To take the ESRB seriously we're going to need specific answers to these questions, even the uncomfortable ones. Especially the uncomfortable ones. How will designers know if they're crossing the line if no one can explain where that line is? The hair-splitting is further defined by the difference in age range involved in the ratings. A 17-year-old can buy an M-rated game, but has to wait a year to buy an "AO" game. Because there is so much maturing that goes on between ages 17 and 18 in the adult male that's the target demographic for a game like Manhunt 2.

When I was 17 I thought 30 was old, marriage was a death sentence and the Cubs were really going to get it done this year. When I was 18 I believed - all the exact same things. While the real gap between the two ratings seems minimal, there's millions of reasons it's a problem for Take-Two Interactive. Nintendo and Sony have both restated their stance that AO games are not welcome on their respective consoles, and retailers like Wal-Mart wouldn't carry the game anyway.

I don't know which company is more entertaining to watch twist in the wind. Nintendo has spent months courting Take-Two because the Big N knows it needs to broaden its appeal. Without offering any games that interest the young males that compose the majority of gamers, Nintendo's lofty perch as market leader is about as stable as Rosie O'Donnell's TV career.

Nintendo is like a nerd hanging out with the cool, dangerous kids and trying to fit in while hoping they don't actually do anything dangerous. Despite all their talk of embracing more mature content, they're still the company that once replaced the blood in the Super Nintendo version of Mortal Kombat with sweat. When the industry standards regarding the depiction of violence and sex change, Nintendo is always last to adapt. That doesn't look like it's poised to change at all.