Topic: That whole GTA ruckus

[slacker]

Stupid congress.  The last thing this country needs to worry about is ESRB rating enforcement.  The country is already in the red and will remain so for the next few years and the last thing they need is another government agency that regulates our lives.  First, those congress idiots should apologize for misrepresenting the facts.  The sex thing was inaccessible without modification.  Rockstar can't be held responsible nor can the ESRB board be held responsible when someone makes unauthorized modifications that potentially can alter the content of the game.

ESRB did a stupid thing by caving in.  It shows their process is flawed and warrant regulation.  They should have stood their ground and stated the facts.  The government needs to worry about resolving Iraq, resolving the war on terror, and getting the government's fiscal house in order.  If it was up to me, I fired these congressional idiots.  Next, where are the freakin parents.  Has the country gotten so busy that parents can't even discipline or raise their children effectively any more?  

Games like GTA would not be made if people didn't buy them. So bottomline is if the government don't like games like GTA, they should tax games like GTA or something, rather than regulate and pretend like they are protecting the children.  Somtimes I think these politicians act like they know everything and force stupid laws upon us so that we can protect ourselves from ourselves.  

[KDR_11k]

Let's put it like this: The sex scene would give it a 16 rating here. The game itself is rated 18, AFAIK. Since so many popular games (Doom 3, HL2, RE4, ...) are rated 18 here retailers carry them without complaining. There's the indexed titles noone carries but that's because of the associated trouble, you can't show them openly where minors could see them.

If the ESRB changed their ratings to suggest less "adult" (in the US that seems to mean pornographic) content in games rated 18 and rated many more and popular games that way (no GTA, no Doom 3, no HL2, no RE4, etc would really hurt the bottom line for retailers) perhaps those retailers would carry them, too.

[stevey]

"Games like GTA would not be made if people didn't buy them. So bottomline is if the government don't like games like GTA, they should tax games like GTA or something, rather than regulate and pretend like they are protecting the children. Somtimes I think these politicians act like they know everything and force stupid laws upon us so that we can protect ourselves from ourselves. "

Shut up! They might be lisening. No one want taxes on video game that why the ESRB had to cavin or the ass hole would never give up till the gov. would make all game idiotic  so people might never think for them self and become lap dog to what ever they want and go to war for what ever resone/lie and belive it because they want us to be retart about gov.  

[nickmitch]

It was good that the ESRB didn't stand up to the government. That would have just provoked them more. And It IS Rockstar's fault for having the content in there. But it's NOT the ESRB's fault because it was not brought to their attention and wasn't in the 'actual' game.

[slacker]

The content was there, but inaccessible.  Perhaps it should be illegal for outside mods of games to occur without getting it through ESRBr approval of the publisher the mod is for.  If this Hot Coffee patch would have been submitted, then GTA with the patch should be considered AO, but GTA alone should still hold up to the M rating.  

What the ESRB should have done was go on a public relations blitz.  They should have gone on news station and stated the fact that the offending portion of the game is completely inaccessible without outside modification.  This should have been an opportunity to promote what they are doing and inform people what the rating really do.  Instead they backed down and cave in.  Now they will feel the full ramification of caving in.  Now people will say that the rating process is flawed and needs government oversight cause the publishers will just game the system.  ESRB just did the public, themselves, and the gaming industry a complete disservice.  

[ib2kool4u912]

"Perhaps it should be illegal for outside mods of games to occur without getting it through ESRBr approval of the publisher the mod is for. If this Hot Coffee patch would have been submitted, then GTA with the patch should be considered AO, but GTA alone should still hold up to the M rating. "

That's not a very good idea. The whole point of mods is that it's pretty low key. Fans make a mod, they put it on the internet, other fans download it. If every mod was submitted to the ESRB, there would be greatly reduced number of them for games.

[KDR_11k]

No mod team can afford ESRB testing. That'd essentially be the death of modding as we know it. Nintendo would love it, the rest would hate it.

[Deguello]

Quote
ESRB just did the public, themselves, and the gaming industry a complete disservice.

They already did the industry a disservice with their ridiculous higher ratings.  M and AO are indistinguishible and is high time the ESRB just dumped M and made something between Teen like T 15+ or something AO.  Yes it will mean in the future more games like GTA and such tanking in sales as many stores will not sell AO games, but it's the ESRB's own damn fault for being useless if the M rating isn't doing what it should be.

The real issue isn't whether the changed rating was the prudent thing to do.  It is whether the game should have been rated AO in the first place.  I believe it should have and I further believe Rockstar will have a HELL of a time dodging the AO rating in the future.  As the games get more realistic, should that not bump up the "Rated M" content up in intensity to warrant an AO rating now?

[S-U-P-E-R]

Since people want me to post more, I'm posting this which was already in my interweb journal, prior.

I believe that Rockstar ought to be let off the hook by the upcoming FTC business and that the existing stock may as well be left with the 'M' rating.

The only real reason that GTA:SA is being brought up by Hillary Clinton (ahahah centrist politics) is really, because it's popular. It's much easier to get a sex scene (without crappy blurry textures) out of a computer (OR POPULAR MOVIE!) than it is to get out of GTA. And hell, if you really see terrible polygon sex as such a bad thing, then Rockstar deserves a pat on the back for reconsidering putting that in in the final version, right?

Rockstar DID make the sex scenes, sure enough, but likewise, they changed their minds and kept it out of the final game. The gaming nerds on my friends list know this happens all the damn time (GameSharking cool shiz out of GoldenEye comes to mind). Holding the developer responsible for something you have actively tool around to get is a bit much.

Really, when you alter the game with a Gameshark or downloadable mod, it's not the same game anymore (sup nude patch DOAXVB/any PC game ever made crew), and it's pretty insane to rate a game on what it "could" contain after GameSharking it or modding it or taking it on a suicide crash flight into the internet tower. And even more insane to hold the developer responsible, especially since it violates the game software user agreement (I don't know if that's PC or console versions or both, but I'll take CNN's word for it).

The other half of the political drama, imposing fines on retailers, is not new but still a terrible idea. Google is littered with tons of these bills that were voted down or thrown out by the courts (suing anybody else for your kid filling some people with bullets is also always similarly thrown out). I think the political types only push these for the press anymore.

There's one big solid reason not to enforce ratings (as well as a bunch of others); ESRB ratings are not accurate. Nevermind the GTA:SA stuff; the difference between T and M is just arbitrary and random sometimes. My favorite example is the exact same game, Doom, getting different ratings between different ports, with the 'T' rated one probably being even more graphic (for old ass pixelated Doom, anyway).

I remember, I got carded once for buying N64 games rated 'M'. Of course, I was well over 18 at the time, but I still got a little weirded out. If I was 15 or 16 at the time, I would have been most unjustly deprived of Quake II or whatever crappy $9.99 game it was, even though I could have legally earned the taxable income myself and legally driven two tons of Detroit steel over to get it. The ESRB (lol) nor the feds should have that particular authority over teenagers, just my parents (who let me do as I pleased because I am well behaved!). Just having the ratings as they usually were, a loose guide to the content, was more than enough.

Rockstar themselves could have obviously handled this situation better, but I think I have a unique take on it. Really, I think they did no wrong (other than having crappy PR). The best course of action, rather than denial or freaking out and recalling games would have been just to do nothing. Maybe issuing the statements equivalent of "so what?" or their initial-initial statement, which I snagged from CNN:

Quote
But without referring to Clinton, the company said it was "disappointed by comments that misrepresent Grand Theft Auto, detracting from the innovative and artistic merits of the game."

"Unfortunately, the recent confusion only serves to suggest that games do not deserve the same treatment as other forms of creative expression," Rockstar said in its statement.

I love it! It's just so big-headed and smug and SASSY!

I really don't see how waffling and then being a pushover really helps their bottom line in this case. Remember how Vice City had the "KILL THE HAITIANS!" bit? Rockstar said "oops, we'll take that out." I don't think they ever did, though (it was in my XBox port) and people quit caring the week after the story. Laugh out loud! A similar, sassier, lazier approach could have worked just as well with the Hot Coffee bit (which unlike shooting Haitians, is not directly accessible, haw haw).

Actually, what I think would have been the most entertaining move would have been for Rockstar to drop the ESRB rating right off the box. I don't know if they could do that and keep their Sony/MS developer licenses, but if so, that would have been ballsy as hell and have shaken things up in the biz (in a good way).

Anymore, I'm usually content to post "lol" on IRC about these stupid stories rather than post about them on my SERIOUS INTERNET SITE, but now that even other game nerds thinking that ratings should be enforced by THA LAW, I am compelled to, I dunno, type a lot of words in opposition. I don't believe in slippery slope arguments, but I'm a little concerned that other game companies might be negatively influenced into holding back on their content if Rockstar actually gets into any serious hot water.