Banned In The United States
We take a look at why the gaming industry has its limits, and what happens when a game goes too far.
Published: June 30, 2007
None of the console manufacturers, including Sony, will allow a game with an AO rating to be distributed. How can they do this? When developers create a video game for the Playstation 3, they receive a lot of help from Sony in the form of development hardware, software, documentation, optimization tools, contacts within the company, legal contracts, and a lot more. In short, the console will not start a game unless it has been digitally signed with a key provided by Sony. Therefore, if Sony doesn't want a game to appear on its system, it's not going to happen.
Why? Everything comes down to money: Sony doesn't want to throw fuel on the already volatile fire of public opinion. What sticks in the minds of people is not the various charity events and donations hosted by a company, its attempts to limit distribution of games to inappropriate audiences, or its freedom to allow even the most offensive and violent games to exist on the platform. The only thing that people will remember is the "murder simulator" that was blamed for causing someone to go on a rampage. It's not worth the tarnished image or the legal bills.
It seems as if the gaming industry's growth has been stunted. The developers have become more talented, technology has become more advanced, and gamers have grown older. The average age of today's gamer is somewhere between 20 and 30. Video games are a form of entertainment, considered art by some. Why should there be limits on entertainment? Why should there be limits on art? No matter how offensive a topic is, it should be accessible to everyone who is old enough to meet the rating requirement.
We're lucky enough that our government is not allowed to edit or ban certain games outright. We are unlucky, however, in that the AO rating is stigmatized by developers, retailers, and manufacturers who are unwilling or unable to allow it for fear of several factors. By allowing the AO rating to exist in its current state, we don't allow certain games to exist. Certain things can not be said, stories not told, certain gameplay not created. Game developers can only flesh out an artificial world to a certain extent. They can only tell so much of a character's horrible past life as a soldier. They can't create a game where a character uses drugs heavily in attempt to drive home a point about how dangerous drugs can be. They can't explore, in detail, the topics of human greed, rage, love, or any other idea that hasn't even been touched on in games yet. What have we not seen in games that has been left out for fear of a harsher rating?
There is a purpose for ratings. It is important to maintain a good relationship with the public and inform consumers. While no single person or organization is at fault for it, the AO rating imposes an artificial censorship on games that limits the genre, and that is precisely why Manhunt 2 will not appear exactly as the developers intended when it is released this year.
Why? Everything comes down to money: Sony doesn't want to throw fuel on the already volatile fire of public opinion. What sticks in the minds of people is not the various charity events and donations hosted by a company, its attempts to limit distribution of games to inappropriate audiences, or its freedom to allow even the most offensive and violent games to exist on the platform. The only thing that people will remember is the "murder simulator" that was blamed for causing someone to go on a rampage. It's not worth the tarnished image or the legal bills.
It seems as if the gaming industry's growth has been stunted. The developers have become more talented, technology has become more advanced, and gamers have grown older. The average age of today's gamer is somewhere between 20 and 30. Video games are a form of entertainment, considered art by some. Why should there be limits on entertainment? Why should there be limits on art? No matter how offensive a topic is, it should be accessible to everyone who is old enough to meet the rating requirement.
We're lucky enough that our government is not allowed to edit or ban certain games outright. We are unlucky, however, in that the AO rating is stigmatized by developers, retailers, and manufacturers who are unwilling or unable to allow it for fear of several factors. By allowing the AO rating to exist in its current state, we don't allow certain games to exist. Certain things can not be said, stories not told, certain gameplay not created. Game developers can only flesh out an artificial world to a certain extent. They can only tell so much of a character's horrible past life as a soldier. They can't create a game where a character uses drugs heavily in attempt to drive home a point about how dangerous drugs can be. They can't explore, in detail, the topics of human greed, rage, love, or any other idea that hasn't even been touched on in games yet. What have we not seen in games that has been left out for fear of a harsher rating?
There is a purpose for ratings. It is important to maintain a good relationship with the public and inform consumers. While no single person or organization is at fault for it, the AO rating imposes an artificial censorship on games that limits the genre, and that is precisely why Manhunt 2 will not appear exactly as the developers intended when it is released this year.