Sporticus said: AO means the game can't be released in the States unless its through the Xbox 360.

 Microsoft also doesn't allow AO releases on their consoles either:

 "GameSpot has confirmed with Nintendo and Sony that one of those options, which would be to accept the ESRB's judgment and release the game with the AO rating, isn't an option at all. Both companies forbid licensed third-party publishers from releasing games rated AO for Adults Only on their various hardware platforms. Though Manhunt 2 isn't slated for any of Microsoft's systems, the company has also confirmed that it does not allow AO-rated titles on the Xbox or Xbox 360."

Link 

If you want to get an AO game out, PC is currently the only way to go.

Sqrl said: To be honest the only problem I have at the moment with an AO rating (other than the problems I have with rating systems) is the fact that it can be the sole decider in a game's success. I find this troubling as a small group of people essentially have been given the power to decide what multimedia content we are getting, at least when it comes to games.  No matter how well intentioned the people, this just fundamentally makes me uneasy and I think it should make any sensible person uneasy as well, just my opinion of course but I feel very strongly about it and I will explain a bit further... The problem with this particular type of censorship (i.e. "Rating Systems") is evident here, the system by its very nature is asking people (aka the masses) to no longer make decisions about what is too violent, too sexually explicit, etc... for themselves or for their children.  So they have essentially asked us to give control of our sensibilities to a group of people who choose which letter to stamp on a box.  Like I said, I am sure they have/had the best intentions, but I personally find the very idea of someone even suggesting I should let them make this choice for me is irritating to say the least.  Imagine if you will, you walk into the video game section of a local retail and the clerk walks up and says "Hello, wait right here and I will bring you a list of all the games that suit your tastes and fall in line perfectly with your morales and interests. And I will even sort them in order of how morally repugnant you will find them!".  This is of course absurd because he/she can't possibly know your tastes, interests, and morales, so why then is it any better to have the ESRB do essentially the same thing for you? At the very least the ESRB is only a guideline, but it frightens me that any parent would make a decision for their child based solely on the information that the ESRB gave it an "EC", "E", "E10+", "T", "M", or "AO".  I hope most people have the sense to know precisely what multimedia content they are allowing their children to consume. PS - I know keeping track of kids is a fulltime job and not an easy task even when you have the time to devote. No parent is going to be perfect, but all of them should be making every effort. With that said, I don't think the argument that "parents can't control it" applies to this situation because most kids have to play games somewhere and they can't afford games, TVs, and consoles (etc...) on their own.  Somewhere along the way an adult in the child's life is complicit in the purchases, and if that adult is not a responsible person then the question ceases to be an issue of video games as a problem and becomes a question of why is this adult being allowed to make these choices for the child.

Well parents can buy any game they want for their kids (if parents are at least 18). And also i would let the parents judge what type of games fit for their kids. Reason for this rating system is that you have something that you can decide with. If there wouldn't be any rating system, kids could buy any game they want, if they have the money, and parents would buy any game their kids want, unless they at first play it (preferrably 100% thru). There are too many parents at the moment, who a) don't care about the rating b) don't have a clue what the rating is all about c) think that the rating means the level of (intellectual) challenge in the game (like in board games). At it's best, parents even brag how their little 12yo (or even younger) Johns know how to play 18+ rated games. So the rating works as a guideline to parents and a limit to retailers who don't care what they sell and to who. Anyway, there always are things that shouldn't be only in parents control, "it's ok for my 6yo to smoke some pot and use speed".

bdbdbd said: Well parents can buy any game they want for their kids (if parents are at least 18). And also i would let the parents judge what type of games fit for their kids. Reason for this rating system is that you have something that you can decide with. If there wouldn't be any rating system, kids could buy any game they want, if they have the money, and parents would buy any game their kids want, unless they at first play it (preferrably 100% thru). There are too many parents at the moment, who a) don't care about the rating b) don't have a clue what the rating is all about c) think that the rating means the level of (intellectual) challenge in the game (like in board games). At it's best, parents even brag how their little 12yo (or even younger) Johns know how to play 18+ rated games. So the rating works as a guideline to parents and a limit to retailers who don't care what they sell and to who. Anyway, there always are things that shouldn't be only in parents control, "it's ok for my 6yo to smoke some pot and use speed".

The problem is not the video game with your examples, it is bad parenting. So why then is the solution to this problem a rating system? I don't see how someone being a bad parent means that I don't get the option to play Manhunt 2. I realise the role the system tries to play, and if that was actually what it did I would be fine. But the facts are that parents don't look at anything other than these ratings because the ratings have encouraged them to be lazy about censoring their child's multimedia content and now since so many games have great incentive to be right on the border of "M" or "T" these kids are getting games that are arguably to violent, sexually explicit, etc....

The rating system is causing more harm to these children then good. Their parents are simply given the illusion of safety while the kids are getting games that are oh so close to the next highest rating but just barely scrap by due to industry pressure. Meanwhile people who want to make true adult games are stifled because of the impracticality of it. I don't see how this system is helping anything.

Well I think there should be as I think Manhunt 2 on the PS2 should have had a lower rating then on the Wii as you dont do those motions.

But really if devs plan on making an AO game they should plan on releasing it on PC as the big 3 doesnt want AO on their consoles.

bdbdbd said: ... Germany tends to ban every game, where you kill people (for example Gears of War was banned), but i think that is a bit too hard. ...

No it doesn't ban so much games (maybe a game all 2 years). In germany games get on the "index", which means it still can be sold to 18+ but its not allowed to advertise the game or lay it in your shop, unless you only allow 18+ to the shop. All these rules also applies to (hardcore) porn. The game industry just don't puplish these game, because they think they can not sell enought. But it is still allowed to import these games eg. 

 

Didn't San Andreas get an AO raiting for the Xbox?

Sporticus said: Didn't San Andreas get an AO raiting for the Xbox?

 That was after the 'Hot Coffee' incident where the game had already be released to the market. As far as I know, production of the game stopped and a revised version with the content removed was released, regaining the M rating.

 The PS2 version also had this content and was re-rated and re-released too.

The only way I can really agree with the argument that more games should have the AO rating is if the rating wasn't seen to be the worst of the worst in everybody's eyes since that's what the AO rating pretty much means now. What's worse is that the AO rating isn't even supported by the usual retail stores and the big 3 so what would happen if Gears of War and Resident Evil 4, two VERY popular games, got the AO rating instead of M?

In fact, I think the way the games are rated is flawed. Like others have said, some games were probably rated too high and could have made a lower rating. I think what ought to happen is a massive reform of the system to better rate the games while at simultaneously providing a better way to provide information to parents, retailers, and the public to help educate others so that they can make better purchasing decisions.

That said, if M games are the equilivant to movie's R rating and their content isn't ment for children, I'd rather not have the mature games be targeted by the population since that is the intention of that rating.

@ Just_Ben )

absolutely correct and as a german I think the system the way it is now works really well .. the problem is the politicians that scream for further restrictions *sigh*

This is the only site i know where people want mote AO ratings. Some of you want GTA to be AO, is that because its not on the wii right. An AO rating would ruin GTA.