Anyone else hear about this?
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/grand-theft-auto-san-andreas/635240p1.html
Apparently, just because somebody made a hacked mod of GTA:SA, now it's labelled as Adults Only. Geez, if somebody jokingly made a modification of Super Mario World where the Princess was nude, would Mario World suddenly be labelled "Adults Only"? I think the whole thing is ridiculous. Nobody paraded for an increase in rating for Tomb Raider when the nude mod came out, did they? Geez.
Thing is: the mod they made shows pr0ny content that was already in the game (but hidden). Still a hypocritical move, I think...
I like how loads of people are coming out and saying how outrageous it is that their kids are playing it.. totally forgetting you can kill people etc.. it's just silly
OMG. I can steal cars, run over innocent people, shoot cops, start gang wars, sell drugs and buy hookers but OH NOES PIXELLATED SEX, BAD!
I think we should be scrutinizing bad parenting rather than free expression of game companies.
That's the problem with America. Our founding fathers came from a Puritan background and were always taught that nudity and natural sexual actions were a taboo. You were the son of Satan if you wanted to have sex or see a lady naked. This was hypocritical, because sex was vital for the prolonging of their species! It's exactly what's wrong with America today... A little bit of sex and everyone FREAKS OUT!
Hey, if we don't watch out, the kids may learn from this game and have SEX!
Quote from: HillBilly on Thu 28/07/2005 17:25:44
Hey, if we don't watch out, the kids may learn from this game and have SEX!
Yeah, and forget to unzip or to take their pants off.
Random kid: "But .... CJ didn't take his pants off..."
-Eigen
From what I read, you really had to go out of your way to get to this mini-game, which I believe was comfirmed, is reachable on the PS2 version of SA(fully clothed, of course). Ã,Â
Since technically, the only ones that are playing the game are peoples 17 years old or older, if a 12 year old sees C.J. get the front of his jeans blown, the parents/guardians are completely at fault.
And oddly enough now the game is selling like hot-cakes ...
Hmmm ... I'm sure this wasn't intentional.
Well... it looks like it was left in by mistake to me, but it could be intentional, sure.Ã, I don't think even the controversy experts at Rockstar could have predicted the uproar though, it's hardly the most offensive thing in San Andreas... I expect they took it out because it was slightly too lame to put in the game.Ã, The girlfriends thing is bad enough as it is.
Is it selling a lot more now than it was? It's a GTA game, the last two are the highest selling PS2 games by a fair way... like 5 million+ copies each, doesn't really need controversy to sell now. I hope it is, anyway.
(http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20050720l.jpg)
It's been pulled from the shelves in "family-friendly" stores, like Wal-Mart and Target. Ã, The reasoning is because they don't sell games rated Adults Only.
It's kind of funny, really, especially in the case of Wal-Mart, which wouldn't sell Jon Stewart's recent book because it had a photoshopped picture of the Supreme Court Justices' heads on naked bodies. Ã, Oh no, they can't sell books with photoshopped naked pictures, but they can sell ultra-violent videogames. Now that there's sex in it, it suddenyl becomes evil.
The hypocrisy continues...
Didn't Wal-Mart sell bullets and ammo? Or was that K-Mart? I think I saw that in Bowling for Columbine...
Wal-Mart sells the shotguns in their stores... The one I saw was near the kids toys too -_-
It is just hypocrisy
This really is incredible ... like you guys, I seriously don't understand how they can rate one sex scene as being worse than all the violence and killing. Somebody needs to slap some sense into these people.
Meanwhile, morally righteous think-of-the-children man Jack Thompson thinks Sims 2 should be banned too, because you can edit the game to remove the pixellated blur that appears whenever a sim gets naked. Oh no! Barbie genitals! ON CHILDREN! BAN!
It's not actually hypocritical - it just shows a different value system than yours or mine. A completely wack value system.
As for the mod, my guess is that Rockstar left it in because it was quicker and less risky from a development perspective than chopping it out. Oops.
What annoys me most about this "controversy" is the overreaction of the politicians. Here's an example:
Quote from: Rep. Fred Upton, R
"It appears that the publisher has blatantly circumvented the rules in order to peddle sexually explicit material to our youth, and they should be held accountable. A company cannot be allowed to profit from deceit." Ref. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4717139.stm)
The publisher probably didn't know it was still in there, the company is only profiting now that the media and the politicians are making a fuss, and the "youth" they are talking about are the 17 year olds that could buy it as a Mature title but not as an Adults Only title. And the inflammatory "peddle"? Thanks.
Oh, guys, I'm working on the ags editor Hot Coffee mod. Did you know that chris stuck a naked picture of himself somewhere in the code? And you thought the editor's file size was bigger because there were "new features"!
To quote one Mr. Bruce Campbell which was in a video game magazine awhile back...
"You can cut off a breast, you just can't kiss it"
Chris Jones ASCII nudity!?
84/\/n3DED!!11`
Someone who downloads the mod online can just as easily download pr0n. If people want to see nudity they don't have to download a stupid mod, they can more easily google for real pics. Oh noes let's ban teh internet!
A quote from a different forum:
I read an article this morning that said a grandmother was going to sue because SHE bought the game for her 14 yr old grandson and was offended by the content. What exactly did she think the M rating meant?
Good point, Guybrush, I was just about to mention it after I heard it on the news earlier today. Yeah, really, it has a Mature (now Adults Only) rating for a REASON, Granny. Funny how you can break the rules (law? not sure about that) and sue somebody else for something you discovered whilst breaking said rules/laws. Though that happens a lot in the U.S. nowadays.
There has been nearly no fuss about this in the UK becuase it was ALWAYS an 18 game here. And UK game ratings are enforcable, US ones are voluntary...
QuoteOh noes let's ban teh internet!
My guess is that they're working on it.
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=158
Anyway, I'm really worried about the politicians. At first, they hated violence. Now, they hate sex. Which is in my opinion the quite opposite of violence. George Carlin once quoted a guy much wiser than himself, who said he much rather have his son watching two people making love than two people trying to kill one and other. But really, I doubt any 17 year old who plays GTA havn't seen someone having sex until they downloaded the Hot Coffee MOD which explains that YOU CAN HAVE INTERACTIVE SEX. No, better leave that to the 18 year olds, even if most countries have a age limit of 16 for having sex.
Personal responsibility is dead.
I love Maddox with all my heart. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ticket_to_hell)
"454,108 children have been irreparably corrupted by the wanton sexuality Rockstar has forced into our homes with the aid of custom software modifications and a handful of access codes that could potentially be used with the purchase of a third party accessory."
The ratings on the box refer to the elements you encounter in the gameplay, not everything that's technically in the game. For instance, a programmer working on a Mario game could put an entire pornographic novel into his code as "comments". The player would only know about this if they somehow decompiled the game.
In the same way, a movie's rating is based on what you see through the camera's viewfinder, not what may be going on off-set.
A few things disturb me about this case. At least where I live, someone under 18 can watch an R-rated movie (as long as they're accompanied by someone over 18) and maybe see non-explicit sex acts performed by real people. As soon as someone turns 18, they can watch pretty much anything they want to. I think it's sad to think a 17 year old would be excited by some pixelated polygons.
Also, it's ironic that GTA is the game where you can pull a grandma-type out of her car and beat her to death with a baseball bat. But throw a few titties into the mix and everyone gets outraged.
I don't think this lawsuit has any merit, especially since the woman bought the game for an underaged relative. What was she thinking? "I knew he would be able to beat hookers to death after fucking them, but I didn't know there would be....oh, God...exposed body parts in the game!"
Also, there's some sort of clean-hands function of the law. For instance, if someone robbed me during a drug transaction, I can't turn around and sue him because I was committing an illegal act in the first place.
Due to the media shit storm, Rockstar will probably have to settle. It's a pity how misinformed the public is.
QuoteRockstar has forced into our homes with the aid of custom software modifications
Anyone else see the utterly disgusting and reproachable contradiction in that one phrase of the quote? Jeez.
Yes, and thus found it amusing as the writer intended.
Also, I like the way you can have sex at 16, but can't watch it til 18.
they let the game get a small MA rating when you have the ability to chop someone up with a chainsaw, but the minute a mod comes out with the 'Hot Coffee' mode, they ban it as if it's an XXX film. As several said, one who downloads the mod can just as easily download porno straight off. Bah.
I just wish the government would let the OFLC give games an R classification...like the OFLC has been asking for for the last 15 years.
Quote from: TerranRich on Fri 29/07/2005 22:29:59
QuoteRockstar has forced into our homes with the aid of custom software modifications
Anyone else see the utterly disgusting and reproachable contradiction in that one phrase of the quote? Jeez.
It's a quote from Maddox. Go read some of his other articles, he purposefully writes like that. It's very sarcastic.
Quote"The ratings on the box refer to the elements you encounter in the gameplay, not everything that's technically in the game."
Though I have no evidence to back it up, I've heard at least a couple of times when people were talking about this case that the ESRB (or whatever they're called) is supposed to be presented with EVERYTHING that is shipped with the game, including any hidden code. I have a feeling that Rockstar knows this all too well, thus why they're not putting up more of a stink over their game getting dropped from pretty much every major store around.
What *I* wonder though, is whether or not they'll succeed with the SIMS. If they do, it's pretty much open season on games. I can't imagine, though: even IF someone in the world think they have a case against the game, EA has some mighty deep pockets. I'm surprised they're going after them at all. To me, it shows not only ignorance of the game's content, but ignorance of who they're actually up against.
Do you mean you present source code to the ESRB and if some programmer for example had left a "//fuck! this routine took a long time" comment OMG EXCPLICIT CONTENT? I'm sure this isn't the case. I'm sure the only content that is judged is that which can be reached without game modification using 3rd party software.
I don't mean that at all (sorry for the confusion). I guess what i was trying to say is that depending on how the ratings board wording of things and how it could be interpreted, then maybe they're caught on a dumb technicality, thus not wanting to press the matter further. As I said though -- this information is hearsay anyway, and may be altogether false. More than anything I threw it out there to see if anyone else had heard anything of the same ilk.
Sex in some sort of natural, intimiate fashion is perfectly suitable for most audiences, it's another thing when it comes in relation to violence, prostitution and objectifying of women and nudity.
I think this is quite an issue, since it might define the attitude and conception of quite a portion of young boys who have little real experience of these things.
Sure, it was bad enough when it was just a ridiculously violent game. But now adays you're just a puritan and oldfashioned if you claim that all these games have an impact on the youth.
I don't know, Andail. I've seen bad action films which excited me as a kid, and awesome violent video games and and and. Every time I saw a 'tournament fighting' movies like the Best of the Best and the like as a kid, I got all pumped up on being a ninja and did air-kicks in my living room (I identified with the monkey, then tiger, than praying mantis fighter, btw). I was very convinced that I am a robot with buzzsaw hands and laser eyes up to first grade or something. Yet I'm not out there killing people and mistreating women (well, ok, only when they deserve it) right now.
This has an influence on the youth in the sense that everything has an influence on the youth. Violence permeates the cultures of the modern world is many ways. The attraction to violence is an easily tracable one in the instinctual bias towards safety in power and control. Everybody feels it, and it takes a lot of growing up to not be hopelessly enthralled by it. You have to soak yourself in it, you don't have to play the ostrich "It doesn't exist! It doesn't exist!" We can't expect that from kids, and we shouldn't shield them from it preemptively because they will grow up to be psychologically and emotionally underequipped in dealing with it inevitably as adults.
I don't believe base-level violent depictions in games are a determining factor, or even a primary one leading to teen violence. I believe that regardless of how many awful movies you watch and how many times you do the Barakka fatality, there are other quite more direct reasons that lead to such things, and it seems more convinient to attack the secondary stuff like videogames than to tackle the real issues that refer to the deficiencies of adults in parenting, all the comfortable lies about morality, passive-agressive ethical indoctorination. I guess being completely alienated from your parents isn't an issue deserving at least as much discussion? Knowing that right now, people are dying from thirst has absolutely no effect on the psyche of a young child either, right? How about the biggest example of all, that an american kid knows it's country is systematically bringing war to other countries for power and control? Let's instead forcus on violent videogames and tasteless nudity.
Quote from: Helm on Sat 30/07/2005 11:47:55You have to soak yourself in it, you don't have to play the ostrich "It doesn't exist! It doesn't exist!"Ã, We can't expect that from kids, and we shouldn't shield them from it preemptively because they will grow up to be psychologically and emotionally underequipped in dealing with it inevitably as adults.
I agree, children will grow up eventually and they will have to face it without a parent or teacher standing by. The more innocent and ignorant the child the more they will get hurt.
The important thing is to tell the child that what may seem normal in a game/film/book/comic strip is not necessarily a good approach of real life. Although I hapilly shoot NPC in games and I love crime/war films and violent action books with the usual amount of sex scenes in them , I hate it when people hurt a child, kick a kitten, abandon a pedestrian they hit with their car , push an old lady at the supermarket to reach the cashiers first or mistreat and disrespect women only because they can .
What computer games taught me, is that in real life we don't have a "quicksave" option...
Quote from: Andail on Sat 30/07/2005 11:29:43
I think this is quite an issue, since it might define the attitude and conception of quite a portion of young boys who have little real experience of these things.
You have a point there, but surely it should apply to the violence and other parts of the game as well. You could just as well argue that young boys who had no experience with the police could be led to believe it's normal to shoot cops and run them over rather than talk to them or run away.
So while I do understand your point, it doesn't make sense that all this fuss is being made over a sex scene and not over the rest of the game's content.
Having said that, as SSH says I haven't heard any fuss about it in this country as the game has an 18 rating, hopefully they won't have to sell the stripped-down version over here.
I just think it's ridiculous that a game can be banned because of a mod. Not because the content is actually in the game, but because you can mod it so that it is. I mean for christ sakes, you could mod Sam and Max or Day of the Tentacle to include nudity if you changed the sprites. Oh holy Lord! It must be banned! A 10 year old might figure out how to use paint and windows explorer!
In the original The Sims you can use a code to remove the shower or bathtub from around the sim (or the sim from the shower or bath tub) and see them naked... The box I got has "ages 3+" on it... And I heard there was a patch that allowed you to get your sims walk around naked with a little trickery like this...
Quote from: Ishmael on Sat 30/07/2005 13:56:27
And I heard there was a patch that allowed you to get your sims walk around naked with a little trickery like this...
So what..? I wouldn't mind my children to see nudity like this. It's reality. And you are only going to make them more interested and eager to find out about sexuality when you pretend it's a big taboo to them. That has been proved a lot of times before.
In my opinion, Helm was absolutely right about this issue when he said this:
Quote
I guess being completely alienated from your parents isn't an issue deserving at least as much discussion? Knowing that right now, people are dying from thirst has absolutely no effect on the psyche of a young child either, right? How about the biggest example of all, that an american kid knows it's country is systematically bringing war to other countries for power and control? Let's instead forcus on violent videogames and tasteless nudity.
The confusion is because the content is in the game files, the textures and animations, the script, but there's no way to access them without using a small mod to do so (on pc) or using a cheating device on the PS2. Ã, So things are slightly more murky than the average nude patch, and it's not totally unreasonable to suspect that Rockstar intended it to be found and unlocked. Ã, This doesn't make the public outcry any more sensible given the nature of the game and the already high age limit, and of course it is only the media attention this has got that has caused the ratings boards to reclassify the game. Ã, If it was purely a user modification this might not have happened.
Funnily enough, the Sims cheats code for visible "nudity" (they have no bits!) is actually in game, requiring no modification. Ã, The sims is so innocent that it seems silly to suggest people would go after that, but Jack Thomson claimed EA were collaborating with the mod community to turn it into a "porn offering", nuts.
Er... isn't all the fuss like about
* Rockstar/(North) not wanting any trouble (, because of)
* Stupid people who would use anything to get a bit famous/win a court case/complain around pointlessly
* There was major trouble when original Grand Theft Auto went out in some countries
???
Then again, nude/sex/pr0n patches/mods are things that add a bit of popularity to the game (especially 3D life-like simulation ones) so if it's visible far away, companies should (and it's not a bad idea) do it themselves and add proper age limit to the box. Like the "woohoo" stuff in Sims2... it was super clear that if not the makers themselves, then someone else will fill that area some day.
But hey, they made it with some nice sense of tact and it works fine. So, teH h4xx0r0r g33ks don't have to spend nights trying to make a Sims 2 sex mod. And maybe it helps to sell game better.
"Do you know that you can have sex in Sims 2?"
"Wow, I'm so buying this!"
10 minutes after playing
"Aw, crap"
:D
Anyone had "relations" in Fable? This game actually FEATURES you marrying a wife and going to bed with her, and has yet afar as I know been flamed for this. Is this sex craze only premarital sex or what, because even if the Fable action is a black screen and the same recored moan on repeat for a while (though that might alter with your evil appearance. Evil being bad lay perhaps? Havn't played THAT much yet ;)) it is STILL SEZX0R5, as an ingame feature and I think you're even allowed to pursue polygami. Puritan warning!
..ofcourse, then there's the thing about marrying your wife, getting the dowry then killing the shit out of her thus inheriting everything belonging to her, but I think that actually got mentioned for a while.. or so.. as a feature of how open and functional the Fable world is.
Wow.
On the GTA discussion, I think both Andail and Helm carries a vital point. The biggest risk is the objectification and abuse of women, which actually is well presented, not only in GTA, but a vast load of games. This is also ofcourse a major problem of the entire entertainment industry, but I think it IS more crucial when combining it with violent acts. Helms point is also valid, there's many things we do, and ideas we have, but we seldom carry them with us through puberty, or rather, after puberty is over. And to hide childs from aspects of life aint that a smart idea. Any type of restrains is turned into perversion. But the reason we've seen gruesome violence, and acted it out in games, yet still don't mow down grandmothers with semiautomatics is that we're secure while experiencing them. Being in a safe and secure enviroment gives you ability and oppurtunity to deal with such extremes, and I don't think anyone disagree that sex and violence are the two greatest elements of catching our attention. If Tarantino says so, I say so ;) Even so, GTA was made by guys for guys, and sex is just sex. It is a simple fantasy, not unlike any type of pornography. The idea of simple, easy, no strings attached sex, or simply a good laugh, because how hilarious isn't sex in games in the first place. When it instead is placed into an ideal; the pursue of poontang, bitches and hoes and being a pimp - or even beating the bitch up; then it becomes a bit worrying. Irony is one thing, not being able to see through irony another. Still, I think the most outrageous thing about GTA is that it is so god dam boring.
What happened with this game is pretty low but you gotta also blame the people who are trying to download the mods to see these things. Both are at fault, the makers and the searches for this.
why should we blame the people who are downloading the mods?
Why are we discussing hypocrisy here? If they allow violence in the game, does that mean that they're obligated to allow explicit sex too? Seems to me people are missing the point. They included material in the game (it's on the disc so it's in the game, mod or no) that should have earned it an Adults Only rating. The censors are operating according to their established policies. Whether those policies are adequate or not is kind of a tangent as I see it. Anyway, if you want to argue that there's a hypocrisy there, you're going to have to support that claim somehow. You can't just say, "they allow violence, but SEX is not allowed?!" and expect people to agree with you just because you're angry. If you're going to appeal to an absolute, objective moral standard, you'd better give a reason why.
Quote from: Helm on Sun 31/07/2005 16:31:38
why should we blame the people who are downloading the mods?
because if noone downloaded the mods, the problem would go away.
Maybe what you and I think the problem is in this case, differ.The current fuss about GTA isn't the problem. The mentality of the people who got all riled up about silly sex scenes in game is the problem.
Two thoughts:
a) Maybe Rockstar put this in as a clvere marketing ploy to get a huge bunch of free publicity, and everyone knows that there's no such thing as bad publicity...
b) While seeing violence on TV or a movie or game has never made me think "Wow, I want to go out an pop a cap (whatever that means := )", seeing sexy scenes on TV has certainly made me horny on occasion.
Quote from: SSH on Mon 01/08/2005 10:43:19
seeing sexy scenes on TV has certainly made me horny on occasion.
And that's a BAD thing? ;)
Bah, the flying school is almost impossible on pc!
Coffee what?
Sorry off topic, but Chicky, the Flying School for me has been impossible on the PS2 also.
So i'm just looking for tags, snapshots, horseshoes and oysters. I have totally given up on the Flying School and trying to beat the game. :(
Wow! Glad I'm not the only one who thinks the flight school on PS2 is impossible too! I abandoned playing it temporarily because of that. I just got so frustrated after WEEKS of trying, even having friends try it, that I just gave up and did other things. :p
But yeah, nudity is now considered more offensive than violence. You see nudity all the time (albeit mostly partial) on a lot of European shows, yet in America it's evil.
Quote from: Helm on Sat 30/07/2005 07:57:46
Do you mean you present source code to the ESRB and if some programmer for example had left a "//fuck! this routine took a long time" comment OMG EXCPLICIT CONTENT? I'm sure this isn't the case. I'm sure the only content that is judged is that which can be reached without game modification using 3rd party software.
No, you don't have to present source code - but the ESRB rating is supposed to cover ALL content within the game that can possibly be pulled off of the media whether it's easily accessable or not.Ã, For example, you can't put a hidden "super gore-soaked violence" mode into "Happy Fuzzy Bunny Quest" and then conveniently not tell the ratings board about the code so that HFBQ gets an "E" rating when it should actually get an "M".
It doesn't matter if the explicit content is hidden, unlockable, or what - if it ships with the game, it has to be reflected in the rating.
The Sims got a Teen rating from the ESRB because of nudity, same-sex relationships and implied sexual content.Ã, It may be different in other countries.
In addition, I'm pretty sure most compilers just completely throw out comments and don't bundle them into the final executable as it would make no sense to do so. Regardless, every software house I've worked at has operated under a "you never know who might be looking at your code, so be professional in your source file documentation" policy. The "erotic novel in a Mario game's comments" would never happen to any programmer with half a brain or any desire to keep his job.
So you're saying that source code is not game content? Technically, the source code ships with every copy of the game (compiled, but it's still there). It would take some work to crack it, but it's still there.
The hot coffee mod is not an unlockable game mode. Finding the hidden content in the game requires a hack. I don't think it's fair to call this content part of the playing experience. I used the Mario example to make a point, not to say that it's likely in an environment of programmer professionalism (there's an oxymoron for you).
I think this article (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ticket_to_hell) sums up how ridiculous the outrage is.
Quote from: big brother on Sun 07/08/2005 21:52:34
So you're saying that source code is not game content? Technically, the source code ships with every copy of the game (compiled, but it's still there).
Um, no.Ã, Source code is the uncompiled text files containing the C/C++ code that is turned into binaries during the compilation process.Ã, You do not submit source code files to the ESRB for the rating process.Ã, You submit the final game.Ã, However, one of the regulations of the rating process set by the ESRB is that you cannot "hide" anything in the game in order to skirt the ratings - regardless of how it's unlocked.
That, however, is a matter of semantics. You can generate source files by decompiling the binary but there are no source files on-disk. And like I said, compilers throw out comments. I'd be really surprised if comments were left in the binaries. There's no need for them to be there.
QuoteIt would take some work to crack it, but it's still there.
The hot coffee mod is not an unlockable game mode. Finding the hidden content in the game requires a hack. I don't think it's fair to call this content part of the playing experience. I used the Mario example to make a point, not to say that it's likely in an environment of programmer professionalism (there's an oxymoron for you).
Um... I'm a programmer, and I'm quite professional, thanks.
Whatever is on the CD and can potentially be accessable to the consumer, regardless of how it accessed, must be covered by the rating.Ã, That's how the ESRB works.
QuoteUm... I'm a programmer, and I'm quite professional, thanks.
So you wear a tie when you masturbate (or as you might call it, "compiling your binaries." But that's just semantics). Good for you. This whole professionalism thing is really beyond the point. Video game programmers are the cows on the corporate farm.
Your argument about the ESRB relies on a normative premise. You say that all content *must* be evaluated. I say they *can't* rate what they can't play (or know about). This is the reason the ESRB missed the "adult scenes" in the first place, no matter how much they may have intended to rate all of the content. Perhaps we should blame the ESRB for misleading all those innocent 17 year olds who believed the rating when they bought the game. Those poor bastards didn't even see it coming.
I have to say that "That Guy" has a valid point though -- if Rockstar wasn't somehow "punished" for this (i.e., have the M rating put on the game), then it means that if a company WAS to release "Happy Fuzzy Bunny Quest" and the ESRB rated the accesible content as E (for everyone) but was to intentionally hide code that's easily hackable that reveals all kinds of content that would be rated anywhere above the age group it was rated for, then any company who wanted to would be able to just avoid the rules and slip such content into a game could.
Would it be okay for a company to release "Happy Fuzzy Bunny Quest", rated E, and more or less have a GTA clone in it (that SHOULD be rated Mature) that was easily accessible, JUST so they could get their game on to Wal-mart shelves? THEN the ESRB would be entirely pointless, since young kids that are somewhat tech-savvy could learn how to do the hack and got to WalMart and buy a game that REALLY should be rater higher.
Yeah, it's silly to dispute it when it's extreme violence vs. sex and a difference of one year of age, but that's not the point. The point is that the people making video games shouldn't be alowed to sneak potentially "innapropriate" content into games that the ratings can't touch. In that way, I can SORT OF see why that old lady has a beef -- she's more or less trying to get them on false advertising.
Quote from: big brother on Mon 08/08/2005 08:19:42Your argument about the ESRB relies on a normative premise. You say that all content *must* be evaluated. I say they *can't* rate what they can't play (or know about). This is the reason the ESRB missed the "adult scenes" in the first place, no matter how much they may have intended to rate all of the content. Perhaps we should blame the ESRB for misleading all those innocent 17 year olds who believed the rating when they bought the game. Those poor bastards didn't even see it coming.
Actually, the ESRB has specific regulations in place precisely to keep stuff like this from happening.Ã, That's why Rockstar is being fined (I believe) and having the rating on the game changed.
You're absolutely right that the ESRB cannot rate what they cannot see.Ã, They are quite aware of this, and that is why one of their regulations is that you cannot "hide" material in your game that would alter its rating.Ã, If they find out that you did, then your game gets re-rated and you get a big stink raised, much like Rockstar is getting now.
The bottom line is, the addition of explicit sexual content in a software title mandates an Adults-Only rating.Ã, Like it or not, them's the rules.Ã, Rockstar put (excuse me... "accidentally left") content in their game that mandated that rating.Ã, When it was discovered, the rating was changed.
's all there is to it.Ã, The rating now reflects the content, which is the way it should have been in the first place.
Personally, my big problem with this whole thing is that when confronted with the problem, Rockstar attempted to lie about it and blame the whole thing on "teh haxors" rather than own up to it.Ã, If something like this had happened at any of the places I'd worked there'd be a few firings goin' on.
Although, given the way communication works, it's quite feasible that the PR folks for Rockstar misunderstood the question, since technically the released version doesn't contain a sex scene. They probably jumped the gun.
media: "Hey Rockstar, someone hacked your game and now there's sex in it."
Rockstar PR: "GTA doesn't include any sex. We can't control alterations done to our software by a third party."
Rockstar programmers: "Uh oh. Everybody hide!"
Quote from: big brother on Mon 08/08/2005 08:19:42Your argument about the ESRB relies on a normative premise. You say that all content *must* be evaluated. I say they *can't* rate what they can't play (or know about). This is the reason the ESRB missed the "adult scenes" in the first place, no matter how much they may have intended to rate all of the content. Perhaps we should blame the ESRB for misleading all those innocent 17 year olds who believed the rating when they bought the game. Those poor bastards didn't even see it coming.
Actually, the ESRB has specific regulations in place precisely to keep stuff like this from happening.Ã, That's why Rockstar is being fined (I believe) and having the rating on the game changed.
You're absolutely right that the ESRB cannot rate what they cannot see.Ã, They are quite aware of this, and that is why one of their regulations is that you cannot "hide" material in your game that would alter its rating.Ã, If they find out that you did, then your game gets re-rated and you get a big stink raised, much like Rockstar is getting now.
The bottom line is, the addition of explicit sexual content in a software title mandates an Adults-Only rating.Ã, Like it or not, them's the rules.Ã, Rockstar put (excuse me... "accidentally left") content in their game that mandated that rating.Ã, When it was discovered, the rating was changed.
's all there is to it.Ã, The rating now reflects the content, which is the way it should have been in the first place.
Personally, my big problem with this whole thing is that when confronted with the problem, Rockstar attempted to lie about it and blame the whole thing on "teh haxors" rather than own up to it.Ã, If something like this had happened at any of the places I'd worked there'd be a few firings goin' on.
Although, given the way communication works, it's quite feasible that the PR folks for Rockstar misunderstood the question, since technically the released version doesn't contain a sex scene.Ã, They probably jumped the gun.
media: "Hey Rockstar, someone hacked your game and now there's sex in it."
Rockstar PR: "GTA doesn't include any sex.Ã, We can't control alterations done to our software by a third party."
Rockstar programmers: "Uh oh.Ã, Everybody hide!"
and no, I don't wear a tie.Ã, But you keep right on imagining me masturbating if that's what gets ya.Ã, ;)
I just don't get it... You can shoot an innocent guy right between the eyes with a 12 gauge, but you can't see two pixely naked people doing it, untill you're eighteen... America is weird.
QuoteI just don't get it... You can shoot an innocent guy right between the eyes with a 12 gauge, but you can't see two pixely naked people doing it, untill you're eighteen... America is weird.
I think it's more the rating system that's weird. Here in the UK games are rated on a Europe-wide rating system (PEGI), with 3+, 7+, 12+, 16+ and 18+. The amount of pure violence in GTA:SA means that it's already 18+ in most of Europe, and the discovery of this "hot coffee" mod makes no difference to it's rating.
That reminded me of when I bought Halo... it had 15+ on the cover, or well, actually not. I didn't examine it too well before opening the plastic wrapper, but when I did, it turned out that there was 16+ on the case, but a sticker with 15+ on it on the plastic. Completely irrelevant, buut....
Yeah, well, it's the rating system that's weird. But the logic that sex is nono for underaged people, but killing others isn't, is what I was after...
EDIT: what am I typing? ::)
Everytime a Halo game is loading up on xbox live and all I hear is some whiny voice yelling something immature, all I say is "Halo 2: Rated M for Mature
it gets a good laugh from the older players, and a nice pre-pubescent "Shut up" from Whiny McWahwah.
It is rediculous that we have a 17+ age group and an 18+ age group. We should just merge the 17 one up a year and be done with it. Too bad it may have a serious effect on sales as does an R rating for a movie.
It still blows my goddamn mind that video games have ratings.
I still remember Pac Man being in the arcades!
Bt
Again, in order not to sound puritan, I can gladly admit that both violence and sex intrigues me highly.
But let's face it; if there had never been movies or games with excessive violence, or prostitution/rape/abuse etc, we wouldn't see a fraction of all the shit we see in our society today.
Should we forbid it? I never said so, nor do I say it now. But we need to work out a pretty darn smart plan when it comes to how to present it to our kids.
Andail, I've always been of the belief that movies and video games mirror society, not cause it. But that's just me. I don't have anything to back up my argument, it's just an opinion.
Also, can somebody clarify what the deal is with that "hidden" content in GTA:SA? I mean, if somebody ALTERED the game...ALTERED it, then it doesn't count as hidden content. Just like the nude patch for the original Tomb Raider. Nobody looked at that and went, "Well, gee, we should give Tomb Raider an adult rating!"
Well, that's because the actual nude Laura skin wasn't made by the company, nor released in every copy of the game.
In Hot Coffee's case, the material was already there, it was just a matter of getting it playable.
andail: blah blah horrible violence and atrocities before playstation and tv and the radio, but you know that already
Also, I really doubt video games and movies are the source of inspiration for men who abuse their wives/girlfriends, serial rapists, serial killers, and prostitutes.
"Gee, I just played Grand Theft Auto and I really want to be a hooker. See you guys later!"
;)
Or Jack Thompson's wonderful arguments that the US military uses games like Delta Force and other "Combat simulators" to break down troops' resistance to killing. Additionally, GTA3 was -apparently- used extensively by gangs to teach new members "how to hijack a car." GTA is like the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I haven't bought GTA, but I am seriosly thinking on it... Being totally naughty in a videogame appeals me a lot, and it looks like a lovely escape-valve. Don't know about other people, but playing that game would (IMO) make me be less violent (Because after kicking butts virtually I wouldn't do it in real life)
But I can understand that some guys (I call them "teh wankers") would like to experience in real life something they've seen in their consoles . But IMO, people like that has the evil (or moronity) seed inside, no matter if what makes the seed is a videogame or a fil, or a poster... When Charles Manson acted there were no viedeogames :).
I like how That Guy is all 'rockstart put omg excuse me
left that content in there lol' where this seemingly trivialized aspect of this case is the most important. That Guy, you've said nothing that explains how the blame is shifted from the person that HACKS A PROGRAM to the company that made the content. Is hacking the program - no matter how easy the hack - to get stuff out of it included in the Terms Of Use of the software? Isn't that what your silly rating organization governs? The content seen in a normal playing of a game?
No amount of lol and italics changes that. The people who downloaded third party software to see pixelly sex did it on their own volition, and nobody in the world should get the blame for stuff THEY DID. If 'The Fly' is on tonight after midnight, and my son wants to see it and I tell him no, but then he goes up to his room and hacks the cable line and sees it in his psp or something... I'll ground him, not sue Sony.
QuoteWould it be okay for a company to release "Happy Fuzzy Bunny Quest", rated E, and more or less have a GTA clone in it (that SHOULD be rated Mature) that was easily accessible, JUST so they could get their game on to Wal-mart shelves? THEN the ESRB would be entirely pointless, since young kids that are somewhat tech-savvy could learn how to do the hack and got to WalMart and buy a game that REALLY should be rater higher.
the tech-savvy kids would be to blame, then. Not the said company. They can go right ahead and stick added as expansive added content in places where under Terms Of Use you can't reach it for all I care. I can't see why this isn't clear to everybody. When you do something with full intent, prepare to face the music. You bought Happy Fuzzy Bunny Quest, yet what you want to see is blood and guts in game. Tell me what you see wrong in that picture. The americans are just diverting attention from the real problems
Quote from: Helm on Wed 10/08/2005 10:59:29
The americans are just diverting attention from the real problems
Look over there! A three-headed monkey!
Actually, I was thinking somewhat inline with That Guy's statement. Rockstar did make the content and it is included with the game. The fact that a hack allows access to an area that exceeds the rating doesn't change that fact. However, your point is a good one - somebody needs to alter the game in order to access this area. Granted, the user didn't put the pixeled-lucious-naughty-bits in there, or the gameplay for it, but they've still altered the game from the boxed product. Maybe Rockstar's disclaimer should've been more thorough: "Any alterations or 'hacks' of the game not specifically sanctioned by Rockstar may results in gameplay experiences beyond the scope of the ESRB rating."
It's still astounding that the huge controvery is only because it's 1) Sexual in nature and 2) An already controversial and popular game.
Jedi Knight Academy got a Teen rating for violence but certainly would've scored higher if evaluated with a widespread patch in place. There were blood-patches (about which I've no idea if they opened original game code or replaced some) and severing/decapitation patches (which made the game run according to some in-house code and allowed more variety of saber-slicing).
Quote from: YakSpit on Wed 10/08/2005 12:38:42
severing/decapitation patches (which made the game run according to some in-house code and allowed more variety of saber-slicing).
That is actually already in the game, AFAIK. You'll just need to change a few variables in the game console, and pelvis' start to split when you hit the head and arms fall off when you hit a leg :P
Ah.. maybe the "patch" only updates an .ini or somesuch. Either way, the game was much more interesting with it.
Well, I've played it with a mod that added blood too. It was fun. Not only because of the blood, but because of the other stuff in that mod, too. Hmmm... now this is beginning to not make sense anymore... and a bit offtopic ¬¬