Post by: KDR_11k on July 16, 2005, 05:16:06 AM
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?
Post by: Nephilim on July 16, 2005, 05:46:52 AM
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
Post by: Ian Sane on July 16, 2005, 09:23:39 AM
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.
Post by: nickmitch on July 16, 2005, 10:03:46 AM
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.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 16, 2005, 11:03:04 AM
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?
Post by: nickmitch on July 16, 2005, 01:26:46 PM
Post by: Artimus on July 16, 2005, 02:42:23 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on July 16, 2005, 04:40:33 PM
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.
Post by: Deguello on July 16, 2005, 06:52:31 PM
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.
Post by: nickmitch on July 16, 2005, 08:06:23 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 16, 2005, 11:01:35 PM
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?
Post by: Draygaia on July 17, 2005, 05:03:44 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 17, 2005, 05:49:57 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on July 17, 2005, 06:15:49 AM
Post by: Arbok on July 17, 2005, 07:29:32 AM
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.
Post by: stevey on July 17, 2005, 08:04:15 AM
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.
Post by: KnowsNothing on July 17, 2005, 08:16:01 AM
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.
Post by: TMW on July 17, 2005, 08:28:29 AM
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.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 17, 2005, 08:49:32 AM
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.
Post by: SgtShiversBen on July 17, 2005, 09:14:55 AM
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.
Post by: TMW on July 17, 2005, 09:22:49 AM
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.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 17, 2005, 09:56:51 AM
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?
Post by: mantidor on July 17, 2005, 10:01:55 AM
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.
Post by: Draygaia on July 17, 2005, 10:10:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
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.
Post by: KnowsNothing on July 17, 2005, 10:14:12 AM
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.
Post by: SgtShiversBen on July 17, 2005, 11:27:14 AM
Regardless of parents, kids will find ways to watch them, play them and imitate them. I myself imitated alot of crap when I was little. I wanted to play MK2 because of it's execessive amounts of blood and violence. I found ways to look at Playboy's when I was younger than 10. It wasn't because of bad parenting, it's just because my parents (they're some hard disciplining people) wanted me to have a great childhood. They let me go outside and play with my friends (which was where I got the Playboy's from) and let me work to pay for things I wanted (which was how I got MK2) but becuase I wasn't sheltered from stuff like this I understood what was right and wrong. Wrestling though was imitatable because I was stupid and always hurt myself and my friends (who in turn hurt me back) but I don't hold the WWF or WCW accountable becuase it was my own stupidity.
I'm not going to talk anymore...I hate kids.
Post by: TMW on July 17, 2005, 12:09:32 PM
I've long since wisened up and stopped both, but the point is is that even though I knew that smoking was bad and that pot was illegal, and had been told my entire life that I shouldn't do either, I did it anyways...
I won't even get into the oppression of women in other cultures, (they get oppressed enough here as it is, just not as blatantly), but...this goes back to our backwards and patriarchal views of sexuality. I wouldn't want my kids reading a Playboy, but mainly because I don't want them getting false impressions of what "beauty" is (with the airbrushing and whatnot.) This would be where I start going off on gender roles and expectations in society, but that would a needless tangent.
Society, in the end, is what determines what is "Bad" and what is "Good". Interracial Marriage was once considered against God and a Victorian Woman showing any more than a calf was considered a whore and a harlot. Hopefully, one day, we'll overcome the dated, post-victorian mores that say that men can sleep around, but a woman is whore if she wants sex (we've made progress, but not enough), and we'll stop treating nudity like a crime and sex like a sin, and Rockstar can make a game where you have sex and not get Congress riled up.
Post by: nickmitch on July 17, 2005, 12:42:49 PM
The real issue here is that parents need to get bitch slapped. Back when I was 6 parents didn't have guns for their kids to get to and even if they did the kid wouldn't touch it. And do you know why? F*ckin' Scruff McGruff! Where is he? I remember Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles told kids not to smoke mary jane and they didn't. Are all these important messages gone? NO! It's just that people tell children to go outside and play. When they do that they miss all the important messages out there. So, when they get home after dark they're just in time for Desperate Housewives, which is a terrible show. If anyone says nonhetero-marriage violates the sanctity of marriage and yet approves of this show is an *ss hole
Post by: SgtShiversBen on July 17, 2005, 12:53:25 PM
Also my parents were all about letting me go outside and most of the time I wouldn't come back till 10 at night. Did I pick up dirty habits like swear words, nudity and violence? Yes, but I learned that they're bad on my own. If I saw two people going at it in front of me (which I didn't until college [and I'm not talking about porn]) would I think of it bad when I was 10? Heck yes because it's stuff that shouldn't be done in public. Yet violence is always done in public. From road rage to kids playing cops and robbers. Its acceptable for C&R to be played and not Whore House because kids are having fun and not doing adult things. C&R can be considered adult, but it's better than 5 year olds doing things with thier bodies (shudders).
That may just be me, but that's all I know about. My opinion and to me, my opinion is GOD!!
Also, when I worked at a skating rink for two years, breaking up fights was the best thing I liked to do. But when it came time to cleaning up the girls who are just starting puberty's restroom stuff....made me sick to my stomach. I can take vomit, I can take crap, but when it comes to PMS blood...count me out.
Post by: Spak-Spang on July 17, 2005, 04:05:29 PM
Think about this fact. In World War 1 the draft saw several people that have never fired a gun in combat. When they were faced with the situation to shoot another human (in self defense) most dropped the guns or couldn't pull the trigger.
The military spent tons of money on research and found out that if you shape shooting targets like humans then people are more likely willing to shoot at a human. More soliders were willing to shoot in combat.
The research later went on to include computer simulators. The more realistic the computerized combatant looked the higher percentage of soldiers able to shoot in combat. Direct relationship.
Now we have games that depect very real human beings dying on screen. We laugh at their deaths because it is funny. The same thing is true with movies, but its worse in games, because we are directly responsible for causing the death of the computer characters.
We ARE de-sensitizing our children. HELL, we are de-senitizing ourselves.
Will we all become killers no. But, we do change our attitudes towards violence and sex. And for that we need to be careful. I am not for banning anything, but I am for responsibility of everyone: individuals, government and business.
And sex may not be as bad as violence, but to say it isn't something that can corrupt or hurt our kids is also stupid. Look at our divorce rate, our pre-martial sex rate and much more in our societies all around the world. Its really sad. And before you label me a hateful conservative. Let me just say. It's your life live it how you may, but the children born out of wedlock don't have the same chances of everyone else. The poverty in the world caused by violence and drugs is crippling people who don't even know there is something better.
Post by: mantidor on July 17, 2005, 04:20:13 PM
Post by: SgtShiversBen on July 17, 2005, 05:34:10 PM
I do know one way that sex is imitatible though, and that's the Kama Sutra ;-) I've imitated it, so I'm guilty
Post by: IceCold on July 17, 2005, 08:41:51 PM
Bliss....(wow you just reminded me about that; that was one of the only really serious episodes I think (that and the AIDS one))
I knew about drugs & sex & violence early on in my childhood - my parents were actually really, really good about explaining to me about them and their implications, but NOT telling me what to do, rather influencing me and letting me decide. They didn't keep any secrets for me, and that is how I think it should be done.
And I also like the Canadian way before a violent program, or one that involves sex - there is a strong and clear message before the program, as well as the recommended rating, and if parents allow kids to watch shows like that even after those warnings, they are really irresponsible (moreso if they are not even there at that time).
Post by: ThePerm on July 17, 2005, 09:38:22 PM
Post by: Famicom on July 18, 2005, 12:38:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: 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.
No one should EVER speak of the abomination called Wat....no, I shall not speak of it.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 18, 2005, 04:08:43 AM
Post by: vudu on July 18, 2005, 09:35:42 AM
QuoteActually, the player remains fully clothed during the entire scene. However, the girl(s) can be naked. I haven't played the game, but I was curious, so I did a Google search and found a video of a scene. It was a little humorus, but mainly just because of Rockstar's God-awful character models.
Originally posted by: TVman
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.
Post by: stevey on July 18, 2005, 09:59:28 AM
Teen will allways have sex even if mom or dad tell about or don't. There were doing it in the 50 when no one ever talk about it and do it now. Kid will find out what sex is no matter what.
Post by: Spak-Spang on July 18, 2005, 10:30:57 AM
The past we hid from sex because for generations we were dominated by a very puritan view. That view had its own personal problems, but as a whole it created a much better society than what we have now.
However, as we became more "sophisticated" and advanced our ideas we have GLORIFIED violence and sex.
No longer is sex looked down upon when it is reckless performed by adults or teenagers outside of marriage. Condoms aren't perfect. Birth Control is perfect, and it can cause SERIOUS mental and health issues. Yet our society says safe sex is just a condom or BC away.
Instead, a healthy society would take an approach of talking about the existance of violence and sex in a health way and keep up a moral guard to behaviors that have serious consequences on individuals and the community as a whole.
Video Games were one of the last artforms corrupted by this movement. Television and movies have been pushing this agenda for years.
I am not asking for censorship. Just responsibility...and sadly it won't come from developers and publishers so you have to go government. I hate going to government for anything. Government is should never be answer to freedom...but until we realize freedom actually means living responsibly and working together to build a greater community then government has to step in.
Post by: stevey on July 18, 2005, 03:00:10 PM
No Hillary "Everyone did my husband in the 90's but me" Clinton is now make a law to stop people from buy a M game under 18. That is stupid because the M stand for 17 and up show that no one in law making know a thing about video game. *sigh* Bill Clinton now send his sperm (on and in a rocket) to space try to have sex with a alien
Post by: Dasmos on July 18, 2005, 05:49:11 PM
(yeah i know he's the pig, that's why there is many a fullstop)
Post by: nickmitch on July 18, 2005, 07:53:27 PM
And Stevey, it's not a law. It's a bill. Yes, it's only a bill and it's sitting there on capitol hill.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 18, 2005, 09:56:12 PM
vudu: In the merely unlocked versions the girls are clothed, you need a second patch to make them nude.
Post by: couchmonkey on July 19, 2005, 07:45:26 AM
Instead of simply going on a tirade about how awful video games are, he pointed out that the ESRB basically gets its money from game sales, which is a conflict of interest. I don't personally trust corporations to regulate anything. He also pointed out that if the ESRB is doing the job of keeping kids from buying adult games as well as it claims to be, then the industry shouldn't lose any sales due to a Government ratings system that enforces age restrictions by law. Of course, he doesn't believe that the ESRB ratings system works, and he cited studies done by high school students showing that a pretty large percentage of stores will sell M-rated games to underage kids.
Of course, a decent percentage of stores will sell cigarettes and porn to kids here in Canada, and they face fines if they're caught. Even so, I don't trust the ESRB to come up with an appropriate rating...I feel a number of games like Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto may deserve Adults Only ratings based on their violent content alone (but I admit I haven't played them, so I'm not saying that for sure...it's just my impression from reading reviews).
Post by: stevey on July 19, 2005, 07:56:39 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 19, 2005, 08:28:36 AM
Besides, Hillary Clinton isn't a dictator. She cannot enforce a law the courts don't agree with. That's what separation of power is meant for, that the courts will stop politicians or policemen from doing unlawful things. If Clinton thinks she can get away with that, fine, just don't cry when you see the Supreme Court tear your new law to shreds as unconstitutional.
couchmonkey: The MPAA gets its money from movie sales, the RIAA gets its money from music sales, both are considered rating authorities for their respective media. I don't see politicians complaining that movie ratings are bullshit just because the ratings board is kept alive with the money of the movie industry. The ratings were introduced when the government said "you make a ratings board or we'll make one for you!", it's in the best interest of the industry to keep the ratings honest to avoid government regulation. The problem is that today we have too many publicity whores in the political arena that completely ignore that the ESRB exists, functions and does exactly what you expect it to do. Jackass Thompson also claims the ESRB sucks and wants to replace it with his own Thoughtcrime Enforcement Agency, except he's a tinfoil hat and claims that ANYONE who doesn't hate the ESRB is a conspirator. Because, you know, trying to give parents an idea of what content is to be found in a videogame is such a despicable goal. They might make informed decisions! We can't have that, Ignorance is Strength! And get rid of that right to free speech, won't somebody please think of the children? Freedom is Slavery! Oh and be a good citizen and support all our military actions without questioning because War is Peace! (sorry had to get that last one in after having a nightmare about living in that world last night)
Post by: vudu on July 19, 2005, 08:43:30 AM
QuoteI was umaware. No where in my research did I find out. Jeez, people need to chill out. Is there another patch that lets the player kill his girlfriend after having sex with her and then rob her home?
vudu: In the merely unlocked versions the girls are clothed, you need a second patch to make them nude.
Post by: nickmitch on July 19, 2005, 08:50:47 AM
Post by: stevey on July 19, 2005, 03:07:05 PM
And that bill just got past "found that a 15-year-old boy could purchase "Mature" rated video games (recommended for children 17 and older) at 11 of the 15 stores he visited."
O_O Oh sh!t how does he know I both doom 3 and my age? I'm freeking out now!
"Hillary Clinton isn't a dictator. "
Who call her that?
Post by: nickmitch on July 19, 2005, 03:51:07 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on July 20, 2005, 04:37:21 AM
I personally don't mind this move at all. It just means retail stores actually have to respect the rating and watch who they are selling the games to.
The movie industry had this problem for awhile. Movies were rated R (restricted) but nobody cared about the rating and theaters were letting anyone into see any movie. Now, they don't do that as much. Sure you can still get in, but theaters are actually actively trying to prevent it.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 20, 2005, 08:34:02 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on July 20, 2005, 11:42:23 AM
Perhaps its because the ESRB never had that power. It was created only to appease people that saw game content as becoming a problem without really solving the issue. Now, the game industry either needs to actually step up and create real solutions, or watch the government do it for them. (Which I support they have the right to do.)
Companies also settle because it is more COSTLY to go to court. You have to pay lawyer fees and more, and you don't always know how the courts are going to rule, because courts don't just interpret the law in more. They rule on the law depending on what they think is fair and right. Very scary.
Post by: Famicom on July 20, 2005, 02:08:24 PM
Post by: stevey on July 20, 2005, 02:29:05 PM
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on July 20, 2005, 03:12:56 PM
Politics aside, yeah, Rockstar is the total anti-tiku. I'll admit GTA's one of my guilty pleasures but...seriously, the ESRB should have slapped an AO rating on there even without this little coffee thing, but probably didn't as not to hinder game sales. And this...not many stores around here (Dallas, TX) impose that "no M-rated games to minors" rule, so this is like selling pornography to little kids. My six-year-old cousin has (and worships) GTA: Vice City, and he's seriously is the most violent child EVAHR. And he laughs when someone says "Lemme touch it" or something because of the obvious innuendo. Yes, that's what America's come to.
PUT IT ON TEH KUBE
hillary in 2008
Post by: stevey on July 20, 2005, 03:44:41 PM
Don't get me wrong I LOVE BILL CLINTON he was the best world leader since G.W. or ever. I just making fun of his love of humping thing gee gee gee goo oh!
"but...seriously, the ESRB should have slapped an AO rating on there even without this little coffee thing, but probably didn't as not to hinder game sales. "
You don't know the esrb well do you? Rockstar has to give video of the game wose stuff and ask for a rate this case M the ESRB just says yes or to it they dont give the rate or DOA would have an T insted of a M even with the bong bong bong.
Post by: Spak-Spang on July 20, 2005, 03:55:10 PM
Still politics aside. I do back this movement. Business must prove they are willing to regulate and be responsible themselves, and if they are not, then it is up to government to step in. I just wish this was settled as a States Issue and not wholey federally, but it is an issue that couldn't easily be solved that way.
I also agree that Grand Theft Auto deserved an AO rating when you read the describtion of rating systems. Or they should actually make rated M restricted to 18 years only and then make AO rated games for 21 and up and those games are any games that include sex, nudity, or sexual conduct.
Post by: stevey on July 20, 2005, 04:06:54 PM
We did know man we did know. and he made the US people and gov. and the world Ri¢h $$$ and the interweb BIG.
"Or they should actually make rated M restricted to 18 years only and then make AO rated games for 21 and up and those games are any games that include sex, nudity, or sexual conduct."
No M ok tv uses M too. they need to add a 14/15 rating and a R rating and bump AO and rename E10+ to P(re)T
Post by: jasonditz on July 20, 2005, 04:11:16 PM
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on July 20, 2005, 05:20:45 PM
The only reason the ESRB's even putting an AO on there NOW is because of the publicity of the situation. I mean, Playboy Mansion and The Guy Game are M-rated...
Post by: nickmitch on July 20, 2005, 05:39:06 PM
And AO should really be for 21+. Because if one game is 17+ and another is 18+ then what's the point? Alittle extra content and I have to wait four months 'till my birthday. One year is not going to be a big deal to people. The only thing enforcing the AO rating is the fact that most retailers won't carry the game. However, that could be enough. . .
Post by: bustin98 on July 20, 2005, 06:34:49 PM
And personally, as a web programmer, I hate extra code. I think all extraneous code should be dropped from any game. But thats just my anal habits.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 21, 2005, 12:49:11 AM
bustin: You're a... web programmer? Have you ever worked on anything approaching the complexity of a game for 60-80 hours a week? At that pace they'll just turn a branch into if (false) instead of commenting out the whole function, changing the headers and all the calls. Since there's no standardized formats there's no software that'll check for you which assets are used and stuff like the nude skins some joker threw in there three months ago get pressed on the final disc. When there's a deadline approaching you don't go "hey, let's clean up all the unused stuff", you go "Did QA approve? Okay, then throw it all on a disc and send it to the presses".
Spak-Spang: Who defines what content is bad for the children? When or how can those definitions change? Could anyone decide that something isn't suitable for anyone and completely ban it? If the president wants to decide about things like homosexual (why is this board blocking g-y?) marriage and abortion, would you put it beyond him to define "anti-religious or unpatriotic material" as unsuitable for anyone under 18, 21, whatever? If congress agrees with him, couldn't they dangerously curtail the right to free speech?
Post by: stevey on July 21, 2005, 05:10:12 AM
That because it's a good game
duh. "Well does Playboy Mansion have sex in it? "
yep you get to that in 5 min after turn it on oh!
Post by: Ian Sane on July 21, 2005, 07:06:20 AM
I'm not happy that a few politicians can throw a hissy fit and the ESRB immediately caves. In this case it's a little acceptable since the content in question was "hidden" from the ESRB. But I don't like the precedence this sets. I don't want to see games that don't deserve it get their ratings changed. What if Zelda is rated T but then in one scene there's a drop of blood and some parents freak out and it gets changed to M? It's an extreme scenario but it's one I don't want to see. The ESRB essentially just gave politicians the power to set the ratings as they see fit.
Post by: Famicom on July 21, 2005, 08:11:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
How is this new AO rating going to affect used sales of San Andreas? The old copies still say 'M' on them which is technically misleading. Are stores allowed to have "inaccurate" ratings on used copies of the game? Maybe Rockstar should give stores AO stickers to put on used copies.
I'd imagine if the used shops have policies against selling AO games, they'll just not sell them. If they don't, they can just hike up the price "RARE BANNED EDITION".
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on July 21, 2005, 08:39:57 AM
Especially the first sentence "It's unfortunate that in order to defend videogames, it usually means you're defending Rockstar specifically."
Post by: stevey on July 21, 2005, 08:44:17 AM
Have you ever beat OoT
Post by: vudu on July 21, 2005, 08:54:15 AM
QuoteAs far as movies goes, 'R' is no one under 17 allowd without a parent and 'NC-17' is no one under 17 period. Same thing.
Originally posted by: TVman
And AO should really be for 21+. Because if one game is 17+ and another is 18+ then what's the point?
Or is 'NC-17' no one under 18? I can't remember.
Post by: nickmitch on July 21, 2005, 09:57:44 AM
And well I guess that I can see how M and AO are effective ratings.
Ian: If that ever happens, you can rst assured that the parent will recieve a heathy dose of vitamin Back of the Hand or vitamin BotH; short.
Post by: couchmonkey on July 21, 2005, 10:00:06 AM
Granted, I may not have seen everything the game has in it, but as I understand, the characters were clothed in the un-modified sex game. From what I've seen the things they can do are pretty suggestive, but while wearing clothes, I don't think it's as bad. I think there's similar stuff in the Playboy Mansion game. Had Rockstar been up-front and given that content to the ESRB from the start, I wonder if it would have gotten an AO rating? I'm not knowledgable enough about any of these games to say, but it's an interesting question.
I think Ian's point is valid, although I doubt it will be an issue. I think the ESRB caved in specifically in this situation because the content was hidden from them. Typically game companies are supposed to submit the "worst" content of the game to the ESRB for review, and I'm sure that if the ESRB had ruled an M rating knowing that the sex game was in there, they'd have stuck to it...but my guess is the sex game was either never reviewed by the ESRB, or it was reviewed and they told Rockstar to take it out if it wanted an M rating.
Post by: Donutt007 on July 21, 2005, 12:56:08 PM
And, according to the end user agreement you are not allowed to change anything on the game, right? So they left a little something extra in there, but didn't make it able to access it. Now if you do download a patch or a mod NOT made by rockstar you are breaking the end user agreement!
What about the sims, you can download mods to get nudity, yet the game is rated T.
This is just a way to get the games out of stores. Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, etc. does not carry anything that has an AO rating, they treat it like it's a XXX movie. The government is not allowed to censor us, yet they are allowed to make the game a little less available....hmmm sounds like censorship to me, they just do it in a different way.
Post by: IceCold on July 21, 2005, 03:09:09 PM
Haha - remember the Ganondorf fight in the golden cartrige where he spit out RED blood (the humanity!) and everyone went berserk so in the later editions (not gold) they changed it to green blood?
The ESRB will cave in every time under this pressure - it just isn't strong enough. Yea, by doing so they look stupid and weak, but they had no other choice.
Post by: Spak-Spang on July 21, 2005, 05:48:10 PM
Post by: slacker on July 21, 2005, 08:57:32 PM
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.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 22, 2005, 04:38:24 AM
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.
Post by: stevey on July 22, 2005, 06:02:21 AM
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.
Post by: nickmitch on July 22, 2005, 05:16:28 PM
Post by: slacker on July 22, 2005, 06:37:01 PM
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.
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on July 22, 2005, 07:11:23 PM
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.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 22, 2005, 09:14:06 PM
Post by: Deguello on July 22, 2005, 11:35:00 PM
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?
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on July 28, 2005, 05:20:48 AM
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.
