP or Dell say, sorry guys you can't play this game on our hardware/software?
vidGuy @ Jun 22nd 2007 8:56AM
"Hopefully, Manhunt 2 will be released for the 360 and the market can determine if there's an audience for AO rated games or not."
Microsoft does not allow AO games on their consoles, either, so an unedited XBOX or 360 version is out of the question.
"I don't understand why no cosole manufacturer allows AO games to be sold for their consoles."
It's stupid, really. The console makers don't want to be held responsible in any form for inappropriate content on their system. Same goes for stores - don't want to be responsible. The thing is, if there's a large sticker that says ADULTS ONLY on the game, and the person purchasing the game is carded at checkout, there really is little opportunity for an adult to claim that they didn't know it was so violent and sue the console makers, the store, or the production company. And with console makers saying their console appeals to everyone, especially Nintendo, there is really no reason not to support AO games.
To imagine they would still be responsible is to think that McDonald's would still be liable for scalding somebody with coffee when THERE IS A WARNING ON THE CUP and THE CASHIER WARNS YOU IT IS HOT.
The problem is the stigma is not gone from the days when games were either
A) not rated, and some very graphic (for their day) games were released, "tarnishing" the console makers' reputations
or
B) were rated, and AO games always were pornographic.
To these companies, licensing or stocking an AO game is like supporting pornography on their system or in their store. Many will simply not do it.
Hopefully Take Two can appeal and get an M rating, but I don't see it happening. They will likely have to edit down some of the more disturbing content and resubmit it to the ESRB and other boards for a new M rating. I would have bought this game but I don't intend to buy a censored version.
negative_creep @ Jun 22nd 2007 10:41AM
once again...the ESRB does the job parenting.
aren't there parents for that type of thing?
vidGuy @ Jun 22nd 2007 11:24AM
I'm not positive, but the way I've seen it explained is that game makers are under contract with the console companies. There are access codes to a console. These are lockout keys meant to prevent JUST ANYONE making a game for the console. If you don't have the key, the game won't play. Nintendo, Sony, MS, and others give out the key but stipulate that it can't be used unless the game is licensed.
That means that the game COULD play on the consoles, but if it were released, Nintendo and Sony would sue for breach of contract and would have the game removed from the shelves.
If you want to have some 'night-time reading' there was an interesting case on the fair use of such lockout keys in the Genesis days.
http://www.law.seattleu.edu/fachome/chonm/Cases/sega.html
Angelsnecropolis @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:03PM
Personally, I'm glad that MH2 won't be put out just yet. Of course I have no beef with violent games (I'm playing MK:A right now). But games that are so violent they have to be rated AO is just ridiculous. It shows a complete lack of respect for the gaming community, IMO. I was born back in the good ol' days of 2D sprites (NES, SNES, Genesis) where excessive gore and blood was rarely seen and games were, I think, at their best when it came to story lines and character dev. Having so much gore and violence is completely unneccessary to make a great game. RE4 is one of the best violent games out there and it has an M rating, not AO.
If Take Two is only focusing on the extremes of violence and/or sex they are missing the point of trying to make a great game. I'm all for the first ammendment, but there should be some self imposed limits and respect as well. Story line, character dev, and well thought out play control are what make a game great. This is why people always talk about the "nostalgia factor" when references older and retro games. Its because everyone has such dedicated and fond memories of playing those games. If game devs focused more on great story lines, character dev, and controls, like they used to be (FFVI, CT, PSIV), then the gaming industry would be much better off.
Chester Cheetah @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:53PM
This is complete crap! Adults should be able to play ADULT games! The ESRB and the BBFC should not be trying to parent us all. There are people for that, their called actual "PARENTS"!!! I WANT MY MANHUNT!!!
Will @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:52PM
Angelsnecropolis, you are the only person so far that has posted who has a moral compass. Thanks for restoring my faith somewhat, but I can still see by the other posters even though they have a Wii they still don't get IT.
What makes an AO game a good game? What makes it a bad game? Guys, your moral compass should tell you that Manhunt 2 is irrelevant either way but some of you are pissed off like someone stole your wallets. Wow, I need to stay off the Internet because if you guys are the microcosm of civilization then I would like Jesus to return today.
Kenny @ Jun 23rd 2007 12:21AM
I think the ban on AO games by Nintendo and Sony is less about not being held liable, in Nintendo's case, and more on staying inside a business plan.
Branding is a pretty powerful aspect of marketing. Ideally, a company wants the company name to immediately invoke an image in people's minds. When the average gamer hears or reads "Nintendo," they immediately think of light hearted fun gaming, like Mario.
Nintendo is very smart to stay within its boundaries, no matter how much money its passing up in the short term. By saying "we won't sell games that don't fit within our corporate image," they're ensuring their brand name continues to be a sigil to parents saying their games are reasonably safe for their kids. Obviously, there are still M rated games, but determining when children are ready for M rated content is reasonably with the scope of parenting.
No corporation is trying to play the role of a parent, but they are trying to protect their brand names and identities.
Eron @ Jun 22nd 2007 7:52PM
Dear Will,
Just because we don't subscribe to the same gaming philosophy as you -- that is, that adults should be able to do adult things in adult games, even if you as the authority figure decide that a game is terrible and should be burned in a bonfire since its very existence is a crime against humanity -- does not make us empty vessels without morals or righteousness.
Sincerely,
Reality.
Tim @ Jun 23rd 2007 11:50PM
I'm conflicted every time I hear about this game. On one hand, I will never be buying this game. It's just not the type of game I enjoy and excessive violence has never been a priority for me.
But on the other hand, I see no reason for this game to be restricted from being released. People like Jack Thompson have no right to meddle in what people can buy. Arguing that these things will be bad for children is admitting that these children have inattentive parents. In every form of media there is mature content, and it's absurd to think that everything should be designed for children and ignore the older audiences.