The NY Times got to get their hands on Manhunt 2 recently and they walked away wondering what the whole AO fuss was all about, as they say most R-rated flicks have got way more gore. Writer Seth Schiesel says that "banning the original version of Manhunt 2 may be a good way to demonstrate that the industry can police itself. Side by side, though, movies seem to be way ahead of games in delivering top-notch gore."How does Schiesel come to this conclusion?

He rents a copy of Saw II for comparison's sake. He says the first scene (we never watched it) has "a young man in a bleak cell being taunted to find a key by digging into his own oozing eye socket. If he does not yank out the key in 60 seconds, his head will be crushed in a spiked metal 'death mask' around his neck." Schiesel says the game probably got the rating because the ESRB only saw footage from the game and didn't actually play it (GASP!), and believes that it won't be hard for Rockstar to edit the game down to a Mature rating in time for the holiday season.

 I wish they would just let this game come out.

Pfff... ESRB = a bunch of poosies!... They stated that they DIDN'T EVEN PLAY THE GAME!

For god sake... How on earth can u rate a game if u haven't played it?! The most pathetic acting i've seen in the last years!... Screw ESRB... Rockstar/Take2 PUBLISH THE GAME!

Yeah that was my biggest gripe with the Manhunt 2 AO rating. Movies like Hostel and its sequel can get an R rating but Manhunt 2 gets AO. There is on seen in the first Hostel that I won't go into details with that is truly disgusting. An AO rating is the gaming equivalent of NC-17. So how come R rated movies have far worse content than MA-17 games. I mean just the sexual content in most R rated movies would cause a game to get an AO rating.

The sex scene in Mosters Ball with Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thornton for example.

Holy crap! dude, that's a flat out lie! Holy moly you just lie like it's breathing uh? I mean I've read a number of your posts and the way you out right lie is simplly outstanding.

Dude, the NY TIMES hardly knows anything about the gaming industry period. If you've been following the industry for at least 10 years you'd know this.

I never said they knew anything about the gaming industry. My point was that they were saying the game is alot less violent than alot of rated R movies, meaning why would a game with less gore than a moive be given a AO rating when you can go to Wal-mart and buy a moive that shows you more blood and gore and looks a hellava lot more realistic than any game on the Wii would. And I have been playing games since I was 7 or 8 I can't remember so that gives me about 13 or 14 years in gaming a little more than your 10 year number. Besides, what newspaper period really knows about gaming?

Ah man... not u again (Chubear)... ESRB didn't play the game... They gave the AO rating by seeing ingame stuff... Like trailers and stuff!

I still don't understand a society where anything to do with sex is rated as worse than violence. I mean, Lucia y el Sexo has to get cut to get an R... but Saw and Hostel, that's fine!

 They did get cuts. Yet what was left is still more explicit than sex in R movies. The reason is actually money. You can get porn on the web, so it doesn't matter if a film gets a higher rating for sex. Yet movies are still the best place to get gore, and teenagers are a vital audience for such films. So those films are allowed to get away with more.