Given the news that Rockstar's Manhunt 2 is now cleared for a North American release, thanks to a spiffy new M rating, we can't help but wonder if this is really the right move for the ever-growing video game industry. After all, on its face what's so wrong about an AO-rated title? Shouldn't game developers have the freedom to create games according to their vision, rather than have their vision essentially forcibly altered?

We understand that the ESRB is just doing its job and that retailers certainly have the right to carry or not carry whatever products they wish, but if we all trust the ESRB system and the retailers to enforce the ratings (not to mention parents to properly monitor their kids), then why shouldn't console manufacturers allow AO titles on their platforms? Ultimately, what it boils down to is that the same industry that cries foul while fighting legislators month after month to protect First Amendment rights is seemingly censoring itself � even if no one single party is at fault.

It's a delicate situation, so much so that when contacted by GameDaily BIZ, the ESRB told us to contact the ESA and then the ESA sent us right back to the ESRB. We were given the runaround. Console manufacturers were equally difficult to get any real answer from. Sure, Microsoft provided us with their usual filler, reiterating that they don't support AO-rated titles on 360, and that they've "always been a strong proponent of all game rating systems in effect in the different parts of the world, as well as parental controls which are part of both the Xbox 360 as well as Windows Vista." And Nintendo and Sony offered similar sentiments, but none of the big three could really give us an adequate "why" to the AO question.

Nevertheless, some in the industry did take the time to give us their opinion on the controversial topic. Vince Desi, head of Postal developer Running with Scissors, is certainly familiar with controversy. For Desi, the AO topic struck a raw nerve.

"The crux of the issue is that AO is the kiss of death for retail acceptance; it's pure bullshit. An AO-rated game should be available in a free society," he argues, "maybe not in every game store, but that's another problem--in the early days of video, vhs, there were many mom and pop shops, independents, porn was available if you wanted it, and then Blockbuster came along and we all got f***ed."

"Please understand I have no problem with any subject matter, be it violent or sexual content. Choice is what I want, with responsibility," he continues. "All parties, from developers, publishers, distributors, retailers and hardware manufactures need to do their part, and the politicians too. All parties need to agree on a solution to offer ALL GAMES, on ANY system, in a responsible manner. Ratings are a good thing if their accurate and consistent � we need the ESRB. Retailers need to create shelf space, even if limited, in a protect our minors kinda way [c'mon this is easy, just go to your local candy store and see how Adult magazines are sold]. And developers and publishers need to work closer on content and how games are submitted [no more Hot Coffee dropping in our laps fiascos]. I truly believe this will go a long way in opening the door for the BIG 3 to fully implement a more complete catalogue of product."

Desi believes it's a matter of choice. Why shouldn't developers be able to choose exactly how to portray the content in their games? "We at Running With Scissors chose to use outrageous violence in a comedic style because it's what we like. The real issue is the hypocrisy of our industry vs. other businesses like film, music, books, magazines etc.

"I am one person, a citizen, one vote... no person, body of government, or private entity should have the power to reduce freedom of expression, in any form. At least not while we still live in an open and free society," he concludes.

Denis Dyack, President of Silicon Knights (which has been in the headlines lately thanks to the company's lawsuit against Epic Games), agrees that the video game industry has been somewhat singled out when compared to other entertainment industries.

"The latest AO issue around Manhunt has sparked a great deal of debate and is a complex issue. There is nothing necessarily wrong with an AO rated game. An AO rating should not be looked upon as a bad thing and should be viewed as the equivalent to Hollywood's NC-17 rating. However, because our industry is new and under undue scrutiny, the perception of an AO rating in mainstream society today does not equate to the view of an NC-17 rating. An AO rating is seen as much worse and more detrimental to society," he explains.

Ultimately, Dyack believes this is a problem that does need to be addressed, or else the industry will indeed face continuing self censorship.

"Further, some proprietary game hardware manufacturers make the AO rating perception worse by refusing to license certain rated products on their system. With this scenario, the creators cannot get product out to consumers and it causes the AO rating to be the kiss of death for a game. This problem has to be solved," he says. "You would never hear Toshiba, for example, say that it won't allow certain DVD movies to play on its system based on ratings. We have to come up with something that is publicly accepted, or we will be faced with an unwitting self censorship in our industry. Perhaps a rating between Mature and AO."

At the end of the day, though, Dyack is no fool. He wants his company to stay in business, and so if faced with the problem, he too would have his team alter a game to avoid the dreaded AO rating.

"If Too Human were for some reason rated AO, we would absolutely change it to make it receive a Mature rating. An AO rating would stifle any chance for the game to be commercially successful. We would not be happy about making these edits, but in the end we would be left with no choice. We would rather have some people see a 'lesser' version of our work than not see our work at all," he admits.