There is no way a publisher is going to release a developers game without permission from Nin, Sony or Microsoft. Not only is that breaking a fuckton of laws, they would never be able to publish anything further for that company, which means they'd go out of business.

Or have to retreat to publishing for another company. And who the fuck wants someone publishing games for your console when they've done it without permission on another?

Ok, let me rephrase then. What's to stop someone (with the developer's permission) from releasing the game? There were a ton of unlicensed games back in the NES days; what's happened between then and now?

Stronger encryption on systems, basically. The few unlicensed NES games were made possible by bypassing the TEN-2 or whatever protection was on the systems (some methods legal, others not). On modern consoles, there's basically no way to get a game onto the system without the encryption codes, which I believe is attached to a game during the authentication process by the console manufacturer. Unless I'm mistaken, the game would only run on devboxes and modded consoles unless it goes through that.

Although I thought there were AO/whatever equivalent rating hentai games for the PS2 in Japan...were those games licensed by Sony?

AO games are typically CERO Z (18+) in Japan. All I can think of is a couple of CERO Z games for the Xbox 360, such as Dead Rising, Vampire Rain, Crackdown, Godfather and Gears.

There's no CERO Z PS2 games that I know of, maybe GTA or something I dunno, but there's no "hentai" PS2 games. I mean, they're called visual novels for a reason.

There's PC hentai visual novels but that's a different story.

The legal sledgehammer Nintendo would bring down.

Released as porn DVDs. They merely contained extra content and interactivity when played on PS2, similar to enhanced CDs when played on computers for example.

Such a workaround can pretty much not happen with Manhunt unless they can turn it into a movie. And if they could, it'd probably get banned too for ultimate justice.

Maybe in Europe or Australia, but as far as I know you can't ban a movie in the US. You can make it difficult to buy and thus drop profitability, but banning it outright violates the First Amendment, unless it's deemed obscene, which courts are loathe to do. I can't think of any movie or book that has been banned on a national scale in modern times.

I'd like to know how long before a game is set to be released does it go into mass production. I'm curious as to whether this could hurt Take 2's bottom line as they'd have thousands of coasters.

It's almost no question that they'll edit the game in order to get it released, but I'm also curious as to what they'll be taking out. I wonder just how far over the edge it is.

Other than the Hot Coffee fiasco is there a precedent for this? If so I'm curious as to whether making a "bad" game and slowly tweaking it up to the ESRB's breaking point would allow you to get more in than starting over the line and working your way backwards.

Seems that the release of the game is now in hiatus:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172931.html

Personally, I'm hoping a disgruntled developer will leak the complete, uncensored version ala Thrill Kill. I'd like to see what the game is like in its original form, although I didn't really play the original game much so it would mostly just be for curiosity's sake.

It would definately be cool to see an advenced leak to see what all the fuss is about.

However it's too bad that a PC release wasn't in developement then an untouched version would be possible. Oh well, guess we're going to have to settle for the bleeding flowers and puking rainbows version.

If this is true then I'm not really surprised. Rockstar sure went out on this one.

Then again I don't know why the market is so against AO-rated games, the age difference between that and an M-rated game is just one year. Sell it as it is, screw censorship and screw parents who are stupid enough to buy it for their 12-year-olds.

I know that AO means 18 in Canada and perhaps in some states. But in others it can be 19 or 20. However I think you're right, after 18 how much does a person really mature between that and even 20?

Maybe they were going under the assumption that it isn't rape if the person is willing...or dead?

I'm wondering how detailed these parts would actually be though. Hot Coffee was pretty UNrevealing (how two clothed people humping eachother constitutes an AO is beyond me), did they actually go full out with this game this time? At least, before the censoring.

I'd like to know more about the rating process. I mean what's to stop the company from not showing off some of the more risque parts? After hearing about the raping of the dead body I can see why that would get an AO. Take 2 HAD to know that that would push it over the edge.

It would actually be adept of a company to put something ridiculously over the edge like this and make other things in the game look tame by comparison. With the release date altered I'm sure that wasn't the goal here, but I'm sure it could work some time down the line.

Oh, and they can take every drop of blood out of the game, but LEAVE THE CAT IN THE MICROWAVE PART IN! That is 3 helpings of awesome. (and a little random 3rd party necrophillia never hurt anyone).

Why is Manhunt 2 evil, but movies like Hostel and Hostel 2 are fine? This world doesn't make any sense.

It's the whole public acceptance thing. The less people know about something the more they fear it. Therefore if only half of society is aware of what games REALLY consists of then it seems that everything is blown 8X out of proportion. However when you have something like movies where almost everyone is aware of and what it consists of you can almost do anything you want.

Hell if this game was a movie it would probably be critically acclaimed for like, "most disturbing but also most adventures movie of the human dark side" or some other positive spin like that.

+1

It's because the video game lobby hasn't got it figured out yet, whereas the film lobby does indeed have it figured out.

Well I think there's also something to be said for controlling the violence and thus to some extent acting it out as opposed to a movie where the viewer is only seeing it happen.

So, in a video game it's 1st or 2nd person violence where in a movie it's 3rd person. Furthermore scary movies are intended to shock and put the audience at unrest thus making it offensive to some extent. In some video games success is determined by the amount of violence commited thus it's more of an endorsement. Lastly your average video game is going to be 5x longer than an average movie which extends the experience. So it's like holding a flame under your hand for 1 second vs. 5. It can be argued that the length of a video game has more of a "burn in" affect.

Hotobu is correct. I study a little bit of film and the media is delivered with the camera being the viewer. The camera is almost always a witness instead of being a character in the story. The thing about videogames is that the player is usually the one acting out the violence. As a gamer myself, I'm not agreeing with this, but merely stating the "anti-gamer" point of view.

You can't just drop a bombshell like that, and not link to where you heard it! I don't see any way this could be true, that's insane. This has got to just be some shit someone made up.

I got that off the GF board and it was just a rumor.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthre...=164919&page=7


And about the responses to my other post by that logic you guys are giving, Eli Roth, controlled who died. Therefore shouldn't it be illegal to direct a film that is violent?

In the Hostel movies there are REAL people.. in the game there are only polygons. I know some people who can't even bare to watch movies like Hostel or any other over the top gory stuff, it just looks so much more real, video games do not look real in the slightest, there's no way a game could make a person unsensitized to real life violence. Also the participation side of the argument is very poor too, pressing buttons to shoot guns at polygons and whatever is hardly participating in brutal murder. I find it sad when people have to blame other avenues of media for senseless crimes acted out by disturbed individuals.

It's pathetic. Movies are just the same, only this is polygons and I agree with some people, consoles are not just for kids anyway, there have been numerous 18 rates games, even the wrestling series has a 16+ rating in the UK, think the BBFC are just looking for attention, muppets.

Anyone whose seen Hostel 2 will know how much rubbish the BBFC are talking.

There is needless amounts of gore, and to top it all of, right at the end

It's not even a rumor when the guy just makes a sourceless/nameless "quote" and comments "Wow".

I think it's a load of bull, but people not familiar with either game are already taking it as if it was official.

I know Rockstar doesn't shy away from pushing the limits, but it's not stupid, and rape/necrophilia is something even they wouldn't do.

Hollywood has more money that they can slide under the table than the video game industry, simple as that. A lot of the time, politicians aren't really as dumb as they look, they're just also not as honest as they look.

Plus, video games are society's current whipping boy, just as heavy metal, Dungeons and Dragons, and minorities were in past decades. 100% of society's ills are clearly caused by bad video games, so as long as you're combatting those nasty corrupting elements, you're helping to keep America safe.

Outside of the US, it's a violence thing in general. Violence is to Europe what nudity is to the United States. Kind of a funny juxtaposition when you think about it.

Because in Manhunt, the perpetrator of the violence is the fucking hero of the story, in Saw, Jigsaw is the villain. I havent seen Hostel but I can't imagine they make the owners of said Hsotel out to be saints in it.

Fact is movies are less violent than games these days.
I saw Wolf Creek a year or so ago. It got rated R here on it's violence alone. As a comparison Hostel was rated MA and Saw M. Reviewers said the violence was almsot unbearable. I found Resident Evil 4 more violent than it. (rated MA here because there is no R rating for video games)

Comparing movies to games is dumb.

In games, you have control over killing people and what to kill them with. In movies, you just sit there and watch it happen.

But the interactivity of killing in games is apparently relevant only when the graphic content is extreme.

Observe EA's Medal of Honor games and Black, with their lack of blood (granted, Black is M, while something like Frontline is T). The act of shooting someone in the head it precisely the same, but the result is less realistic and could be considered more damaging on the frail mind.