Stranger 109

Last week’s announcement of the change of rating for Rockstar’s Manhunt 2 by the ESRB from AO to M has sparked several debates within the gaming community. Obviously the Jack Thompson’s of the world were less than pleased at the outcome because this spells big bucks for Take Two. Add the recent success of BioShock, and it was just not Jack’s week. The more interesting concern came from Ian Bogost’s argument comparing what it means for a game like Manhunt 2 to have an AO rating versus Ang Lee’s upcoming film Lust, Caution to have a NC-17 rating:

There are a number of reasons why Take Two is in a different position than Focus. For one, first-party licensing in videogames creates another layer of censorship that makes it impossible to release Manhunt 2 on consoles, since the manufacturers refuse to license (and therefore manufacture) games at the AO rating. Lust, Caution may suffer from reduced distribution thanks to the NC-17, but the film will still physically play on projectors at any theater. Same with DVD, which they can release for direct and retail sale.

Bogost goes on to finger Hal Halprin of the ECA for not taking a stronger stance against the big three console manufacturers as it relates to the banning of AO titles. As an advocacy group for consumers, the ECA sees the re-rating of Manhunt 2 as a victory because gamers will get to play the game. But Bogost contends it will be a “crippled version of the game to meet financial pressures,”thus legitimizing the practice of censoring art for the purpose of commerce. Dennis McCauley of GamePolitics.com, who Bogost also challenged for being soft on this issue, responded by pointing out the toy business origins of the gaming industry. And as long as the perception of gaming as an activity for kids persists, the console manufacturers have a vested interested in maintaining a “family friendly” brand image, hence the ban of AO games.

I have demonstrated both throughout this site and my written work that I am a supporter of Bogost and his ideas. And I am very much an opponent of censorship in all its forms. So while I am prone to agree with the argument he presents about the big three ban on AO games as a debilitating hurdle to artistic expression, I am not so sure drawing the corollary to the film industry offers much of a solution. Anyone who has seen the documentary This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated, which exposes the corrupt process used by the MPAA to rate films knows that system offers its own problems. I fully understand that his main point in comparing Manhunt 2 and Lust, Caution is that the difference in the very media determines the ability to see one while not play the other. Conceding that point, however, I would make the case that the NC-17 rating itself functions similarly to the AO rating for Hollywood as most studios refuse to distribute a film with that rating because of the same branding issues the console manufacturers worry about. Since its introduction in 1990, the 20 films that have received the “kiss of death” have grossed less than 70 million combined. When you factor in the fact that Walmart, largest retailer of DVDs, will not carry a title with the rating, the idea that there’s a freedom in film that does not exist in games quickly dissipates.

I applaud Focus Features’ choice to back Lee’s artistic expression. But given that he’s an Academy Award winning director, how much of a gamble is this for the studio? The only way we can overcome this sort of economic censorship for both Hollywood and gaming is to move away from physical media. Once digital distribution becomes the primary way we receive our media, and stores no longer have to display “unsavory” titles next to family entertainment because we can privately select them through customizable web interfaces that align with our taste cultures, there will be no one left to offend. Only then will the sex game developers be able to let their imagination run wild with the endless possibilities offered by the Wii Remote.