Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Entertainment Games Politics

US Senators Take On The ESRB Over Manhunt 2 386

Posted by Zonk from the hold-on-to-your-butts dept.
eldavojohn writes "Some US Senate members sent a letter to the ESRB asking for 'your consideration of whether it is time to review the robustness, reliability and repeatability of your ratings process, particularly for this genre of 'ultraviolent' video games and the advances in game controllers,' the senators wrote. 'We have consistently urged parents to pay attention to the ESRB rating system. We must ensure that parents can rely on the consistency and accuracy of those ratings.' The group of lawmakers were concerned that Manhunt 2 was only given an 'M' rating and instead feel that it should have the 'AO' rating — a rating that only 23 other games have been given and a rating that would cause Sony & Nintendo to restrict it from being released on their consoles."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Senators Take On The ESRB Over Manhunt 2 More

US Senators Take On The ESRB Over Manhunt 2

Comments Filter:

  • Did they actually play it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @11:41AM (#21420899)
    What are the chances that they actually played it and looked at the objectionable content before making these complaints?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by noc007 ( 633443 )
      Probably the same amount of time they spend on reviewing the Patriot Act, DMCA, etc. before voting on it. I wish they'd do the same for the FairTax bill and repeal the 16th Amendment.

      This whole Manhunt 2 issue sounds like Wacko Jacko Thompson ass-hattery. These senators need to spend more time on the bigger issues than a damn game. The game is rated M for Mature; it's very similar to movie R ratings. If it's not already law, the stores should make it a policy to not sell M rated games and R rated movies

      • Re:Did they actually play it? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:25PM (#21421579) Homepage Journal

        Don't like ESRB's rating criteria? Start your own game rating system.
        The console cartel (consisting primarily of Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo) has given the monopoly to ESRB. The commercially significant platforms that allow non-ESRB games are Windows, Windows Mobile, Mac OS X, SWF, Java, Java ME, and JavaScript.

        Too lazy to do that
        No, it's the estimated 90 percent of PC gamers who are too lazy to connect their PCs to their TVs to play arcade-style or console-style PC games as they were intended. How do video game developers fix that?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Applekid ( 993327 )

        Don't like ESRB's rating criteria? Start your own game rating system.
        No, just please no. The point of the ESRB is so that the government doesn't step in and impose it's own censorship, ala the FCC.

        The congressional hearings and demands in this area disturb me since it's a "natural" progression of events which could wind up getting an official government agency overwatching content.
    • Most of the time they watch a video of gameplay. This is because they can't play games, so they most likely wouldn't advance that far, also it's a good way to jump around the game without spending hours on one game.
    • He sat through every disgusting frame of the game...twice.

    • Re:Did they actually play it? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @03:21PM (#21424621) Homepage
      Also, after playing it, did he watch a slough of CSI episodes and R-rated films to compare? After all, the M-rating is equivalent to R rating in terms of requirements, isn't it? And any kid with cable can watch CSI.

      But wait, the movie and TV industries have better lobbyists, and the "think-of-the-children" nanny-voters this panders to aren't gamers (but they do watch CSI and movies).

  • That's the bit that gets me, the console makers. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nursie ( 632944 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @11:43AM (#21420919)
    Why should Sony and Nintendo stop it being released on their consoles?

    There are people making the games, there are people that want to play the games, why not just let the rating system rate them and let people choose to play them or not?

    Then there wouldn't be so much pressure to get a game in under the M rating, the ESRB wouldn't be under so much pressure not to give out AO ratings (which are an effective ban at present), and parents would have a fairer idea of what is suitable for little Jimmy and what really is not.

    Sony and Nintendo are the problem in this scenario.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:That's the bit that gets me, the console makers (Score:5, Insightful)

        by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:11PM (#21421387) Homepage
        Because the customers are not the same, and their companies are marketing their family-friendly image as much as anything else (moreso Nintendo than Sorny).

        Face it: The average American consumer is a frothy-mouthed puritan.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
          "Because the customers are not the same, and their companies are marketing their family-friendly image as much as anything else (moreso Nintendo than Sorny).

          Face it: The average American consumer is a frothy-mouthed puritan."
          Except that Manhunt2 is baned in the UK... And not just rated AO. Also in the US the games ratings don't carry the force of law like they do in the UK.

          http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06/19/manhunt_2_banned/ [reghardware.co.uk]

      • Yeah, god bless the UK (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nursie ( 632944 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:24PM (#21421549)
        Where we banned the game entirely. Brilliant.

        I'd take console manufacturer censorship over government censorship any day.

      • Re:That's the bit that gets me, the console makers (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:46PM (#21421965)

        They're given out to mainstream games (GTA for instance) that the console makers are perfectly happy to see on their machines - why do the same companies think differently about the issue in the US?

        Because of the inversion of pronography and violence being the hot-button issues in Europe and America. In America, the highest ratings imply pornography (which Nintendo and Sony don't want to be associated with... cue Betamax). In Europe (generalizing becuase I have never been to England), typically nudity is more acceptable than violence.

        So, to answer your question, Sony and Nintendo are fine being associated with violence (Nintendo typically cartoon), but not pornography. So, to make up for the fact that people rarely learn why the ratings are the way they are, anything with a pornographic sounding rating is a no-no.

        Really, blame the American consumer or ESRB for not having a Violence/Sexuality/Language/Choose a few more categories complex rating and not a simple categorization.

    • Because they want to appeal to lazy american parents who believe that companies should do their job for them? Yeah, I know the real reason iz they're run by out of touch old men who think that, "AO" means it's pornographic, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Either way, Sony and Nintendo are still the problem though.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by plague3106 ( 71849 )
      For that matter, why are our Senators wasting time with video games when we have a war going on, torture and violation of civil rights, the dollar's value is dropping faster than a rock, AND THIS IS THE CRAP THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT!

      • Re:That's the bit that gets me, the console makers (Score:5, Funny)

        by Entropius ( 188861 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:07PM (#21421313)
        Doing crap like this is Congress' equivalent of reading slashdot at work, really.

        They even have trolls and all, and sometimes I wonder if Cynthia McKinney is a closet member of the GNAA...

      • For that matter, why are our Senators wasting time with video games when we have a war going on, torture and violation of civil rights, the dollar's value is dropping faster than a rock, AND THIS IS THE CRAP THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT!

        Do you really need to ask why? Political grandstanding leading up to the next election comes to mind.

        Most voters don't want to think about war, don't want to think about rendition, civil rights, the economy, etc. It's easier to vote based on the gut feeling that "so-and-so's v

        • Re:That's the bit that gets me, the console makers (Score:4, Insightful)

          by dragonsomnolent ( 978815 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:39PM (#21421845) Homepage
          And therein lies the problem. Everyone wants to see their morals codified into law. Happened with the prohibition. Once saw an old news reel of a old woman saying something to the tune of "I don't want to drink alcohol because I think it's wrong, so I don't think anyone else should either". That kind of stuff chaffs me raw. Personally, I would love to see my religious morals codified into law, but they're a lot simpler "Do what thou wilt, but harm no one". Seems pretty simple to me. Nanny state crap like this is wasting time, wasting money, but you're right, they want to get re-elected, and no one seems to want to think about the important issues. In retrospect, I really should have just modded you insightful.
      • What do Senators have to do with the value of the dollar? Should the pass a law stating the dollar is now worth more than other currencies?

        Sadly, that bill sounds about as well thought out as 99% of the shit they pass.

    • Zappa (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rbochan ( 827946 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:05PM (#21421283) Homepage
      Frank Zappa had it right on when he told Tipper Gore (you remember Tipper [google.com], don't you?):
      "I would say that a buzz saw blade between the guy's legs on the album cover is good indication that it's not for little Johnny."

      With a title like "Manhunt 2", perhaps the game isn't for little Jimmy.

    • Re:That's the bit that gets me, the console makers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aplusjimages ( 939458 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:05PM (#21421285) Journal
      Don't forget the retailers as well. They won't carry an AO game. If they did, then Rockstar wouldn't mind carrying an AO rating on Manhunt 2, as long as the fans can pick it up at Wal-Mart.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nursie ( 632944 )
        True...

        But some retailers (especially online) would still carry it. It's the console manufacturers that knock it stone dead.

    • That's the whole reason why there is a problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:06PM (#21421291)
      Game makers would be fine with AO ratings except for the fact that they are a kiss of death. For some reason, in everyone's mind, the highest rating = porno. So Walmart and others will sell R rated movies and M rated games, but if you get an NC-17 or AO hung on it all of a sudden nobody wants to distribute it.

      I mean have a look at unrated movies. American Pie received an R rating in the theatrical version. However the theatrical version was not the cut the director originally wanted. So that was released later, but just not submitted for rating. Ok please, let's not be morons here, it's rating would be NC-17. The only reason they go back and make cuts like that is if they couldn't get the rating they wanted with the original. In the case of an R movie, that mean an NC-17 was what was going to be hung on the original cut.

      Well they can't release it with that rating, nobody will carry it, so instead they just release it "unrated".

      Same shit with videogames. For whatever reason, AO is assumed to mean a horrible porno and thus nobody will touch it. You get that hung on your game, you have to change it if you ever want widespread sales. Otherwise no console license, no distribution in almost every major retailer and so on. It's an additional problem with games because you essentially can't release unrated, stores just refuse to carry games that don't feature a rating. Doesn't necessarily have to be ESRB, some games rate with PEGI instead (Civ 4) but if it isn't rated, expect nobody to stock it.

      The problem isn't Nintendo and Sony, the problem is this overall cultural idea that the highest rating = something really bad. The problem is that people need to understand that just because something has the highest rating doesn't mean it should be shunned from the light, it just means it is something not for kids. However currently that just does not seem to be the case. If you game can't make an M rating, people think it is too evil to be distributed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nasor ( 690345 )

        I mean have a look at unrated movies. American Pie received an R rating in the theatrical version. However the theatrical version was not the cut the director originally wanted. So that was released later, but just not submitted for rating. Ok please, let's not be morons here, it's rating would be NC-17. The only reason they go back and make cuts like that is if they couldn't get the rating they wanted with the original. In the case of an R movie, that mean an NC-17 was what was going to be hung on the original cut.

        That might have been the case with "American Pie" specifically, but increasingly movies are being released as "special unrated versions" that don't actually contain any particularly shocking or objectionable material - they just stick in a few extra minutes of innocuous stuff that was edited out of the original (usually for time purposes) and try to pass it off as "the unrated version that the censors didn't want you to see!" or similar nonsense. Of course, by the time you realize that there's nothing subs

      • Re:That's the whole reason why there is a problem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:44PM (#21421925) Journal
        The problem is that people need to understand that just because something has the highest rating doesn't mean it should be shunned from the light, it just means it is something not for kids.

        *I* will decide what is for my kids thank you very much.

        I am all for rating systems. They give information to otherwise ignorant people. If I've never played a game or seen a movie personally the rating system, along with the description of the media on the package, gives me information that will help me understand what kind of content it features. That provides me with information which leads to making informed choices which is a good thing.

        However, under no circumstance am I ok with people telling me what is "ok" and what is "not ok" for my children. That's my job. That's one of the reasons that I wish rating systems wouldn't use titles like "T for Teen" and "M for mature". It implies that you need to be a certain age to play it and it doesn't really tell you what the content is. Sure you can guess that if something is "M" it probably has either course language, violence, nudity or all of the above but I, as a parent, will decide how much profanity, course language, violence, sex and drugs is acceptable for my children. Not some board of strangers who are trying to impose their moral opinions on our other strangers.

        That is one of the biggest problems IMO. All of the "think of the children" hysteria. It's becoming cliche on /. to say this but parents need to keep tabs on what their children are up to and make personal choices regarding what is acceptable. It is simply not for other people to decide if certain types of media is acceptable for my kids.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by CodeArtisan ( 795142 )

          *I* will decide what is for my kids thank you very much.
          And, of course, your kids only see what you give them.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by garett_spencley ( 193892 )
            No of course not. But if my kid is sneaking in to see R rated movies I don't blame the theater.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by garett_spencley ( 193892 )
              I hate to reply to my own post but I want to clarify a little.

              Whatever kids see independent of their parents are also independent of rating systems (with the exception being if it's another adult presenting the media such as a teacher or other parent but I would expect those situations to still involve the parent. IE: if you object to another parent's methods you wouldn't have that parent babysitting your child etc.).

              My position is that rating systems should be about allowing people to make informed choices
      • Well,that's largely because in the past the rating has been associated with porno. NC-17 used to be "X", which because of it's non-trademark status pornographers started slapping on their movies, and in cases slapping on multiple Xs (where do you think XXX came from?). The creation of the NC-17 rating is largely thanks to this and the mpaa does try to make it clear that NC-17 doesn't mean porn. [mpaa.org] However thanks to the stigma associated with the previous rating retailers are skittish to carry movies bearing it

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sm62704 ( 957197 )
        For whatever reason, AO is assumed to mean a horrible porno and thus nobody will touch it.

        I would posit that "horrible porno" is an oxymoron.

        -mcgrew
      • The obvious solution is to create a rating that is "teh horrible pr0n" so the rating board can point to is and say "see? NC-17 and AO isn't porn. We have a rating for that stuff right there." Nobody says the ESRB has to actually assign the PRoN rating to anything. It just needs to exist to artificially raise the upper limit to one-more than desirable. Spinal Tap would be so proud.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        Game makers would be fine with AO ratings except for the fact that they are a kiss of death. For some reason, in everyone's mind, the highest rating = porno. So Walmart and others will sell R rated movies and M rated games, but if you get an NC-17 or AO hung on it all of a sudden nobody wants to distribute it.

        Which is ironic considering that one of the ideas behind NC-17 was to distinguish "adult" from "porn".

    • Why should Sony and Nintendo stop it being released on their consoles?


      Because they remember Fredric Wertham [wikipedia.org]. And they figure the PR will be better, and the censorship milder, if they can keep under their control, which can only happen as long as Congress feels they're doing a minimally acceptable job of it.

      Chris Mattern

    • Re:That's the bit that gets me, the console makers (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BobMcD ( 601576 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:13PM (#21421419)

      Why should Sony and Nintendo stop it being released on their consoles?
      More to the point, what on earth does it being carried or not carried have to do with what the game is rated? Either it meets the standard for 'M', without exceeding it and going beyond into 'AO', or it does not.

      The standard needs to be neutral and immune to market pressure, or it isn't much use to anyone.

      This reeks of someone at the ESRB being bought to me. The games content certainly feels like adult material. I wouldn't like to think of my kid-brother, at 16, playing it. He's nowhere near mature enough. The 'AO' standard really is a better fit for this particular title, unless they have made some changes that I'm not aware of...

      As far as I can see, the ONLY reason that it got released as an 'M' title is that the market for 'M' far exceeds that of 'AO'. The content didn't have much of anything to do with the determination.

      In that light, those Senators are correct in expressing concern.

    • Frankly, I don't see the purpose of the "AO" rating at all. As far as I understand it, the "M" rating means it has mature content, and parents are basically being advised not to let their kids play those games. If the ESRB's purpose is to make consumers aware of the game's content, then "M" should be a sufficient rating to let people know it's an adult game.

      So why have the AO rating at all? AFAICT the purpose is twofold. First, it's an attempt to give an excuse for the fact that children are playing ra

      • Whatever the average age of gamers is (and there seems to be some dispute), it's no longer just the realm of children. The tech is shiny and expensive and th 18-30 segment are the folks with a lot of disposable income and a love of shiny toys.

        • I know there are loads of 20-somethings playing video games, and I'm certainly not one of those people who believe that adult games shouldn't be allowed. On the other hand, let's not pretend that there are a lot of kids playing GTA.

          My point is that, if parents are paying attention to the games that their kids are playing, the "M" rating should be sufficient to warn them that it contains adult subject matter. Beyond that, the parents are responsible for investigating the game in order to determine whether

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Nursie ( 632944 )
            Oh I don't disagree with you really, I just disagreed with the point about demographics.

            OTOH, I do think there wasa qualitative difference between GTA and Manhunt. If I had teenage kids over about 13 I'd be happy (not saying everyone would be) for them to play something like GTA. I'd probably give it another couple of years before Manhunt...

            I don't kno0w, I'm not that familiar with the rest of the US ratingsystem so it would be difficult for me to say AO is needed when there might already be a perfectly goo

            • OTOH, I do think there wasa qualitative difference between GTA and Manhunt. If I had teenage kids over about 13 I'd be happy (not saying everyone would be) for them to play something like GTA. I'd probably give it another couple of years before Manhunt...

              I'd agree with that, but I don't think they need two different ratings. I think both should be rated "mature", and parents should be reviewing the content of any game rated "mature" before giving it to their kids.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by samkass ( 174571 )
        The funny thing is that somehow between the ages of 17 ("M") and 18 ("AO") the kids are supposed to have grown up and be able to handle it.
    • These boneheads in Washington stop wasting my money and yours on idiotic crap like this that doesn't matter at all except to show their constituents that "they care"...so they can get their votes.

      It's like their investigation into steroids in baseball. Who gives a crap? It's fricken baseball!

      Stop wasting my money and time and get back to work!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      Damn it, I want to see some hardcore AO games. I mean, I haven't been into gaming for literally years but give me a hardcore AO with full frontal nudity, sex, oral sex, sodomy, bloody violence, drugs... how about making Fritz the Cat, the only feature length animated film ever to recieve an "X" rating from the MPAA, into a game?

      Speaking of Fritz, a few years ago when I was on Paxil, Springfield [illinoistimes.com] was full of of cartoons [kuro5hin.org] and I met the skinny crow woman from Fritz the Cat [kuro5hin.org] (her name's Ginger). Twice! [kuro5hin.org]

      I lost both

    • Why should Sony and Nintendo stop it being released on their consoles?

      More importantly, let's give props to Microsoft (yes, I know its /.) for doing something right and letting the gamer decide what to play on their console! Sun even shines on a dog's ---ESRB LABELED POST AO, Slashdot has truncated---

  • i know people like to whine about government screwing up, but when it comes to videogames, despite all the efforts of jack thompson, there are no stupid moralistic limits on the law books. the subject matter is actually a success story. some of you need to lose your permanent grumpiness on the us government, and celebrate a small record of victory:

    Most Laws Attempting Limits of Violent Videogames Fail [slashdot.org]

    i'm not saying stop being vigilant. i'm saying, stop being grumpy. this is a ray of light here
    • i'm not saying stop being vigilant. I'm saying, stop being grumpy. this is a ray of light here

      Not a bad point, but this letter has an underlying tone of extortion to me. It's "please rethink your ranking system [or else we'll rethink it for you]."

      Maybe I'm just being a grumpy pessimist, but if they're not considering making a law, then why are lawmakers writing letters, hm?
      • is you can fill it with the likes of senator santorum (since voted out) and they can't do that much damage

        • you can fill it with the likes of senator santorum (since voted out) and they can't do that much damage
          Or you can fill it with the likes of Sonny Bono who dies mid-term almost a decade ago and the damage he did [wikipedia.org] just keeps getting worse.
          • to say that there is reason for optimism on the subject matter

            if you are going to insist on being a pessimist, i can't help you, and frankly, i would call you stupid for not celebrating when the cause to celebrate is clearly before you
  • I'm so glad my tax dollars pay for them to waste time like this.

    Don't they have better things to do than to nitpick about video game ratings? Or would doing those things require the intestinal fortitude to look at a real problem and come up with a real solution, which is far beyond what they're capable of?

    • Highly visible, "moral" issues win elections. Solving real problems is far less glamorous.
  • I have no comment other than to say that it's funny how the linked photo is of Japanese people holding Xbox 360 controllers in Tokyo and the story is about American senators complaining a PS2/PSP/Wii game in Washington D.C.

  • What a waste of time... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Internet Ronin ( 919897 ) <internet@ronin.gmail@com> on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @11:47AM (#21421005)
    Is this what our elected leaders think we need?

    This is the biggest waste of time in the world. Let me do the freakin' parenting of my own children, and you figure out how to quit sending them off to die.

    Seriously, it's not like buying a pack of cigarettes. The kid has to a.) buy the thing, only the older ones have money anyways, b.) has to play the thing, it's not like they can hide a TV and a 360 or PS3 in their pockets...

    If my child is playing Manhunt 2, well, I probably know about it. If I wasn't having to bust my ass 24/7 to finance a trillion dollar war and a trillion dollar welfare system, maybe once in a blue moon I could, ya know, sit down with the children, and be aware of what they're doing and how it's effecting them.

    Jesus. I've never hated politicians more than I do this very second. What a waste of time and money and resources, all the expense of so much other awful things going on in the world...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Arabani ( 1127547 )
      In my opinion, they're simply trying to score easy political points. They can point to their letter and say, "See? We care about good ol' American family values! Vote for us!" even if the entire affair only manages to waste time and accomplishes nothing. It's a lot easier to make a symbolic gesture (e.g. berating the ESRB) than it is to actually try to solve the various problems our country faces (e.g. Social Security, the war in Iraq, the enormous deficit, etc.), and you're less likely to alienate large po

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )
        This is an excellent example of how

              "conservatives don't like to meddle"

        The social conservatives that vote republican just
        LOVE to meddle. They love to tell everyone else how
        to live their lives. They've been doing it since
        before prohibition. They've been doing it since their
        ancestors landed at Plymouth Rock.

        It's a great "feel good" bit of grandstanding for the
        benefit of all of those "conservatives" in the middle
        american Red States.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      I agree. The government is fine with the idea of putting kids' 17+ lives at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan, but GOD FORBID you see any animated violence on a computer at that age!!!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dintech ( 998802 )
      Mr Burgess, is that you?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      Well, what they claim (I don't buy it but...) is that they're helping parents make an informed decision. You don't have to play "Chain Saw Hookers" to find out if it's sutable for children; just look at the ratings.

      Trouble is, what's suitable for Carol's might not be suitable for Jane's. Jane may be a stripper who belongs to PETA and thinks "Deer Hunter" unsuitable for kids, while Carol might be a hunter who hates nudity and is shocked at the "hot coffee" mod.

      The road to hell, as they say.

      I agree - "think o
  • Rockstar should get into the underwear business. If they starting could develop panties that resisted bunching, they could crush their compeditors.

    What are these congressmen bent out of shape over? You already have to be 17 to buy the game and provide proof of age and identification at the checkout.
  • Stop mentioning this stupid game. Please. All this supposed controversy does is feed idiot developers who make games without redeeming content. Have we learned nothing about how trying to restrict something causes controversy that inevitably brings that something into more popularity than it would have ever garnered had it been allowed to slip into well deserved obscurity?

    Note to Senators: Ignore this piece of crap and it will go away, mention it as a reason to censor/restrict games and you will a) Enco

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Afecks ( 899057 )
      It's actually a pretty fun game. The gore is just an added bonus but it's really a game of stealth.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Borealis ( 84417 )
        To each their own. I subscribe to the "if you like it then it's a good game for you" philosophy. I think it's junk but your mileage may vary.
  • Please do something useful with your time. I know, you're so out of the habit of doing so that it's going to be tough to get back on track. But please, try, very hard.

    -beavis88

    P.S. Get bent.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mstahl ( 701501 )

      You said it! Why is this even a congressional issue at all? I really hate how absolutely everything under the sun has suddenly become the purview of Congress under the guise of regulating interstate commerce.

      The ESRB is the industry's attempt at self-regulation, and for right now it doesn't include the beaurocracy of Congress and that's a Good Thing(tm). Congress, on the other hand, is like King Midas, except everything they touch turns to red tape. I find it interesting that the same people who want to pr

  • All Nude Cyber
    All Nude Glamour
    All Nude Nikki
    Body Language
    Crystal Fantasy
    Critical Point
    Cyber Photographer
    Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy: Director's Cut
    Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
    Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut and Uncensored
    Lula 3D
    Peak Entertainment Casinos
    Playboy the Mansion: Private Party
    Playboy Screensaver: The Women of Playboy
    Riana Rouge
    Singles
    Snow Drop
    The Joy Of Sex
    Thrill Kill
    Tokimeki Checkin!
    Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber
    WET: The Sexy Empire
    X-Change

    All but three made the cut explicitly fo

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Winckle ( 870180 )
      SA is there because of hot coffee, and fahrenheit has a couple of sex scenes towards the end.

      They modified it for the USA market, in the UK we got the normal story.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Thanshin ( 1188877 )
      Great, now I have to buy 23 games. And I still haven't played episode 2 because tf2 is too good.

      No, wait. 22.

      ummmm 19. Should have read the list first.

  • The Usual Suspects (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @11:58AM (#21421185)
    Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.
    Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
    Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

    I already knew that three of four were going to be involved in stupid shit like this even before I RTFA.

  • Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:00PM (#21421223)
    Playing this game when you're 17 will warp your fragile mind, but playing it when you're 18 is A-OK? Bleah. This is nothing more than the latest attempt by some populist politicians to stir up public support over a matter so freaking trivial that it makes the Sparta Teapot Museum [artnet.com] look positively profound. The only thing that's worse than politicians pandering to hot-button issues is the people who keep voting them in. No wonder disillusion with democracy is running rampant.
  • In honor of Ms. Rodham's choice to make an attack on video gaming, I thought it might be fun to point out some articles that might not normally get a wide exposure:

    From Nixon Girl to Watergate: The Making of Hillary Clinton [counterpunch.org]

    The Seeds of Corruption: Hillary Clinton in Arkansas [counterpunch.org]

    Secrecy, Intransigence and War: The Vices of Hillary Clinton [counterpunch.org]

    Basically, she's a pro-war, corporate, conservative Democrat who has managed to hijack her party's nomination. It looks like another voting day is coming out where I ca

  • What they really mean is... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by freedom_india ( 780002 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:02PM (#21421249) Homepage Journal
    ... campaign contributions from Nintendo, Sony, etc.
    considering that another election is due in a year, they are probably wondering why gaming companies are NOT paying any protection money.

    Senators REALLY concerned about their citizens are almost as rare as Bush acknowledging that he was treating the constitution as toilet paper and resign.

    Suddenly you would see a spike in their campaign contributions from these gaming companies...
    Once done, this matter would be referred to a procedural committee just like cheney's impeachment.

    Mod me down if you want, but you will see a spike in their contributions same time next year.

  • Ultraviolence?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by carpe_noctem ( 457178 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @12:07PM (#21421321) Homepage Journal
    Well mate, th' game's got plenty 'a droogs, but none o' th 'ol in-out, in-out...

  • the game's violent content, which includes "many graphic torture scenes and murders," should have garnered an "adults only" rating.
    G = Guantanamo (insert favorite Iraq war/torture joke here)

    Frankly, I'll urge the ESRB to not bend under corporate pressure when the congressmen stop bending under corporate pressure.
  • Ok...lets all scream and cry foul. Its the popular thing to do. In fact. I think we should go ahead and make the government allow us to play snuff films on daytime television. Do I think violent games/movies/music make kids violent...no. Do I think parents should do their damned job...yes. Do I believe like damn near every other psychological study has said that it indoctrinates them to violence...uh yeah. You people will cry about the Army using video games to indoctrinate into killing, and then in t
  • If an AO rating is equivalent to a sales ban, why does it exist? You can sell hardcore pornography to adults but you can't sell them a violent video game because sony/nintendo won't license it for the console? WTF?
  • When they call off the REAL violence in Iraq.
  • Translation: "Your system doesn't work the way I want, so it must be broken."

  • We must decide for you (Score:3, Interesting)

    by darjen ( 879890 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @01:19PM (#21422547)

    'We have consistently urged parents to pay attention to the ESRB rating system. We must ensure that parents can rely on the consistency and accuracy of those ratings.'
    Translation: "We think parents are too stupid and ignorant to be able to decide these things by themselves, so we will dictate which morals you must follow in raising your children. Aren't you fools so lucky that you have us competent government officials to watch over your kids for you?"

  • Just wait until they release the game ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @06:33PM (#21427825) Homepage

    ... "Senator Hunt 2". Your weapon is a big fat briefcase of cash.

  • Is there a Difference? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Blackknight ( 25168 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2007 @06:40PM (#21427921) Homepage
    First of all, kids should not be playing "M" rated games, if you're a parent and you allow this you are a bad parent.

    Secondly, I see no difference between M and AO, it's only one freaking year of difference, it's not like there's a big difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old.

    The console makers need to get their heads out of their asses too, there's no reason that the system should refuse to play AO rated games. There's obviously a market demand for AO content and it's up to me to decide what to play on my system.

    Thankfully we still have PC gaming which has no restrictions at all.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close