Freedom of expression (or, how many decapitations does is take to make art?)

Victor,

I was surprised to read your article about Manhunt and Condemned. As a journalist I thought you might have a vested interest in protecting your freedom of speech and expression. No matter how much you don't like the content of these games there is no reason to ban them. They are made by adults for adults. They are not foisted upon anyone. If people didn't buy the first game then there would not be a second game. I have played the original games and they are not anything like what you describe. In fact the pace is slow, plodding, and at times dull. You have the freedom and option to use violence or to use other means.

It may sound trite but the truth of the matter is that if you start limiting these games then the next logical step is that we limit literature, art, movies, music, the press, and political speech that leave us feeling uncomfortable or queasy. Remember what happened with Janet Jackson? What was the backlash to TV from that?

The one good point that you make is when you asked if Sony and Nintendo would have carried the game if it had an M rating. They would have. They are hypocrites and it is about the dollar to them but they talk a good game of worrying about families and good taste. At least Rockstar embraces their reputation for producing controversial content.

Sincerely,

Mark Jasonides

************
VICTOR'S RESPONSE:

Hi Mark,

My main response would be that freedom of expression and speech aren't really in any danger here. Government censorship is certainly a danger, and something that I would be very concerned about if Congress had followed through with some of their threats to federalize the ESRB.

But when a private ratings group and private companies choose to not sell a game, that's not censorship. That's simply the free market at work.

Just as the developers at Rockstar have the freedom to make the game they want to make, Wal-Mart and Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo all have the right not to sell that game if it contains material that they deem offensive (and what that really means is harmful to their brand image, but the point still applies).

And if Rockstar really felt that this was a game that was artistically serious, then they would have done several things differently. First, it had to have been obvious from the start that the content in Manhunt 2 was going to earn the game an AO rating. The extent of the violence was clearly beyond any other mainstream game in history. But Rockstar chose to proceed anyway, with, I suspect, the intention of reaping the publicity value of the AO rating, and then toning down the content just enough to earn an M. The assumption was surely that all the buzz around the violent content would serve as a free marketing campaign.

On the other hand, if the developers really had been courting controversy as a way to make some larger point about art or culture, then they would have simply developed the game for PCs, and released it as a downloadable title through their Web site, bypassing Wal-Mart and the ESRB altogether.

But that's not what they did. They made a sensationalistic game, garnered tons of headlines, and are now repackaging the game as a mildly less gruesome piece of software ("The game the ESRB didn't want you to see!").

There are no freedom of speech issues here. Just issues of taste, hypocrisy and greed. Like I said - and as you noted - I don't think any of the hardware makers come out of this with pristine reputations either, but somehow Rockstar always seems to go out of its way to tarnish the reputation of video games and gamers in general.

************
MARK'S RESPONSE:

I absolutely agree that Rockstar wanted the free publicity. I even preordered the game based on the initial buzz. Also, yes some of the reported actions you can choose to perform are distasteful but just like the first Manhunt or The Suffering, you can choose how dark you want to make the game. It’s not a linear or homogenized experience.

Where I have to disagree with you is the ESRB making this decision independently of outside considerations. The industry as a whole is worried about government censorship so they have to give the Jack Thompsons and southern congressmen a sacrificial lamb. Who better than Rockstar? Yes, Rockstar could have released the game on PC but honestly, who plays PC games anymore other than for RTS, MMORPG, and Sim games? The consoles are definitely where the audience for an action game will be. Also, what about what is happening with Condemned 2? Is every game going to second guess itself now to make sure they don’t end up in someone’s crosshairs? This is self imposed censorship since the only reason they are editing their game is because they have seen what happened to Manhunt and they don’t want to deal with that. Rockstar can take the controversy; they already have a “bad” name. Will other developers be so willing to have their names associated with an AO title? It is the proverbial slippery slope that concerns me. Anyway, I see where you are coming from and you are right, I will buy the toned down version and wonder what got edited.

Sincerely,

Mark Jasonides