The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Condemned 2: the self-censorshippening
darleysam
On my way toUKRegistered User regular
On my way toUKRegistered User regular
taken from a slashdot link, it appears that in light of Manhunt 2's rating and subsequent proposed changes to drop below the AO rating, Condemned 2 is now being cut back to avoid the same fate
now, i don't necessarily want to put heads in vices, or through tv sets or whatever (although the latter sounds fun), and it's good they're working with the ESRB to keep things suitable. What worries me though, is the principle of it. If it means that developers are now paranoid about the content of their games, lest it gets slapped with an AO rating (and thus virtually unsellable), then that's only going to impede their creativity. I don't appreciate this at all.
The ESRB's decision to give Manhunt 2 an Adults Only rating in the US seems to have already sent shockwaves throughout the industry about what it can and can't get away with. Condemned: Bloodshot senior producer, Constantine Hantzopoulos, tells CVG that a few features have already been pulled from the game in light of the ESRB / Manhunt situation.
During E3 we met up with Hantzopoulos for a look at Condemned: Bloodshot. For us the original was a prize pick of the 360 launch line-up and we're looking forward to the second one. But we were keen to know if the Manhunt ban made him think twice about how far the brutal aspect of Condemned's gameplay could be pushed. Would the ban make him (and other developers) think twice about what he could get away with?
Advertisement:
"Absolutely it did," he told CVG. "And one of the things I want to make clear is that this does not take place in the real world. This is a fictional universe. That said we're pretty cognisant of the ESRB and the Manhunt thing."
Hantzopoulos has been on the wrong end of the ESRB in the past. "I worked on Fahrenheit (known as Indigo Prophecy in the States) and had to cut the sex scenes out of the game for the US. Yes, I was the guy that did that. It sucked because I don't believe in that, right. But you've got to do what you've got to do. We're working closely with the ESRB to make sure everything goes through okay but there's stuff we've cut already. There were things we were doing that even I couldn't believe we were going to those places."
When asked for examples of what we might now never see in a game again, we were told, "An example of what we cut would be putting someone's head in a vice. That was too much, you know. There are also some decapitations we've lost. But this is more Sin City than it is real world and we want people to know that this is not a real world.
"Manhunt kind of takes place in a real world where you're killing prisoners and people. This is a sensitive subject and we'll pull back if we need to. If someone says we can't that, we'll pull back a little. We're actually in pretty good shape. Putting someone in a dumpster is comical, it's funny. But putting someone through a TV set..."
now, i don't necessarily want to put heads in vices, or through tv sets or whatever (although the latter sounds fun), and it's good they're working with the ESRB to keep things suitable. What worries me though, is the principle of it. If it means that developers are now paranoid about the content of their games, lest it gets slapped with an AO rating (and thus virtually unsellable), then that's only going to impede their creativity. I don't appreciate this at all.
darleysam on
0
Posts
Politics has always played a roll in media. The political climate for games now is sketchy. They are the scapegoat, like TV and movies before them. It doesn't make it right. But it is what it is. In 20 or 30 years an equilibrium will probably be reached, and those damned holodecks will be the new scapegoat. I mean Jesus! What if kids get in there and start having simulated sex? How are we going to protect the children then?
It just sounds like they took out some of the more overdone executions. Even The Punisher game had to obscure its killings with a black and white filter.
oh yeah, i didn't mean to sound like "i'm not buying this because it's been censored". A good game's a good game, regardless of violence levels or anything like that. My problem is that the Manhunt ruling appears to now be affecting the decisions made by other developers, and i would hate for it to start compromising creativity or design, out of fear for being unsellable.
Honestly, Manhunt 2 should just keep everything the same but put a "[CENSORED]" bar over the really brutal executions. :P
I know, and I agree 100%. I just wanted to point out that Condemned 2 could be a LSD-inspired romp through Alice's Wonderland and I would still play it. ;-)
Also, I imported the UK version of Fahrenheit because that sex censorship in the US was so much bullshit.
This "M" vs. "AO" rating is pretty fucking stupid anyway. And I find it sad that the game industry has gotten to the point where devs are completely kowtowing to the ESRB and retailers for fear that their games will be banned from store shelves. We need some kind of push from some crazy-ass underground/indie developers. There's a market for A.O., it's just that nobody in the industry has a big enough pair to put together an A.O. game and get behind a system for bypassing the family-fucking-friendly retail chains.
I came in very late on Condemned--got it after it was out for at least a year--and I have to say that was a pretty awesome title that pushed some boundaries. I wanted the sequel to really crank it all up.
I have a sinking feeling that BioShock is going to run into a problem like this post-release once the media outlets start getting their paws on the inevitable, pre-packaged "OMG Kill teh_Little Girlz!11!!" stories.
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
Self-regulation is better than censorship by the government. And it shows there's a line in the sand that John Q. Public never wants to cross. Because of that line, I doubt we'll ever see a game where you have to meticulously flay the skin off a living person or eat eyeballs or hump corpses.
my problem is though, that you already have films that approach that level of violence, and that's allowed, and sold. But supposing a game developer has a good reason to show such scenes (can't think of any off-hand, but i'm sure there could be), they're now likely to reject it for fear of being given an AO rating, meaning it won't be sold. The rating shouldn't be the issue, i don't believe that kind of content should be accessible to younger audiences, but that an AO rating means it won't be stocked in any of the main retailers (i don't know quite how far it goes in that respect, but an AO effectively means no sales, as far as i can tell).
SAM PLEASE REMOVE THAT POTENTIALLY JINXING COMMENT PLEASE.
As for Movies/TV vs. Games and M vs. AO. I've always thought of AO as the "XXX" rating as opposed to an NC-17 rating. Films that get rated NC-17 generally have some artistic merit to them while XXX films deserve the XXX rating. Of course, the ESRB doesn't make that distinction so if you get slapped with an AO you could be a decent game or you could be trash.
Personally, I support the Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft's stand to not allow AO games on their system, or at least not allow them from large publishers. I think there's a tendency in the game industry today to push the limit for the sake of pushing the limit. I think that's what happened in Manhunt 2's case. I'm sure they could have made a decent, fun game without the possibility of it being rated AO from the start of development but they decided that everything had to be over the top and now they are getting screwed for it.
To clarify, I'm not for censorship in any way. I still enjoy a good NC-17/XXX movie from time to time and I'm fine with "M" rated games. I just think that the ESRB looking at games a bit closer is a good thing because I think it will eventually lead to better games.
Thanks Wikipedia!
My point is that we apparently will never see a gaming equivalent of Clockwork Orange or Midnight Cowboy. I think the implication is that gaming is more of a way to kill time than a valid narrative device. That a bit sad for me.
猿も木から落ちる
You learn something new everyday...
The copy of Clockwork Orange that I have is rated R. Does that mean that as times and public taste changed they lowered the rating or do I have a cut version?
Using the Clockwork example, it's still a shocking film but in terms of what it shows it's fairly tame by today's standards. So, it's possible we may see a game like Clockwork in the future, just not now...
I do agree that it's sad that people don't view gaming as a valid narrative device but I also think that given enough time, they will be.
I'm sitting here trying to tie this together with a discussion my girlfriend and I had last night about "Little Miss Sunshine" but I can't think of a way to do it. I think it's a valid point but I just can't put it into words...my brain is a bit fried.
Anyway, the gist of our discussion was that the movie wasn't much different or better than a movie like "National Lampoon's Vacation" or "The Great Outdoors" but for some reason it received critical acclaim and those movies didn't. We decided that it was because the movie was released first in smaller, "art house" theaters which somehow gave people who wouldn't normally like a comedy like this permission to like it and nominate it for awards... Somehow the way it was released made it OK for the academy to reward a movie that wasn't much different than what most people would consider slapstick...
I wonder if it's sort of the same with games? People outside of the gaming press don't really view Manhunt or GTA, or any game for that matter, as having much artistic merit. I wonder if we'll get to the point where games are viewed by the mainstream as artistic and I wonder if, when we get to that point, it will take gaming's version of "Little Miss Sunshine" to cause people to feel OK about liking and rewarding a game that is violent, etc...
Again, I'm not really sure how to make my point here since I've had to give you the Cliff's Note version of the discussion and I'm tired...
exactly, games are now a really broad medium, catering to both (using loose descriptions here) reaction-based games (the kind that most people grew up with, Space Invaders, Pacman and that kind of game), and those with a stronger focus on more cinematic qualities, storytelling, atmosphere and so on. Not saying these are mutually exclusive at all, just pointing out how broad things are. The problem is, 'games' seem to mostly be identified under that first category, that they're a simple, brainless activity that flashes some pretty colours on a screen for a couple of hours, nothing more. This really bothers me, because there is so much potential for games to be used as an immersive narrative medium, telling a damned fine story for the player to interact with. I know it won't be like it forever, but as long as they're still seen as under that first category, this problem's going to exist.
And yet there are complaints about Manhunt 2 seeing/hearing people 'having sex' in one level for a couple of minutes, and the fact you can chop someones head off...
I would seriously advocate banning of any game that actually reached 'Irreversible's level of violence/sex glorification, because there literally is no need ever in any movie or game for a 10 - 15 minute rape scene, if say 'Manhunt 2' or 'Condemned 2' had something similar in the game the game would be pulled from the shelves, the company that made the game would probably get shut down and the media would be driven into a frenzy.
Condemned 2's self-censoring is really just pointless, unless of course, going by what seems to be the common stigma in the media and newspapers that all 'video-games' players are mass murdering lunatics that can't be trusted to distinguish fake from real.
I think that the larger issue here is that most people (media and otherwise) still view video games as "kid's stuff." It might be a billion dollar industry but to most it's a billion dollar industry that sells "toys." Ask the average 50 - 60 year old on the street and I'm sure you'll get some variation of "video games are for kids." As such, people see a game, regardless of rating, and think about the content of the game as being too indecent for kids or too damaging to kids, even though the game is clearly rated "M."
On the other hand, people know that movies are for everyone, not just kids so it's perfectly acceptable to have sex and violence in movies. It's a double standard and it's not fair but I don't see it changing anytime soon.
The other issue is the idea that enforcement of video game rating systems are less effective than enforcement of movie rating systems at keeping unwanted viewers from seeing content. People think that even though a game is rated "M" kids will still be able to buy it. Sadly, in many cases this is true. A 14-15 year old could probably walk into the average Gamestop and buy GTA 4 without any problems but the same kid probably couldn't get into an "R" rated movie.
Irréversible is the only movie that ever made me feel awfully bad and uncomfortable during certain scenes.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
How many young people do you see buying 18 rated DVD's though, a lot...
Well especially here in the UK.
I could send my 15 year old niece out right now (I won't. It's an example), to go buy a copy of 'Irreversible' on DVD (as long as it wasn't in somewhere like Blockbuster's who are pretty clued up on movie content) and the checkout monkey wouldn't even blink twice about selling it, because it looks like a fancy arty french movie, but if i sent her out to get a box of cigarettes or some booze the cashier would card her then refuse a sale.
I've seen supermarket chains that sell DVD's, selling 18 rated movies to young people before, but I bet if they took a copy of 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' to the counter they would get refused a sale, because of the media saturation on how evil that particular game is, and also that 'anti-violence' parent's know they can make a quick buck out of blaming a game on why their kid is actually a total fuck up, not because of bad parenting but because of that evil 'GTA game the papers warned you about' and sue the fuck out of the supermarket chain that sold the game to her little Timmy, and if they didn't do that they could at least sell it to the papers about how it twisted their innocent perfect little boys mind until he was a twisted perverted killing machine.
Just make the game so fucking creepy I shit myself all over again, and I'm down with it.
It is defacto censorship. I am an adult and I cannot play the game because someone else thinks it is to violent for an audience that it isn't intended for anyway. It's like saying a shot of Bacardi 151 would kill a toddler so it must be banned or it isn't safe for children to drive sports cars so ban them. It just doesn't make sense and is one more step towards living in a nanny state.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I can't just make a PS2/Wii game and publish and manufacture it myself without going through Sony or Nintendo, and Sony and Nintendo (and Microsoft, apparently) do not allow AO games on their system. So, there would be no way for Rockstar to actually make and sell the game on their own. This is a two-pronged self-censorship issue: the "big three" won't allow a game to be made for their systems and the retailers apparently won't carry it anyway.
I wonder why they limit their audience in this way. Especially Microsoft. If gaming truly is for everyone then there should be a place for Viva Pinata and tentacle porn/bloody violence on the same system.
Not that I approve of tentacle porn. Or Viva Pinata.
Quoted for truth
But they're not limiting their audience. Quite the opposite, actually. Microsoft and the others are making the calculation that, as emnmnme mentioned, a little self-censorship now can forestall a lot of government censorship later. If even the Big Three agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, it makes it a lot more likely that that line will be drawn in a place that's more or less acceptable to the videogame industry. If they were to stick to their guns and and insist on publishing the Manhunts of the world, who's to say that the societal backlash would stop with banning Manhunt? Lawmakers looking to score political points might very well draw up rules making it impossible to publish games like Resident Evil 4, or Gears of War, or Half-Life, or even Metroid Prime. To people who aren't familiar with the medium, it would be pretty easy to lump all of those together under the "games that teach kids to kill" category. So it seems to me that taking a doomed stand for AO-rated games could possibly lose the console manufacturers a lot of revenue.
On the other side of the coin, how is publishing more AO-rated games really going to increase the size of the gaming market? Is there really anybody out there who wouldn't play Gears of War because it wasn't violent enough, but who would be swayed into buying a 360 by Manhunt? Practically all of the potential audience for AO-rated games are already spending money on M-rated games. It doesn't look to me like there's much room for growth on that front.
it's not about 'wanting shock games'. Taking Hostel as an example, that's a film i've never seen, because i know i wouldn't be able to stomach it. It would be too much for me. I didn't make this to go "man, i want more violence in games, that rocks". What worries me, is that if a developer has a legitimate reason to show graphic scenes of violence in their game for the sake of story (and again, it's a loose analogy, but how Schindler's List shows despicable people murdering jews in concentration camps, and it's hardly entertainment, but necessary), they will now likely be considering cutting that material out, for the sake of being able to sell the game or not. I really can't be comfortable when we're talking about that kind of compromise. For something like Condemned 2, hell, i honestly don't care if i miss out on vicing some guy's head or whatever, again, i probably wouldn't want to watch. But i don't like where this is already leading.
edit: but yes, as has been said, some self-censorship now does show some maturity on the part of the industry, and that is a good thing. If they show they can handle themselves and act responsibly, then that can leave more opportunities in the future for better expression.
Yes, us PC gamers are all happy playing Love Chess and Super Happy Hentai Fighters 5!
....there has never been a well-made AO game. Unless Warren Buffet goes insane and demands the most violent, lewd, horrifying game possible be made, there will never be a good AO rated game.
Interestingly, each generation of consoles sees the line pushed back a little bit more. Remember when Thrill Kill was scrapped for being too violent? Compare that to God of War or the Darkness. What's going to be acceptable ten years from now? I predict bare breasts and softcore porn, frequent decapitations, and ludicrous gibs.
Most shooters don't even have blood any more. When was the last time we as gamers got to say the phrase "Ludicrous Gibs!"? Unreal 2004? As it looks right now, we might never see a 'gib' again.
It's rather fucked.
That, and this whole business of AO rated games not being even POSSIBLE is the most disgusting thing.
Especially with censorship increasing like this and previously acceptable content is now too much.
All this, and somehow God of War slips under the radar because it's Sony.
I suppose only the big three can publish a game with sexual content and dismemberment.
in response to enmmm:
I predict alot of 'dust poofs' to fly in the air when you shoot people. Ala Medal of Honor.
And I'd point you to last month's Fallout 3 media ... particularly the supermutant who's head has been reduced to chunks. Painkiller was also big on gibs, as were Cold Fear, RE4, and that cute little Dawn of War RTS.
Umm, I guess you didn't realize that the industry has largely agreed that Manhunt 2 in its current/former state (whichever... "the state it won't be in on console." I'll put it that way) WAS a good game. The press has played it. God of War already has bare breasts, or was that sarcasm?