Now, you see, I could totally understand where you are both coming from if it wasn't for one thing....

Sony and Nintendo have had it written into their.... contracts.... or whatever, that they will NOT allow AO or unclassified rated games on their machines for ages and ages.

Rockstar went and made Manhunt 2 knowing this clause, and yet they were surprised when it got an AO rating and they said "Not on our machines!".

You don't enter a carp fishing competition using a pike as your entry - it just doesn't follow the pre-set rules laid down well before you decided to enter!

Similarly, if you know you will never get an AO rated game published for a certain machine, you don't go get all "OMGWTF" when you make an AO rated game and get turned away!

If they suddenly decided "Oh, we've decided not to allow AO games on our machine after a meeting 3 minutes ago, so that program you've spent years working on is a waste of time", then I might just have some sympathy for them.

There are rules and laws in place for a reason, and if you don't abide by them, then its your own fucking fault.

See now that makes sense, except for the fact that the developer has no idea what rating its game will get until it is done. From what I understand Manhunt 2 isn't very different from the original as far as content goes and the first one got an M rating. So imagine this scenario, developer is making a sequel to a game that got an M rating. developer keeps game play and level of graphic violence somewhat on par with original game. new game gets AO rating when developer was expecting M rating. Developer is screwed. A difference of 17 and over to 18 and over and the game can't even be distributed. it makes no sense whatsoever and the fact still remains that a company is telling me what i can't and can't play. it doesn't matter how long they've been doing it, it's just not right.

i completely see your point and it makes perfect sense. IMO it just isn't right (right as in justified, not right as in "i'm right, you're wrong"). If a developer wants to make a crappy AO rated game (not really what rockstar was going for I don't think) then lack of sales for that game should let them know it's not working, not Nintendo or Sony. I mean hell, they allow all the other crap titles without AO ratings to be published.

Having played the original and then read about the content in the 2nd one, comparing the two would be like comparing "Barney's Dinosaur Adventure" to "Hostel 3: Bigger, Gorier, No Storier". Seriously.

The first game was brutal and had no real story. The second had up close and personal castrations using various sharp objects and no story at all. They knew full well what they were doing, and knew about the news coverage (aka: free advertisement) they'd get.

Publicity was all they wanted, and by shit they got it.