First the assualt on boobs and now this!!!!
Anyone else getting sick of filthy rich spoiled brainy old people telling you what you can do and what you cant. I sure as hell am. Get out of my living room you psychopaths....
I thought in America we where suppost to be free from tyranny and allowed the pusuit of happyness.

Lay off the psycho pills

"We believe in freedom of creative expression, as well as responsible marketing, both of which are essential to our business of making great entertainment."

I'm sorry--I didn't know being a serial killer was "creative expression" and protected under the First Amendment--I guess Charles Manson needs to be released from prison, ACLU should get him out right away...

That's the problem with today's way of thinking--the First Amendment has been twisted so horribly that apparently the "expression" of killing innocents in cold blood and raping women have become "creative expression" and thus a First Amendment right.

I'm not trying to argue whether this falls under that or not--my point is that Take-Two used that specific wording in their response, purposely implying that the US constitution allows this but we aren't abiding by that standard.

Why does Take-Two bring that up anyway? It's allowed to be sold, just no VENDOR wants to distribute it--that's the free market, not the da** government's fault. Just because Bush is in office doesn't mean everything MUST be the government's fault...

[i]I'm sorry--I didn't know being a serial killer was "creative expression" and protected under the First Amendment--I guess Charles Manson needs to be released from prison, ACLU should get him out right away.../i]

Not being. Playing (portraying).

Big, no HUGE difference.

Hmm--I never meant to say that playing a character is the same as being one, and I certainly agree with you there. All I'm saying is this--there is a difference between a game that shows blood and guts, and one in which the character that you control is the one who causes all of the blood and guts of innocents.

You know, most FPS games you fight aliens, terrorists, demons--you know, "bad guys". The few that are portraying killing of innocents usually aren't very graphically intense, or usually the player does not control the character directly. That is also a huge difference, just as the "boobs" aren't the cause of the whole GTA San Andreas fiasco, but rather having one "play" as the character having sex with a prostitute--there's the difference.

I did exaggerate a little bit in my comment about Charles Manson, but I was just trying to emphasize my point.

Looks like Take Two accomplished their goal here. I personally think they had no intention of going forward with the original date. With the game being banned in the UK and the Ao rating given to it, the game got a massive amount of attention from the media. Now they'll push back the release date, scale it back so it won't be banned/given Ao, and enjoy the profits from this entire deal.

I think you're right on.

A possible theory, but in practice I'm sure it wouldn't work.

Games cost millions to produce these days, so a strategy like you propose would be very high risk. Unless it was originally planned/animated/coded to have two levels of violence, it will be quite a bit of work to go scale it back and inevitably be more expense. I'm sure the last thing any company wants is millions tied up in an unreleased product.

Na, this kind of press manipulation is done all the time by the corporate crowd. It's not that hard to write in a few extra scenes, get some free press like "Take-Two is pushing the limits again", get dorks like us talking about it, then remove the few offending scenes. If they want the edginess factor of their game to be high, this is a good way to go - especially since everything other than GTA series that they've released has fallen flat. Any kind of buzz is better than none at all.

smarterthanyou your an idiot....

The game is on the Wii, Nintendo has no problem with the content clearly because the approved to begin with, its just how do you sell something only adults can buy?

EBGames does not stock games that have an AO rating. Given the fact Walmart won't carry tem either, you just kicked your possible buyers in 1/10 of what it was.

So it would make no difference if it was on the PS 3 it still would be hard to find. Unless they tone it down so they can tell it in Walmart that sort of place it won't tell well.

Face it your just made a violent game thats actually good will come to the Nintendo Wii.

That was almost physically painful to read.

Please proofread your posts.

My eyes are bleeding...

This sucks that the game is delayed. Why is Take Two not releasing this game for the PS 3? If it's blood and gore you want to see then the PS 3 is the best console on the market.

Because Sony, like the other console makers, have strict policies against letting AO rated games appear on their console.

what the **** are you talking about? its coming out for the ps2 and wii, ps2 if i remember correctly is a console made by Sony correct? I guess its not some strict policy sony has that you completely made up and have no evidence of... its probably more reasonably the fact that the game is small enough to fit on a regular dvd, does not utilize hi def graphics so production would be alot cheaper to make it for the ps2 and the ps2 has the largest market share for established consoles that still sell games... yes including original xbox. maybe because it just makes soo much sense to release it on the ps2 is why it is not being released for the ps3... maybe just maybe.

That may have been the initial plan, until Manhunt 2 was given the A-O rating. Sony and Nintendo do indeed both have policies against licensing A-O games.

the game wasn't given ao rating in uk it was banned, it will not be sold at all. hopefully ebgames or something will still carry this in north america the first one was sadistic and playing on the wii... enticing.

So does this same type of game if it were a movie would it get an 18+ up rating as well?

Probably just an R rating.

Actually, I think it probably would. If you want an introduction to the kind of content, read this review:

http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/792/792012p1.html

Second paragraph.

Sounds like its Hostel which got an R so it should still be R not AO unless of course a boob slips in then its definitely AO.

/sex is bad and dirty here in America.

Is a boob slipping better or worse than ripping off a guy's manhood with a clamp?

At least, that's what was described in the IGN review of the game...

I was referring to the whole incident with GTA granted it was a little more then a boob but still rating it an AO was unnecessary.

I think it's the fact that you actually "play" the guy in the game that's getting screwed--wow, does anyone find that sickening for a video game besides me? That's the type of thing to sell at porn shops, not to frikin kids. And NO, the "Mature" rating is too low for that type of thing.

Maybe I'm wasting my time typing here--I keep forgetting how desensitized everyone has become to sexual immorality. Call me a looney conservative...yeah, I'm one of those crazy nutcases who believes in the Bible literally, and I vote in every election...

...I guess I'm just experimenting now. I just want to see how many hateful comments get thrown my way, since I actually believe the way society used to believe is better than today, and while I do believe in progressivism, I believe in the kind of progressivism that say the world is "progressively" becoming worse and worse here in the end.