Topic: That whole GTA ruckus

[KDR_11k]

You probably know about that big deal the media is making about the "Hot Coffee" feature in GTA San Andreas, if not I'll summarize it:

Some cracker makes a mod for GTASA PC that enables a sex minigame. He said it's all in the game, he just needed to flick a switch to enable it.
The media create an outrage with everyone, from Hillary "Some idiot blew my husband and all I got was this lousy shirt" Clinton to Jackass Thompson, throwing their idiotic uninformed "please, won't somebody think of the children?" commentary around completely ignoring that sex is pretty much the most harmless part of GTA San Andreas.
Rockstar issues a statement that the "hacker" (it's "cracker" goddamnit, a hacker hacks a foreign system!) went to great lengths to disassemble the game code and wrote that game all by himself.
Gamespot investigates and finds the code can in fact be unlocked in the PS2 version with an action replay.

I'm thinking this is stupid, anyone older than 15 has at least jerked off to porn on the internet so this thing won't shock them. Parents surprised to find little Timmy play a sex game should have paid attention much earlier as the game is rated 17+ in the US and 18+ in most European countries. Might be an issue in Australia with that 15+ rating. I don't think the game should be rated any higher even if that minigame was actually in the final build, it's just sex, how much worse can that be than glorifying crime and violence?

Either way it's not accessible in the unmodded game and should therefore not be rated. It requires a wilful modification to the game and noone can say they accidentally stumbled into it. Games these days tend to have huge chunks of unused code and other assets in them, showing all of them to the ESRB would take longer than showing the main game to them.

Rockstar made it inaccessible and considered it done. Their code was correct and could not produce this result unless the system was compromised. They didn't remove the code itself because they probably decided to cut it very shortly before the deadline so they didn't want to kill parts of the code that could cause compilation issues and noone cares to rifle through the asset database looking for unused assets when there's no time and still enough space on the disc. If the courts hold Rockstar responsible for third party modifications that'll create a dangerous precedent and by the way invalidate the click-through license since that would indemnify Rockstar from any damages.

Besides, anyone claiming there's damage done by this should not be allowed to procreate. Quite simply, if a child that's not supposed to see a virtual sex scene even plays the unmodded game the parents should question their parenting strategy. If the child plays it at a friend's, who says they don't go jerking off to internet porrn afterwards? And hell, there's enough porn on the net and you'd need the net to access this so no big deal.

All this has done is provide Rockstar with another load of free publicity and prove that Jackass Thompson wants to outlaw any speech he doesn't agree with. Can't we just ship that nazi off to Guantanamo?

[Nephilim]

Rockstars fault
GTA3PC - Fans find multiplayer..... Rockstar must of noticed fans look thu the code.....
GTA:SAPC - Rockstar leaves code in for porn game..... fans find it
they stuffed up

[Ian Sane]

I always hate this sh!t.  There's a damn warning on the box.  If it says 'M' and your kid owns the game then you're an irresponsible f*ck and you have no right to complain.  It is not the government's job to raise your kids and don't anyone DARE make it their job.  In this situation it's especially stupid because it's a mod.  It's not even a code.  You have to "break" your game to access it.  I can sort of see people freaking out if it was a code because then you could say they were deliberately trying to pull a fast one on the ESRB.  But you can't be held responsible for mods.

But Rockstar isn't totally getting off from me either.  Every game they publish has some sort of questionable content in it.  GTA, State of Emergency, MANHUNT.  Even tamer stuff like Smuggler's Run and Midnight Club glorify illegal activity.  They bring this sh!t on themselves and then bring it on the industry as a whole.  Videogames will never be treated with respect if publishers intentionally release controversially stuff for a quick buck.  We need more games worthy of being called "mature" and less juvenile crime simulators.  I feel Rockstar has the right to make whatever they want but they're being incredibly irresponsible and STUPID.

[nickmitch]

Rockstar really should have taken the damn thing out when they ported GTA:SA to PC and Xbox. However, it really isn't fault.
If there is a law that prohibits selling certain games to anyone under 17 then that would be the dumbest sh!t that I've ever heard of. If the game is M rated then it's not supposed to be in anyone under 17's hands in the first place. This whole thing all winds down to stupid ass parents. This whole thing should have never come in to court. Then there's people trying to undermine the ESRB's rating? It's not the rating you dip sh!ts!!! It's the fact that there are idiots handing these out to their own children!!!!

And as Gamespot put it the minigame didn't even sound 'pornographic' there was no nudity, and the guy kept his pants on. It sounds more like simple dry-humping which can be on TV.

[KDR_11k]

EA was once the forerunner of innovation. Rockstar used to publish Lemmings...

But anyway, the main problem is Jackass Thompson. That guy claims the ESRB is a conspiracy by videogame developers to corrupt the children. He claims videogames are responsible for stuff like Columbine and wants to help random people shift the blame on videogames, claiming videogames turn children into killers becase the military uses videogames to make killers (no they use Drill Sargeants, the games are just targeting practice because they have no money for real ammunition). "No your honor, it's absultely not little Jimmy's fault that he killed those people and you can't blame his parents for giving him a gun, no it's those evil videogames!". Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Or at least public execution of idiots like that? Hell, they killed Socrates for less, can't they force Jackass Thompson to imitate Hunter S. Thompson and pull a Hemmingway?

[nickmitch]

I think that for crimes of being an absolutely idiot and worthless waste of human life the punishment should be that you get tied up  and every gets to kick to you in the no-no's. Wouldn't that be a fun society?

[Artimus]

I just can't figure out why no one points out that movie ratings aren't legal either, theatres simply choose to enforce them.

[Spak-Spang]

To say video games absolutely have no effect on children or even adults is stupid.  The items you place in your head effect you in positive and negative ways.  Porn is a good example.  You can become addicted to it and it can ruin families and your life.

Now with that said, you alone are responsible for your own actions.  If you have kids you are responsible for watching them.  Period.  If a product will sell then a publisher has the right to sell that product anyway they want...as long as they don't deceive the product about what it is.

However, I do believe that the rating system really needs to respected more and taken seriously.  Game stores should check IDs before selling M rated games and AO games.  If a parent is there the store should still mention to the parent what is in the game.

Finally, I would personally like M rated games taken out of Toy Stores.  Video Game Stores, Walmarts, Targets and such are fine, but Toy Stores shouldn't carry those games.

[Deguello]

Quote
But you can't be held responsible for mods.

Quote
Gamespot investigates and finds the code can in fact be unlocked in the PS2 version with an action replay.

IT appears it is still in the PS2 version, which really wouldn't classify it in the realm of "mod."

What this really should be about is that Rockstar did not disclose all of the games content to the ESRB, even if it is "inaccessible."  The question raised is that if the ESRB knew about it, would it haved raised the rating from M to that damning AO that would have REALLY slashed into its sales?

Edit: OH and it doesn't help that Rockstar lied about it and said somebody fabricated it for the PC version.  Unless that same "cracker" (lol KDR) also modded up a time machine and went back in time to put it into the PS2 version of the game.  

[nickmitch]

Rockstar is probably gonna get shafted for the lie. But would it have been worse if they just said "Well, yeah. we put it there, but it wasn't in the game."?

[KDR_11k]

Rockstar worded it in the yellow press way, i.e. they didn't REALLY say that the guy added the game but the way they wrote it everybody belives they did.

It wasn't in there, period. An Action Replay compromises the system. Do you know how many games have hidden stuff in them? There was AFAIK crocomire in Metroid Zero Mission and two additional characters in Golden Sun. Secret levels like the test level in Windwaker. Some completely fake things that are produced by using e.g. the code memory as a level. There's zero chance of a kid accidentally running into that minigame, it requires willfully modifying the game. The ESRB says how suitable it is for kids and the game itself IS as suitable as they have found. If the kid mods his version with an Action Replay the game is no longer the game that was tested and Rockstar can make NO gurantees for how it will perform. If the kid changes the wrong memory address and it wipes his memory cards, is Rockstar to blame?

The beloved car analogy: If there was a law that no car can be sold that's capable of more than 70MPH and e.g. Ferrari adjusted one of their cars to that with a limiter and doesn't change the engine to stop working when the limiter is removed, is it Ferrari's fault that the car can be driven faster than 70MPH if someone simply removes the limiter?

Computer analogy: Is Dell to blame if their computer stops working and damages the hardware, leading to data loss just because you removed one jumper?

[Draygaia]

Theres nothing wrong with Rockstar at all.  The public in general has been morons for not understanding.  I personally look at the imagery and name they used as some sort of small test.  In the end I'm going to know if this game is good or not.  Also removing M rated games from toy stores makes life for kids more dangerous.  They can't ignore that stuff forever and when you introduce something so late in their life you got an idiot creation.

[KDR_11k]

Yes but videogames are the last thing I want introducing kids to sex, violence, etc. A parent should have done that long before the kid hits 14. A videogame is not supposed to be an unbiased and complete explaination of some facet of life, don't expect it to work as such. GTA shouldn't introduce them to crime and law enforcement, Water Closet shouldn't introduce them to sex.

[ShyGuy]

so, what's the deal? are they gonna replace the M with an AO rating?

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Draygaia
Also removing M rated games from toy stores makes life for kids more dangerous.  They can't ignore that stuff forever and when you introduce something so late in their life you got an idiot creation.

Exactly how does introducing young kids, aged 6-9 let's say as I have seen kids around this age speak highly of GTA, to extremely violent games make life safer for them?

Yes, violence is real, and there are probably a ton of violent films which young kids might be able to watch to learn the horrors of it. But GTA? There are really no ramifications for the actions done in that game, how is that healthy for someone so young? Good parenting can overcome this, easily, but to say something to the effect that all kids, for their own sake, should be exposed to these violent games as soon as possible is moronic.

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
GTA shouldn't introduce them to crime and law enforcement

Exactly, and I can't fathom how someone would think otherwise.

[stevey]

"If there is a law that prohibits selling certain games to anyone under 17 then that would be the dumbest sh!t that I've ever heard of. If the game is M rated then it's not supposed to be in anyone under 17's hands in the first place"

There are law that you must have someone over 18 to say to buy it. That is really retart you can just go in any store and rate R move and no one care but any M game then gov. want to wast billion of dollor to stop you. Just so soccor mom do not have to do any parenting and just relax. Not caring want there kid are do because the gov will kept them safe and away from the bad thing and will teach them all the good thing and not tell them bad thing like what sex is till there 18 and about to leave.

and the sex min game is just a hump min game because the woman has a g string on. plus being piss at rockstart for let people download mod for gta online is retared you can just as easly download porn video online with real people and there doing for real.  

[KnowsNothing]

-s1 or -es
suff.
   Used to form plural nouns: letters.
[Middle English -es, -s, from Old English -es, -as, nominative and accusative pl. suff.]

's
  1. Is: She's here.
  2. Has: He's arrived.
  3. Does: What's he want?
  4. Us: Let's go.

-s2 or -es
suff.
   Used to form the third person singular present tense of all regular and most irregular verbs: looks; holds.
[Middle English -es, -s, from Old English (Northumbrian) -es, -as, alteration (perhaps influenced by Old Norse), of -eth, -ath.]

-s3
suff.
   Used to form adverbs: They were caught unawares. He works nights.

Stevey, I'm going to do a nice thing here and give you my letter S.  I will not be able to use the letter S at the end of my word anymore, but now YOU can!  It feel a little weird at first, but you will get used to it.  It very useful.

[TMW]

The whole "Sex is worse than violence" bit is one of the stupidest things about this country (the USA, I mean).  They will show a simulated, but real looking, corpse who's been split open for an autopsy on Primetime Network Television, but Janet flashes a nipple and the fundies have a fit.

The even sadder thing is that the government is at the beck and call of the fundies and the average "I don't want to have to raise my kids" Soccor mom that gets her opinions from the news.  
====
And I have to disagree about porn, Spak.  ANYTHING in large quantaties is dangerous, be it alcohol, videogames, sugar, or pornography,  but most people still have the archaic notion stuck in their head that sex is a bad thing.  

Sex isn't bad...it's the stigma we attach to it.  If more people were educated about sex, and we stopped treating it like it's a shameful dirty act, then I think we'd be alot better off.  

[Ian Sane]

"They will show a simulated, but real looking, corpse who's been split open for an autopsy on Primetime Network Television, but Janet flashes a nipple and the fundies have a fit."

I think there's a reason for that.  Children can't escape violence.  It's something you have to deal with regardless of age.  Kids get hurt just by accident.  They see blood and break bonse.  Sex however is something kids don't have to deal with so if you don't show it on TV you can preserve their innocence longer.  It's the same thing with swearing.  There's no reason for kids to know anything about sex so why not let them just be a kid.  That's the idea I imagine.

Personally I like the way stuff like that's handled in Canada.  You can show unedited R-rated movies in prime time (8pm or later I think) on network television provided that the 18+ rating is displayed in the corner after every commercial break and that a warning saying "this contains blah blah may be offensive to some viewers etc" is also shown after every commercial break.  I saw the South Park movie uncensored on network TV!  I am against censorship but I'm a big supporter of warning labels and rating systems.  I think you should able to show whatever content you want (aside from stuff like snuff films where you legimately kill people) provided you give people fair warning about anything potentially offensive so that they can choose to avoid it if they wish.  My only exception would be public things like mural paintings or billboards.  You can't really choose to avoid something like that so that should be suitable for all ages.  But anything where you make a choice to purchase something or switch to a channel or radio station is fair game.

[SgtShiversBen]

Also this is why I think violence is acceptable rather than sex.

Violence that you see on prime time TV and in the movies you know are fake.  You know that the actor didn't get hurt and that he's just portraying something and acting really well.  Kids should be able to determine that the violence isn't really happening and that the people will just get up and walk away after the movie is finished.

Sex and nudity are something that are real.  When an actress shows her boobs she's actually showing her boobs.  There were no CGI elements added to make them look like boobs.  She's showing them so it goes from being fictional to non fictional (unlike violence which stays fictional in movies).  Same thing can be said for dream sex scenes.  Even though they're in a dream, the actors still had to act them out.  Even if it was simulated penetration (like most Cinemax movies) they people still were naked together, kissing, rubbing up on each other and all the good things.

Sex and nudity in movies actually happen where as violence does not.

[TMW]

Yes!  Kids do deal with violence, from bike accidents, broken bones and the like, but most children will never see a dead body in real life, or for that matter, they are more likley to see some nudity or people having sex.  

If they were to show just some blood, or a graphic depiction of a broken bone, then I would agree.

But a broken bone is nothing compared to a cadaver split open.  No child needs to see that.  

Nudity is only a bad thing because we make it so.  If we were to stop treating nudity like a sexualized concept, then it would -cease to be- a sexualized concept.  I can't say the same for violence.  A corpse split open is, in my opnion, much worse for a child than a nipple.  Or a breast. Or, even as far as seeing sex depicted realistically.  

Emphasis on seeing.

Violence will always be violence, though.  

EDIT for Ben's post:
Thats the thing, though.  Younger children lack the capacity to understand that it -is- fake violence on the screen.  It boils down to the "Parents should watch TV with their children and explain these things to them."   If a child is watching a tv show where a guy gets run over and his head squished, he has no outside influence telling him "its all fake" unless a parent is there.  It all comes back to "It's the Parents Responsibility".  No one elses.  Not the frelling government, not Hilary Gawddamn Clinton or the guy at Gamestop.  

[KDR_11k]

Stevey: No, there is no such law. Some stores opt to enforce the ratings but they aren't required to. The courts have struck down any attempts to regulate video game sales as a violation of the first amendment.

SgtBen: The "it's real" argument falls apart when applied to videogames. Never mind that I could argue a woman's hair is clearly real and offensive to some so all movies without headcloths have to be rated X. Just because it's real nudity or real sex doesn't mean it's evil. I think our societies' twisted relation to sex has caused much more damage than any violent game ever did. If sex was something we didn't consider unnatural the children wouldn't be afraid to talk to their parents about it and would probably learn much earlier that having sex once is enough to get the girl pregnant. The lack of understanding of that fact has caused many an unwanted pregnancy. The sexual repression also leads to the shadowy existence of brothels and many other problems. If there was nothing indecent about going to the whorehouse and those establishments could be placed anywhere, not just in the shady areas of the city perhaps there'd be less organized crime, less STDs and better standards.

Another related aspect is probably the discrimination against homosexuals. Leads to even more repressed feelings. The more people feel pressured and demonized the more likely they are to snap. Going postal, raping some child, stuff like that.

Maybe some day we'll see hollywood porn right next to the newest Disney flick. Though I have my doubts that Disney will exist that long.

Either way, violence hurts the species. Sex doesn't. Which is worse?

[mantidor]

Personally Id be glad if Rockstar gets seriously hurted by this incident, since I despise the kind of content they put in, in a  very machievelic way as the end justify the means, because I also despise the "think of the children" medieval like mentality of modern USA.

I dont think that violence and sex will make our children rapists and murderers, but it will certainly impact them and I dont think it will be in any positive manner whatsoever. Yeah, sure, we know the kids shouldnt put their hands on this game, but who are we kidding here? Its very likely that more children play GTA than adults. The problem is not just the ESRB system, is the view of video games in general in society, video games are and will be for some time viewed as children stuff, in the eyes of the common man the "R" in a movie is somehow more significant that the "M" in a game, they wont let their kid see an R movie, but they'll buy them an M game.

[Draygaia]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok

Quote
Originally posted by: Draygaia
Also removing M rated games from toy stores makes life for kids more dangerous.  They can't ignore that stuff forever and when you introduce something so late in their life you got an idiot creation.

Exactly how does introducing young kids, aged 6-9 let's say as I have seen kids around this age speak highly of GTA, to extremely violent games make life safer for them?

Yes, violence is real, and there are probably a ton of violent films which young kids might be able to watch to learn the horrors of it. But GTA? There are really no ramifications for the actions done in that game, how is that healthy for someone so young? Good parenting can overcome this, easily, but to say something to the effect that all kids, for their own sake, should be exposed to these violent games as soon as possible is moronic.

Did I say it was introducing?  I look at my post and see that you made something up and twisted a real meaning of it.  I prefer if 6-9 year olds knew it was there with knowledge obviously taught by their parents to begin with.  If a child is old enough to ask questions he/she is old enough to learn.  Its better that way then by accident through finding it in a closet or through a friend.  What happens there?  Also what if the child goes all messed up?  Who is to blame?  I'm simply won't waste my time blaming I'll use my time teaching that kid whats right and wrong so when he/she does see it they're more mature about it.

Also this violence is better than sex is just an oppinion and concept that most people have hard pinned on them.  The fact that something is real or not doesn't determine anything.  We just know whats real and what isn't.  Plus when you watch something you're suppose to let it go at the moment because it ruins it.  I'm all against showing porn but when sex shows up on a TV show like lets say Buff The Vampire Slayer or an a child should obviously be supervised but I won't be all evangelical on them saying its the devil.  If they want to watch let them, if they don't then don't let them.

[KnowsNothing]

It's a bit harder for children to tell what's real or not in movies or shows, but when it comes to games, a kid knows it's fake.  I don't care what anyone says, no kid is stupid enoug to think that it's real.  The only way a videogame can make a kid violent is by "inspiring" them to do something, but honestly, all the inspiration they need is thrown at them daily by the news.  The news is real, and it's in the paper (dur), on TV, on the radio, and on the internet.  It's hard to escape the news, which explains to people daily actual crimes that were committed.  And it shows you can become famous for doing it too, and often it tells kids that you, yes YOU can get away with it too!

Besides, if a kid is going to get his hands on a gun and imitate GTA, it's not like he can just show the game box at a gun store in exchange for a pistol.  If a kid gets a gun, some adult fucked up.

I'll jump around here a little to comment on everything.  The whole GTA-sex-minigame ordeal is stupid, I pretty much agree with KDR.  It's not relly in the game.  If you were to play the game for hundreds of hours and explore every inch, and talk to every person, and do EVERYTHING in the game you would not come across the minigame.  Anyone who see's it that doesn't know about sex yet won't know what the hell's going on, since as it was stated in this thread, their clothes were still on.  Just tell them they're practicing wrestling.  Anyone old enough to know what's happening obviously knows about sex, so what the hell.

However, if a videogame has sex in it, it's never for a good reason, it's just there to be there.  That's a different issue, though.

On the topic of whether or not nudity should be censored or whatever, it's all just stupid.  Why is it such a bad thing?  Especially with breasts- if a kid doesn't know that a woman has breats than he probably doesn't have the mental capacity to know what he's looking at when he actually sees one.  Besides, a woman's chest looks exactly like a man's expect, you know, puffed up.  Some men have man-boobs, yet as much as we hate it, they can walk aound the beach topless!

When it comes to the opposite sex's genitals, you can never be too young to know that mommy doesn't have a penis.  I remember the day I found out (lolz, I have a really good memory, I'm not a sheltered pathetic loser) and I remember how I felt that mommy had a vagina (actually, at the time I thought it was "pagina" for years ).  Know how I felt?  I couldn't care less, I was like "what the hell...?" and then walked away.  I didn't know what one looked like yet, but I didn't really care until years later, so if I was shown one at the time I'd be like "neat."  A kid should know about the opposite sex, even if it's just to avoid embarrassment in the future.  A man has his junk, a woman hers, why should anone hide it or be ashamed of it?  It's natural, it's something that everyone should feel confortable about.  So that's my opinion, censoring nudity is stupid.

But sex is an issue I'm not sure about.  It IS a natural process- you wouldn't be reading this if it weren't for sex.  I think kids should know about it, and kids should be properly educated about it and the safety precautions and whatnot.  However, even with that education, kids are still having sex, and lives are ruined when teenages become accidentally pregnant LOL BABIES.  So letting kids know about it early could have one of two effects: 1) Kids know about it, learn about it, and make it a confortable topic.  As such, it becomes less forbidden, and the kids are less likey to have sex early.  Or 2) kids will just have sex earlier because they've known about it for a while and they feel they're ready, thus more teen pregnancies.  So I don't know if sex should really be heavily censored or not.  It comes down to whether ot not the kids were properly educated about it, which is the parent's responsibility.  I feel, though, that even if nudity was to become less forbidden, kids wouldn't feel the same urge to have sex, since a lot of it is just curiosity of the opposite sex.  Be naked around someone for long enough, they'll get bored. But now I'm just going on and on (and on) LOL BABIES

*sigh*  Now that I've expressed my views on everything that's been discussed here, I'm going to go look at some porn.