GTA: San Andreas under scrutiny

[DoorKnobHandle]

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:

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.

[scotch]

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.

[InCreator]

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"

[2ma2]

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.

[austin2359]

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.

[Helm]

why should we blame the people who are downloading the mods?

[Erenan]

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.

[PsychicHeart]

why should we blame the people who are downloading the mods?

because if noone downloaded the mods, the problem would go away.

[Helm]

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.

[SSH]

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.

[Miez]

seeing sexy scenes on TV has certainly made me horny on occasion.

And that's a BAD thing?

[Chicky]

Bah, the flying school is almost impossible on pc!


Coffee what?

[Domino]

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. 

[TerranRich]

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.

[That Guy]

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.

[big brother]

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 sums up how ridiculous the outrage is.

[That Guy]

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.

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).

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.

[big brother]

Um... 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.

[Ozwalled]

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.

[That Guy]

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.

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!"