Target stores won't sell 'Manhunt 2,' ABC reports

It's fun for me to think about a room full of Target executives sitting around and making a decision about whether a video game is too violent for it to sell.

According to ABCNews.com, the giant retailer has decided not to carry the recent Rockstar Games gorefest, Manhunt 2, almost certainly because it has been at the center of the latest kerfuffle over the content of one of the publisher's titles.

"All video games and computer software sold at Target currently carry ratings by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board--from early childhood through mature audiences," ABC quoted a statement from Target as saying. "While Manhunt 2 was given a 'Mature' rating by the ESRB, we received additional information that players can potentially view previously filtered content by altering the game code. As a result, we have decided not the carry the game."

Rockstar Games' new title, 'Manhunt 2' has been the focus of a great deal of controversy because of its highly violent content. As a result, Target has decided not to carry the game.

(Credit: Rockstar Games)

Now, this is not a new dynamic for Rockstar. You may well remember that in 2005, the company got into a disastrous scandal over vaguely explicit sexual content that was easily unlocked in the "M"-rated game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

And after that episode, Rockstar agreed that it would never, ever again hide objectionable material in the code of its games.

So here we are, two years later, and according to ABC, Rockstar decided to blur out some of the most violent parts of Manhunt 2 in search of an "M" rating, much as it locked away the explicit content in GTA: SA. But this time, the ESRB said it was satisfied that things were OK.

ABC reported that ESRB president Patricia Vance had no problem with its rating, stating that it was "still valid, and we stand behind it."

Yet, likely because of hype and controversy, Target decided that the game was too violent. Never mind that the retailer also sells such not-quite-pacifist fare as Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Ace Combat 6--which by the way features, on its cover, an exploding airplane and the implication of an instantly killed pilot.

No, Manhunt 2 is too violent. Now, I've never seen the game, and so I certainly cannot comment on how much more violent it is than the titles I just mentioned. But I do know that, for example, Wired writer Clive Thompson has been using Halo 3 as his own personal experiment in exploring the psychology of suicide bombers, and that Call of Duty 4, like most big-name war video games, is pretty much wall-to-wall carnage.

So my question is: When the Target executives were sitting in that room, trying to decide whether Manhunt 2 was too violent, what criteria did they use? It certainly couldn't be the inclusion of blood and guts. Nor of the concept of players or characters getting killed. Because all of that is readily available in the games it is happy to sell.

Rather, it is pointing to the fact that players can unlock the blurred-out elements of the game that Rockstar locked down in order to get an "M" rating instead of "Adults Only," the rating kiss of death when it comes to big-box retailers.

Well, fair enough, I suppose. I think it's short-sighted and random, but I guess Target gets to do whatever it wants. Even when the ratings board itself says it is satisfied that the game is suitable for 17-year-olds.

To my mind, the retailer is running scared from controversy. I know that a lot of parents are unhappy with violent video games because they think the games lead to real-world violence. And that may or may not be true. But I think the retailers either need to pull the plug on all these blood-filled gunfests or carry them all. Singling one out the way they did with Manhunt 2 seems to me to be a sign that these executives are rolling more with the tide of parental outrage than any particularly coherent or sincere policy. And that's a shame.

[aurin90]

"easily unlocked"

You made a mistake there. The content in question required you to hack into the game, which it a fairly difficult process.

You would NEVER be able to get at that stuff within normal gameplay or by using any kind of 'cheat-code'.

Also obtaining instructions to hack into the game would require internet access without parental blockers as the instructions themselves would have to include adult content to describe what they do. With access to that sort of internet access any person would be able to access a large amount of adult material, much easier, without the knowledge required to hack into a videogame.

[maverick_nick]

Virtual Violence = Real Violence?

Millions of people around the world, including myself, purchase and play violent video games, and have been doing so for several years now. While I was safely at home playing these violent video games, all of those actual "violent" people were running around being their violent selves. I don't believe they played any video games.

I think that people should quit blaming video games, movies, and music for people being violent, but rather the loose nuts that were always the cause.

[Gordie_h]

Virtual and Real Violence...

I know many people that use violent video games as a venting method, it prevents them from actually carrying out violent acts yet still people see video games as a pre-cursor to violent action. Personally I'd rather have a friend pick up a Mature or Adult only rated video game brutally murder virtual people than go out around the city and go on a man slaughter for real. Is it just me?

[this1!]

i dont see what the big deal is

its just one retailer choosing not to sell something, they've decided that they rather loose money than sell this game. Good for them, ill just drive to another store and pick of the game there if i so choose.

If the game was banned for sale completely, then i could see what all the fuss is about...

[fred dunn]

So they buy it somewhere else....

Whose loss is it?

[Rimer]

When its rated M....

Don't buy it for your 8 year old, jesus... Simple as that. The ESRB rating is there for a reason, to tell you this game is violent and not meant for younger children and this is true. Normally violence like this would effect a younger audience a lot more then the targeted audience.

Also if you do buy it for your kid and they are 8 and they become a mass murdering man or women then you can really only blame yourself for giving your child a game rated 9 years more mature then they are. Also most younger audiences would not know how or have the resources or knowledge to easily hack the game.

[CortalUX]

To be honest...

I really don't care.