Hot Coffee anyone

[JB0]

The ESRB seems to be working well, AS LONG AS THE DATA THAT GOES INTO THE RATING CAN BE TRUSTED -- it is, however, parents who have to stop their kids from buying M games (since AO games are generally only sold at porno shops, they are not as much of a problem.)

ESRB works quite well, as a matter of fact. A recent congressional review of the media industry found that of the MPAA, RIAA, and ESA, the ESA was by far the best at self-policing.

Only fault they could find on the ESA was that it ran ads for M-rated games in publications with a signifigant child readership. Game magazines, specifically.

By contrast, the RIAA has no real policing to speak of, just an "explicit content" sticker that's used primarily as an advertising feature, and the MPAA ratings are actively circumvented, with PG-13 and even R movies actively marketed to children on a regular basis.

[azrael]

This guy Thompson, who's been going against video games reminds me too much of Dr. Wertham, who in the '50s wrote "Seduction of the Innocent" which accused comic books of:

313309[/snapback]

There's one every generation. There's always someone out there who says this stuff "corrupts" our youth. A decade or 2 ago, it was TV.

[ogami]

As of now, Rockstar maintains its position that the Hot Coffee minigames are the work of "an unauthorized third party modification."

When will Rockstar admit that they forgot to remove the Hot Coffee minigames...

As for the Sims 2...

Today's kids can buy playboy (and have sex) whenever they want so what is the point of banning a life simulator with unrealistic CG characters...

If I am a parent, I will watch over what my kids play (and even play with them). It is the parents responsibility to teach the kids what is right and wrong. And, of course, it is also the parents job to teach the kids about SEX.

313293[/snapback]

Yeah ur right, the inevidable will come sooner or later anyway. I was an 80's child we didn't saw much accept "lederhosen" movies lol, compared to nowadays nude spanky MTV clips and stuff it's much worse now.

313317[/snapback]

I'll teach my kids the right stuff at the first place rather than MTV/Porn movies/Internet/video games teach my kids the wrong stuff...

Edited July 23, 2005 by ogami

[Sundown]

I'm not sure I follow the logic of "Kids can get worse online, so it's okay to allow them to get at milder stuff that they still shouldn't be getting at... " That somehow just because kids can find explicit porn on the net, other media and specifically GTA shouldn't be rated for what content it actually (or in this case, potentially) has.

A decent parent would regulate or at least attempt to regulate their child's internet usage, and the AO rating helps such parents shield their kids from further objectionable material accessible through a different source. Someone who doesn't want their children exposed to sexual content past a certain level doesn't want them to be exposed to any of it, and we don't generally make decisions to ignore caution simply because worse things can happen.

Yeah, that's an odd parent, who's uncomfortable with poorly simulated virtual sex but okay with their child vicariously experiencing gang violence and slightly tamer sexual content... but they do exist. And at least the current rating allows them to decide what their kids see without being intimately versed in GTA's controversy. It's an additional aid to help them parent as they see fit... and I thought that's what we all were mostly for.

Just out of curiousity... of those of us who are in this thread mocking distributors, parents, and legislators for their actions and reactions over a video game, how many of us are actually parents to kids old enough to play them?

-Al

[Kin]

However... did moddingsites with the mod placed a 18+ warning before download?

I think that should make a big difference to the whole case.

[VF-19]

Message to politicians: It's just a game. Repeat after me: It's just a game!

Seriously, there's better ways of spending taxpayer dollars than leading a crusade against a game...

[mikeszekely]

I'm not sure I follow the logic of "Kids can get worse online, so it's okay to allow them to get at milder stuff that they still shouldn't be getting at...

I don't follow the logic either. However, the M-rating is a message to parents that the game is not suitable for children. The AO-rating is to games what an X-rating or NC-17-rating is to movies... a sign that says "This is PORN! EVIL!" reguardless of what the actual definition of those ratings or what the actual content of the game is. And re-rating a game AO because there's disabled content on the disc that's far less racier than what's in most R-rated movies was't necessary. It was just way for the ESRB to pull their ass out of the fire.

A decent parent would regulate or at least attempt to regulate their child's internet usage

A decent parent should also be aware of what their kids are playing.

and the AO rating helps such parents shield their kids from further objectionable material accessible through a different source.

Again, all the AO-rating says is "PORN." The original M-rating should have served as that shield. There is a reason that GTA wasn't rated T.

Yeah, that's an odd parent, who's uncomfortable with poorly simulated virtual sex but okay with their child vicariously experiencing gang violence and slightly tamer sexual content... but they do exist.

I'm sure they do exist. But, to use your earlier choice of words, a decent parent really shouldn't be buying games like GTA for their 10-year old kids, reguardless. It's lazy, irresponsible parenting to say that it's okay for a child to play a game where he buys time with a prostitute, then beats said prostitute to death, but not okay to play a game where you hump a girl with all your clothes on. It's also lazy, irresponsible parenting to buy an M-rated game without knowing what's in it, and lazy, irresponsible parenting to complain that the game should have been rated more severely when you find content in it that you think is objectionable.

In other words, as far as I'm concerned, the "odd parent" you described isn't a good one.

To be fair, I do think the ESRB is a little at fault. Games like Jak and Rachet and Clank, which were developed with kids in mind, were getting a T-rating for "animated violence," and that was scaring parents off of buying them for their kids. So, they created a new E10+ rating. While they were wasting time with that, they should have been coming up with a rating to seperate games like Halo, Deus Ex, and Jade Empire (all rated M for blood and violence) from truly mature games like God of War and GTA.

Just out of curiousity... of those of us who are in this thread mocking distributors, parents, and legislators for their actions and reactions over a video game, how many of us are actually parents to kids old enough to play them?

Admittedly, not a parent. I have two nieces, whom I would deem most of my game collection inappropriate for. I am, though, a retailer, who despite warning of that there was clear nudity that was defiantely "worse than what he'd seen on television," was unable to dissuade a man from buying God of War for his 12-year old grandson. The look on his face showed that he cared more about being the "cool" grandpa than whether or not he was buying a game that was innapropriate, even after being told flat out that the game was innappropriate.

And that was just today. I have to deal with this scenario at least once a week.

[JsARCLIGHT]

This whole thing blew up on local talk radio Friday and I was listening... basically the people on the show started out talking about a new game coming out called "25 to Life" or something that sounds like a GTA:SA ripoff and they where obsessing on the game "being about" cop killing.

<<Here in Saint Louis we recently had an incident of a guy who's brother was gunned down by gang people and he called the cops and they did not respond in time to save his brother... so this guy gets a gun and goes out and shoots the first cop he sees... who happens to be sitting in his squad car talking to a young boy while watching fireworks on the fourth of july weekend. Guy even shot the kid too.>>

Now with this in the air here in STL some other radio people start talking ON THE AIR about how to disable a cop if you are fighting him and how to take away his radio so he can't call for help. They were promptly fired in a fury of justified public outcry. Back to the topic at hand though: In a nutshell, this new "25 to life" game was ripe for the picking for angry STL callers on this talk show. Soon the topic turned from this game that is not even out yet to GTA:SA and the Hot Coffee debacle. Pretty soon GTA was being compared to the training software used by the Marines to train soldiers to kill and everyone was in agreement that these games where creating a new generation of sociopath killers.

I myself was amazed at the feeding frenzy of misinformation and prejudice shown byt the sheeple... as usual. Give people a cause and the sheep will rally and bleet until their ears hurt... then they will listen the sound of other sheep bleeting until they go deaf.

The battlecry of the sheeple has become "what can the government do to raise my kids for me?" and the rallying call of the politician then becomes "what can I do to show people I'm doing something to protect them when all I really can do is just stur the pot and watch it boil?"

I am suprised there is not someone selling torches and pitchforks these days... because lazy parenting sure is sold out in a lot of stores.

Edit to add: the things missing from their discussion of the topic of GTA:SA and Hot Coffee were that kids not only had to have an M rated game on their PC but they had to have the skills to find, download and install the hack. They also avoided or glossed over the subject that here in Missouri games rated M have been banned from prisons as well as several bills in state congress right now that will make it a crime to sell M rated games to minors or rent them to minors, said bill will ALSO have a rider that a parent caught buying or renting an M rated game for a minor will be punished the same.

Overreaction is the norm here in the midwest.

Edited July 23, 2005 by JsARCLIGHT

[JB0]

I'm not sure I follow the logic of "Kids can get worse online, so it's okay to allow them to get at milder stuff that they still shouldn't be getting at... "  That somehow just because kids can find explicit porn on the net, other media and specifically GTA shouldn't be rated for what content it actually (or in this case, potentially) has.

The argument is that any kid that's downloading the GTA sex patch is clearly interested in sex.

And clearly has an internet connection.

And as somoene once put it, "If all the porn sites on the internet were closed down, there would only be one site left. That one would be www.bringbacktheporn.com."

SO... any kid that's staring at fully clothed*, jagged, pixellated sex in GTA quite likely ALSO staring at high-res hardcore lesbian midget bondage porn on their PC. And no one's flipped out about that.

*Only other place I've seen fully-clothed people "having sex" is prime-time broadcast television, for the record.

[mikeszekely]

said bill will ALSO have a rider that a parent caught buying or renting an M rated game for a minor will be punished the same.

Stroke of genius. But I think the punishment should be more than a pissy fine. I think child endangerment charges should be filed against anyone who buys M-rated games for anyone under 15.

[JB0]

said bill will ALSO have a rider that a parent caught buying or renting an M rated game for a minor will be punished the same.

Stroke of genius. But I think the punishment should be more than a pissy fine. I think child endangerment charges should be filed against anyone who buys M-rated games for anyone under 15.

313534[/snapback]

And I think it's a parent's responsibilty to judge what is appropriate for their children, not the ESRB's, and certainly not Congress's.

If a parent believes that Parasite Eve, Metroid Prime, or Metal Gear Solid 3 is appropriate for their child, then they should be able to buy it for them.

PARTICULARLY as the average M-rated video game is far less offensive than the average R-rated movie, which has no such restrictions.

[Sundown]

A decent parent should also be aware of what their kids are playing.

Agreed. But I don't necessarily think that a decent parent should have to be aware of hidden content in a game that his or her child might know about. Said parent should be able to tell what is and is not in a game by what's advertised or noted on the box, by a few mainstream reviews, and by watching or playing a little bit of the game with their child.

I'm sure they do exist.  But, to use your earlier choice of words, a decent parent really shouldn't be buying games like GTA for their 10-year old kids, reguardless.  It's lazy, irresponsible parenting to say that it's okay for a child to play a game where he buys time with a prostitute, then beats said prostitute to death, but not okay to play a game where you hump a girl with all your clothes on.

In other words, as far as I'm concerned, the "odd parent" you described isn't a good one.

I'd agree if they were parents of 10-year olds. But what about those of 14, 15 and 16 year olds, who might be a little bit more relaxed about their kids being exposed to certain levels of violence and sexual content but still uncomfortable with actual interactive virtual sex? Obviously there is a difference between buying time with a prostitute, with most of the action merely implied, and showing the actual sex act, even with clothes on.

If there was no difference, and there's no line between the two, then the sex minigame would have been left in game as is instead of being tucked and hidden away. Rockstar for one seems to have thought that there was a difference, and that the difference would affect their rating. Why are we then so shocked that the game is receiving the rating that Rockstar anticipated receiving had the sex minigame been made available, now that it's been exposed and is being made available, requiring only a simple patch to activate it?

And regardless of what we think of said "odd parent", what they deem appropriate or not is their call. It doesn't really follow that we shouldn't label media for what is actually on the disk (readily available or not), and let them make the final call, just because we disagree with their ideas about what's right or isn't right for the child, and where they draw the line.

The argument is that any kid that's downloading the GTA sex patch is clearly interested in sex.

And clearly has an internet connection."

How about the kid whose parents actually monitor their internet usage and for whom downloading gigs of porn isn't quite as easy to get away with as a simple patch for a game? Or the kid who doesn't have an internet connection but who can get the patch slipped to him easily from a friend?

SO... any kid that's staring at fully clothed*, jagged, pixellated sex in GTA quite likely ALSO staring at high-res hardcore lesbian midget bondage porn on their PC. And no one's flipped out about that.

Er, I imagine many parents are flipped about that sort of thing. There is a market out there for software that blocks adult sites from access. And there are parents who seem to care about what their kids are consuming. I guess I don't see why labelling a game for what's potentially in it is such a futile thing if it helps make parents aware of what's contained and aids them in drawing their own lines of acceptable versus unacceptable content.

Now whether polygonal, interactive sex with all of your clothes still on deserves an AO rating is another matter, of course.

Curious... What rating did the most recent Leisure Suit Larry title garner? Did it have content comparable to GTA's minigame?

-Al

[JB0]

A decent parent should also be aware of what their kids are playing.

Agreed. But I don't necessarily think that a decent parent should have to be aware of hidden content in a game that his or her child might know about. Said parent should be able to tell what is and is not in a game by what's advertised or noted on the box, by a few mainstream reviews, and by watching or playing a little bit of the game with their child.

The end-user PoV of the technique used to unlock the sex in GTA(downloading and running a hack) can also add sex and nudity to any of a great # of PC games.

So really, it's no diffrent except that the media made everyone in the world aware of it.

I'm sure they do exist. But, to use your earlier choice of words, a decent parent really shouldn't be buying games like GTA for their 10-year old kids, reguardless. It's lazy, irresponsible parenting to say that it's okay for a child to play a game where he buys time with a prostitute, then beats said prostitute to death, but not okay to play a game where you hump a girl with all your clothes on.

In other words, as far as I'm concerned, the "odd parent" you described isn't a good one.

I'd agree if they were parents of 10-year olds. But what about those of 14, 15 and 16 year olds, who might be a little bit more relaxed about their kids being exposed to certain levels of violence and sexual content but still uncomfortable with actual interactive virtual sex? Obviously there is a difference between buying time with a prostitute, with most of the action merely implied, and showing the actual sex act, even with clothes on.

If there was no difference, and there's no line between the two, then the sex minigame would have been left in game as is instead of being tucked and hidden away. Rockstar for one seems to have thought that there was a difference, and that the difference would affect their rating.

Or thought a diffrence would be interpolated.

IMO, the minigame is MORE wholesome than the prostitute, simply because it ISN'T a prostitute, even if it's more graphic(and I use the term loosely) .

Why are we then so shocked that the game is receiving the rating that Rockstar anticipated receiving had the sex minigame been made available, now that it's been exposed and is being made available, requiring only a simple patch to activate it?

Because it's not actual game content?

There is a fundamental diffrence between an abandoned idea with half-completed code and malicious subversion of the ESRB and parental oversight.

And regardless of what we think of said "odd parent", what they deem appropriate or not is their call. It doesn't really follow that we shouldn't label media for what is actually on the disk (readily available or not), and let them make the final call, just because we disagree with their ideas about what's right or isn't right for the child, and where they draw the line.

I strongly feel that games should be rated on the ACTUAL game content, not on leftover vestiges of the development cycle that are NOT accessable through any normal game mechanism.

The argument is that any kid that's downloading the GTA sex patch is clearly interested in sex.

And clearly has an internet connection."

How about the kid whose parents actually monitor their internet usage and for whom downloading gigs of porn isn't quite as easy to get away with as a simple patch for a game? Or the kid who doesn't have an internet connection but who can get the patch slipped to him easily from a friend?

They can make any PC game pornographic, including such utterly wholesome games as Sims 2 and such senseless bloodbaths as Doom 3(Hell, Duke Nukem 3D contained strippers in-game... and yes, I realize I'm dating myself).

Or grab a nice copy of MAME and Gals Panic S. If y're gonna grab a porn game, it may as well be a fun one.

SO... any kid that's staring at fully clothed*, jagged, pixellated sex in GTA quite likely ALSO staring at high-res hardcore lesbian midget bondage porn on their PC. And no one's flipped out about that.

Er, I imagine many parents are flipped about that sort of thing.

I'm not hearing any media frenzies.

  There is a market out there for software that blocks adult sites from access. 

A. Most people don't use them.

B. They're legendary for their ineffectiveness.

And there are parents who seem to care about what their kids are consuming.

And they have kids that are quite adept at sneaking things in behind their backs.

  I guess I don't see why labelling a game for what's potentially in it is such a futile thing if it helps make parents aware of what's contained and aids them in drawing their own lines of acceptable versus unacceptable content.

Because rating on potential content means every game is AO.

Now whether polygonal, interactive sex with all of your clothes still on deserves an AO rating is another matter, of course.

Curious... What rating did the most recent Leisure Suit Larry title garner? Did it have content comparable to GTA's minigame?

Depends on which version you bought. The retail version was M-rated, but there was also an uncensored AO version that could be bought direct from the publisher.

I suspect, due to the existence of the censor bit in both versions of the game, that Rockstar was originally planning a similar dual release of GTA:SA, then decided it wasn't worth the effort and dropped work on the still-incomplete minigame(I believe I mentioned already that there ARE nude models on the disk, but no code to load them).

Also possible they ran into license conflicts with SCEA. Even SCEJapan is pretty vocal about no porn in games, I imagine SCEA simply won't license AO games. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they won't license an M-rated version of an AO game either.

Attention board quote tag parser! --^-. .-^--

Edited July 24, 2005 by JB0

[mikeszekely]

said bill will ALSO have a rider that a parent caught buying or renting an M rated game for a minor will be punished the same.

Stroke of genius. But I think the punishment should be more than a pissy fine. I think child endangerment charges should be filed against anyone who buys M-rated games for anyone under 15.

313534[/snapback]

And I think it's a parent's responsibilty to judge what is appropriate for their children, not the ESRB's, and certainly not Congress's.

If a parent believes that Parasite Eve, Metroid Prime, or Metal Gear Solid 3 is appropriate for their child, then they should be able to buy it for them.

PARTICULARLY as the average M-rated video game is far less offensive than the average R-rated movie, which has no such restrictions.

313536[/snapback]

I'll disagree... half-heartedly, though.

I'm a conservative Republican, so I'm inclined to agree that the less government intervention, the better. And I also do, for the most part, believe in a parent's right to determine what is and isn't appropriate for their children. And I agree 100% that R-rated, and even some PG-13-rated games (Aliens vs. Predator, for example) are actually far worse than many M-rated games. I see that, though, as a failing of both the MPAA and the ESRB... the MPAA is willing to let quite a bit slide, because PG-13 movies sell better than R, and the ESRB doesn't let enough slide. Parents assume that because, say, Halo is okay, and it's rated M, that GTA isn't any worse, because it carries the same rating.

However, things like buying alchohol or cigarettes for minors are illegal. I believe so is child negligence, and a certain ammount of that has to be going on for parents to be buying this kind of stuff for their kids. I'll concede that parents may choose to be more lenient about what kind of content their children can and can't have when they're a bit older, which was why I originally suggested 15. But from my time at Gamestop, I'd say probably half the copies of GTA I sold were for children younger than 15. And frankly, I'm tired of lazy parents who can't be bothered to monitor what their children are doing/playing, I'm tired of irresponsible parents who buy games like that for their children, even after being warned that the game really is appropriate, especially when they throw fits upon discovering that the game really wasn't appropriate (usually through the news, mind you, because again they really can't be bothered to have watched their child play the game to see what kind of content was really in the game), and I'm especially tired of this liberal "blame everything but the criminal" attitude that's become so prevalent in society whenever someone, especially a minor, commits a violent crime. And if a few tougher laws will force some of those people to get off their asses and start parenting, I'm for it.

In other words, I agree that it's not the government's job to tell you how to parent your kids... but the government does make laws to protect children from other examples of parental negligence. I don't see this one as that much different.

Oh, and BTW, Metroid Prime had a T-rating.

[Druna Skass]

Just my 2 cents...

I'd say a lot of the crap hitting the fan is from the misconception that video games are just for kids. There are movies for kids and adults, TV shows for kids and adults, why do these people have such a hard time grasping the concept that there are video games for kids and video games for adults.

Man if they think GTA is bad, I invite them to take a trip to Japan with me...

[JB0]

Oh, and BTW, Metroid Prime had a T-rating.

313778[/snapback]

Whoop.

Anyways...

Xenogears was T too. And it had boobs!111

[ogami]

Just my 2 cents...

I'd say a lot of the crap hitting the fan is from the misconception that video games are just for kids. There are movies for kids and adults, TV shows for kids and adults, why do these people have such a hard time grasping the concept that there are video games for kids and video games for adults.

Man if they think GTA is bad, I invite them to take a trip to Japan with me... 

313783[/snapback]

[joke] haha... let's buy some H game... [/joke]

[MGREXX]

Now the land of the rising sun spills the "hot coffee".

Link

[JB0]

Now the land of the rising sun spills the "hot coffee".

Link

314013[/snapback]

Not minigame-related. GTA3 != GTA:SAn Andreas.

[Kin]

Oooh! Oohhh! Ooohh!! Yeaahhh!! Your're da mang!!

[Sundown]

The end-user PoV of the technique used to unlock the sex in GTA(downloading and running a hack) can also add sex and nudity to any of a great # of PC games.

So really, it's no diffrent except that the media made everyone in the world aware of it.

But at the same time, most of the content was created by the developer. From a distributor/publisher/author PoV, the content was placed there by themselves.

If we rate media purely on what's needed to be done in order access the content, then we should have no concerns if some company started to release children's games with hours of hardcore porn encoded that can be accessed by a registry tweak.

Sure, it'd be silly to rate Tomb-Raider AO because of a nude patch, but if the criterion lies solely on what action the end user must take-- on whether the action is documented or not-- then we should have no problem with games rated for children with hidden porn.

There is a fundamental diffrence between an abandoned idea with half-completed code and malicious subversion of the ESRB and parental oversight.

So I guess we'd agree here that games shouldn't be rated solely on what end-user actions are required to access certain types of content. I'd agree that intent should factor in on how a game's rated... but the consumer doesn't care whether Rockstar meant for the content to be there, but whether it is there, and whether their child can get at it easily. In addition to looking at the end-user action needed to unlock certain content and the intention of developers when they placed it there, I feel that content authors should have some level of responsibility over what they knowingly allow on a disk. It's sloppy development at best and a somewhat cavalier attitude towards the rating system at worst.

I'm not hearing any media frenzies.

I don't think media frenzies are a good measure of large-scale parental concerns. "Parents Distress Over Online Porn" does not make for a very interesting headline or story, and just because we don't see such media coverage doesn't mean parents don't care wholesale. A better headline would have been "No, Duh!"

Shock is a stronger indicator of initial reactions to new developments than it is an indicator of concern over persistant problems. School peer-shootings no longer shock us as they once did, but I think parents still care deeply for their kids' safety at school.

There is a market out there for software that blocks adult sites from access. 

A. Most people don't use them.

B. They're legendary for their ineffectiveness.

But we were discussing whether parents were concerned, not whether such measures were effective. I believe the market for them indicates a concern over children accessing porn. Whether they're used probably says more about whether parents find such software too intrusive and too ineffective, and whether they trust their own attempts to monitor their children's net use.

And yes, there are lazy parents out there. But I wager that many of those lazy parents still "care" on some level.

And there are parents who seem to care about what their kids are consuming.

And they have kids that are quite adept at sneaking things in behind their backs.

True. So should we stop rating entertainment as a measure to help parents parent? Should we make widely available to kids all the things they'd be sneaking around their parents backs anyhow?

The following arguments against rating GTA as AO-- "Kids see harder-core porn anyway." "You can't stop them however much you care." "They're already sneaking worse things behind your back"-- can also be applied towards other titles and genres. We can even apply this rationale to towards pornography itself. Kids can get the stuff for free and much more easily online. So why rate adult DVD's and magazines? Why make it illegal to sell such material to children?

I just don't find the "kids might be getting at worse if they're inclined" argument a particularly good one for justifying passivity and inaction. It does however, do a good job of making us feel better about doing nothing, because we've already concluded that nothing can be done.

Now, I'll concede that rating something like GTA as AO might not be an appropriate action. But even so, I still think this defeatist line of thinking is a little weak and one that says more about amblivalence and our culture's love for being flippant about real issues, than it really does about what should or shouldn't be done to help parents along. Even if GTA shouldn't be re-rated and taken off Wal-mart's shelves, the fact that some kids are seeing porn online should not be the reason why. We shouldn't be using poor reasoning to reach correct conclusions.

Because rating on potential content means every game is AO.

Not if we're rating on content--code, artwork, animations-- that's actually placed there by the developers. Then only cases like GTA are potentially AO... although this brings to scrutiny how much end-user or third-party action is necessary for a title to be rated adult-only. But if we don't rate at least somewhat on potential content, then that means developers are free to do much worse than GTA with impunity, and leave much more explicit material hidden on disk, so long as their content is not accessible through "normal play". I'm not sure that's a good thing either.

Perhaps the best thing would be for publishers to police their own studios, and demand that no content should be left in the final gold masters that could affect the rating, hidden or otherwise. But I'm not sure what motivation they'd have to do that, outside of the one the ESRB just game them, rating essentially on potential content, I mean.

Depends on which version you bought. The retail version was M-rated, but there was also an uncensored AO version that could be bought direct from the publisher.

I suspect, due to the existence of the censor bit in both versions of the game, that Rockstar was originally planning a similar dual release of GTA:SA

So does the retail version of LSL allow you to change it to the AO version by simple tweaking? If so, it does show an inconsistency in how GTA:SA and LSL were rated... but at the same time, it's pretty obvious what sort of content you were going to get in LSL. Sex, and maybe more of it. GTA is more about senseless violence, criminality, and brief sexual innuendo. And it's because of its mainstream acceptance and the fact that somehow one doesn't naturally expect more explicit sex in the game, for whatever reason, that we have the media frenzy we do.

-Al

Edited to fix quotes and grammar. =P

Edited July 25, 2005 by Sundown

[JB0]

The end-user PoV of the technique used to unlock the sex in GTA(downloading and running a hack) can also add sex and nudity to any of a great # of PC games.

So really, it's no diffrent except that the media made everyone in the world aware of it.

But at the same time, most of the content was created by the developer. So content on disk was placed there by the authors of the title, whether it was easily accessible or not. From a distributor/publisher/author PoV, the content was placed there by themselves.

If we rate media purely on the end-user PoV of what's needed to be done in order access the content, then we should have no concerns if some company started to release children's games with hours of hardcore porn encoded that can be accessed by a registry tweak.

Sure, it'd be silly to rate Tomb-Raider AO because of a nude patch, but if the criterion lies solely on what action the end user must take-- on whether the action is documented or not-- then we should have no problem with games rated for children with hidden porn.

My POINT was that the only way to get this is by downloading and installing a hack.

And there are a great many games that have had porn added to them through a hack.

And I AM considering the target market here.

If Rockstar had a half-finished sex game in "Care Bears: The Secret of the Hidden Candy Cane" it'd be an issue, regardless of whether the thing was unlockable or not.

There is a fundamental diffrence between an abandoned idea with half-completed code and malicious subversion of the ESRB and parental oversight.

So I guess we'd agree here that games shouldn't be rated solely on what end-user actions are required to access certain types of content. I'd agree that intent should factor in on how a game's rated... but the consumer doesn't care whether Rockstar meant for the content to be there, but whether it is there, and whether their child can get at it easily. In addition to looking at the end-user action needed to unlock certain content and the intention of developers when they placed it there, I feel that content authors should have some level of responsibility over what they knowingly allow on a disk. It's sloppy development at best and a somewhat cavalier attitude towards the rating system at worst.

It may be sloppy, but it is(or should I say has been, as this has ramifications across the industry) standard practice.

Heck, cheat codes started as development aids that no one wanted to crawl through assembly code removing.

And the consumers getting beant out of shape over this are the ones that shouldn't have bought their kids Grand Theft Auto to begin with.

I'm not hearing any media frenzies.

I don't think media frenzies are a good measure of large-scale parental concerns. "Parents Distress Over Online Porn" does not make for a very interesting headline or story, and just because we don't see such media coverage doesn't mean parents don't care wholesale. A better headline would have been "No, Duh!"

*chuckles*

True.

There is a market out there for software that blocks adult sites from access. 

A. Most people don't use them.

B. They're legendary for their ineffectiveness.

But we were discussing whether parents were concerned, not whether such measures are effective.  I believe the market for them indicates a concern over children accessing porn.  And whether they're used probably says more about whether the parents find such software too intrusive and too ineffective, and whether they trust their own attempts at monitoring their kids use

If I recall, the primary consumers of such software aren't parents, but schools, libraries, and other public access places.

...

I had an actual point, but I got distracted, and forgot it.

And there are parents who seem to care about what their kids are consuming.

And they have kids that are quite adept at sneaking things in behind their backs.

True.  So should we stop attempting to rate games and take measures to help parents parent? 

I have no objection to the ratings. I just don't feel GTA should be re-rated based on disabled content.

All the arguments against rating GTA as AO-- "Kids see harder-core porn anyway." "You can't stop them however much you care." "They're already sneaking worse things behind your back"-- can also be applied towards other titles and genres.

Actually, my primary argument was that ANY game can be hacked to add sex and nudity. Whether GTA's hack is smaller than most is irrelevant.

We can even apply this rationale justifying inaction towards pornographic DVD's and magazines themselves. "Kids can get it for free and much more easily online. Why rate adult DVD's and magazines as AO?"

You actually make a reasonably decent case. Particularly given kids already manage to sneak into R movies and pick up Playboys anyways.

I just don't find the "kids might be getting at worse if they're inclined" argument a particularly good one for justifying passivity and inaction. It does however, do a good job of make us feel better about doing nothing, because we've already concluded that nothing can be done.

Like I said, it wasn't my primary argument.

But everyone's acting like the game's exposing pure virgin eyes to the evils of sex.

Aside from the actaul offensiveness of the content being HIGHLY debatable in the context of the game(I think I mentioned that I suspect it to be the most moral event in the game), the eyes viewing "hot coffee" are anything BUT virgin in 99.9% of cases(the stuff in the crotch area may very well be, but that's another thread entirely).

Because rating on potential content means every game is AO.

Not if we're rating on content--code, artwork, animations-- that's actually placed there by the developers. Then only cases like GTA are potentially AO... although this brings to scrutiny how much end-user or third-party action is necessary for a title to be rated adult-only.

I still think it's silly to re-rate a game based on content that can't be accessed without altering the game.

But if we don't rate at least somewhat on potential content, then that means developers are free to do much worse than GTA with impunity, and leave much more explicit material hidden on disk, so long as their content is not accessible through "normal play". I'm not sure that's a good thing either.

Fortunately the shock tactic is quite rarely used in the industry.

And to date, I don't think a single developer has seen fit to expend the effort on a feature they intend to not be in the release with the exception of debugging tools.

Perhaps the best thing would be for publishers to police their own studios, and demand that no content should be left in the final gold masters that could affect the rating, hidden or otherwise. But I'm not sure what motivation they'd have to do that, outside of the one the ESRB just game them, rating essentially on potential content, I mean.

Well, there's the possibility of name damage. Take 2 dodged a bullet on this one, as everybody knows Rockstar.

Many games the developer gets brushed under the rug and the publisher takes all the credit/blame.

I can't tell you how many times I've gone off because someone talked about how awesome Enix's Star Ocean and Valkyrie Profile games were, or Atari's Ikaruga.

Depends on which version you bought. The retail version was M-rated, but there was also an uncensored AO version that could be bought direct from the publisher.

I suspect, due to the existence of the censor bit in both versions of the game, that Rockstar was originally planning a similar dual release of GTA:SA

So does the retail version of LSL allow you to change it to the AO version by simple tweaking? Dunno actually.

If so, it does show an inconsistency in how GTA:SA and LSL were rated... but at the same time, it's pretty obvious what sort of content you were going to get in LSL. Sex, and maybe more of it. GTA is more about senseless violence, criminality, and brief sexual innuendo.

GOGO HOOKERS!

But each GTA has, as far as I know, been increasingly more offensive than the previous instalment.

Not that I actually expect non-gamers to actually track diffrences between installments, but IF they did, it would've been obvious that it was only a matter of time before something like this happened.

And it's because of its mainstream acceptance and the fact that somehow one doesn't naturally expect more explicit sex in the game, for whatever reason, that we have the media frenzy we do.

There's a LOT of interesting commentary you could make on asociety that accepts the depiction and glorification of drug dealing, murder, the titular grand theft auto, and whatever else is in there(I've talked to some people that make a show out of ramming airplanes into skyscrapers...) as reasonable fun, but when you throw sex between a man and a woman in a (as I understand it) monogamous relationship into the mix it becomes totally unacceptable. But that's a whole 'nother thread or 12. On a forum with more interest in the political debates that will arise.

Edited to fix quotes. =P

314066[/snapback]

Been there, done that, cursed the board.

Aww, gundammit. I'm doing it now, too.

Attention Invision! I HATE YOUR QUOTE PARSER!

--^-. .-^--

[Sundown]

My POINT was that the only way to get this is by downloading and installing a hack.

And there are a great many games that have had porn added to them through a hack.

And my point was that there's a difference in hacking a game and adding pornographic content created by a third, unauthorized, party-- and prodding a simple bit to access porn created by the developers themselves.

And I AM considering the target market here.

If Rockstar had a half-finished sex game in "Care Bears: The Secret of the Hidden Candy Cane" it'd be an issue, regardless of whether the thing was unlockable or not.

Yeah, I'd agree that target audience matters. I'd say that it probably matters more than whether a user has to perform an incantation to get at the content or not.

It may be sloppy, but it is(or should I say has been, as this has ramifications across the industry) standard practice.

Heck, cheat codes started as development aids that no one wanted to crawl through assembly code removing.

Cheat codes and development aids are a different animal from actual content that could affect a game's rating... especially content that lets you control every pelvic thrust. So in retrospect, I think GTA's guilty of more than sloppy development. They're at least guilty of sloppy development involving objectionable material.

Like I said, it wasn't my primary argument.

But everyone's acting like the game's exposing pure virgin eyes to the evils of sex.

I don't think the fact that kids see sex elsewhere makes for any sort of argument on how entertainment should be rated. And I don't think anyone's claiming that the game somehow offends virgin eyes, and if they do, they're silly. Regardless, I don't think whereever else kids might get access to objectionable material is even remotely relevant to deciding what the appropriate action should be.

There's a LOT of interesting commentary you could make on asociety that accepts the depiction and glorification of drug dealing, murder, the titular grand theft auto, and whatever else is in there(I've talked to some people that make a show out of ramming airplanes into skyscrapers...) as reasonable fun, but  when you throw sex between a man and a woman in a (as I understand it) monogamous relationship into the mix it becomes totally unacceptable.

Well, I'm guessing that many of those who are finding the sex minigame unacceptable are those who were uncomfortable with the game's premise in the first place. And many of those who are perfectly fine with the minigame's inclusion were already endeared to the game. I don't think anyone out there has drastically changed their tune to the game over the sex minigame.

And of course we know the thing that actually offends some isn't the monogamy. The offense is in the portrayal of explicit sex acts as entertainment (and made available to those who might be minors).

For what it's worth, many of those who value monogamy also value sex as something so intimate and personal that it shouldn't be experienced except by two people in the actual act with each other. Here, ultimate monogamy means having the one same partner for life, and not just having one partner in any single period of time. In this view, sex shared with a third party is not truly monogamous, and sex experienced vicariously in a video game or movie is a cheapening of real and actual monogamous sex, even when it pretends to portray such a thing.

Does the sex mini-game do even that? I assume you can continue to access prostitutes throughout the game if you wish to.

At any rate, it's not like society actually shuns depictions of monogamy and embraces gangland violence... our attitudes regarding sex rise from the original belief that in its very depiction and vicarious participation, we actually undermine the core of its monogamous nature. Society's desire for freedom from sexual mores has brought us to where we are today-- where whatever's left of these attitudes manifest themselves as knee-jerk reactions, and we're offended at the sight of sex without knowing why. We've never had such strong sentiments about the depiction of violence, however-- where we feel watching violence and criminality actually undermines peace, or that it inherently causes lawlessness and harm to others.

Edited to fix quotes. =P

314066[/snapback]

Been there, done that, cursed the board.

Aww, gundammit. I'm doing it now, too.

Attention Invision! I HATE YOUR QUOTE PARSER!

--^-. .-^--

314081[/snapback]

Tell me about it. Seems like one broken quote command mucks all of them up in this new version of Invision.

-Al

Edited July 26, 2005 by Sundown

[MGREXX]

HEHEHE!!!!!!

Just when we thought that RockStar and Take-two had gotten away with this whole controversy..............BAM!!!!!!

LINK!!!!!

Edited July 26, 2005 by MGREXX

[Sundown]

For what it's worth, in the ESRB's own words:

"GS: My read of your statement yesterday suggests that the ESRB is directing its energy toward modders, not publishers, and is, in effect, saying it's worse to unlock adult-rated content than to put it in the game in the first place.

PV (ESRB President): We're not saying that at all. What we're saying is that if you, as publisher, produce content that's pertinent to a rating, and leave it on a disc--risking that it might be accessed by a modder--then it's your responsibility. And if it undermines the accuracy of the rating, it's your responsibility.

It's up to publishers to take action against third-party modders, not ours. Our only obligation is to make sure that the rating is accurate. The publisher is responsible for creating content. If they then leave it on the disc and it undermines the effectiveness of the rating, then we have no choice but to take action. We're actually putting responsibility solely in the publishers' hands."

GS: Do you believe Rockstar knew that this undisclosed content was on the disc that was submitted for duplication?

PV: That doesn't matter to the ESRB. That's never been a factor that we weigh. If it's on the disc, it's on the disc, whether you're aware of it or not. The publisher is always responsible for disclosing all the content on the disc; that [responsibility has] got to lie with the publisher.

"Undermines the effectiveness of the rating" is probably the most cogent argument I've seen supporting GTA being re-rated.

The ESRB simply rates for what's actually on a disc and if it can be gotten to. Not on why it's there, how it got there, what the original intent was, what discrepancy there is between the hidden content and the target audience, or how to get at it. Simplistic, yes. But there you have it, the ESRB's policy. When developers allow objectionable content on a disc, they take the fate of their game's rating into their own hands.

Link to the whole article: http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/21/news_6129557.html

And the government is being silly. It's highly unlikely that Rockstar did what they did in order to circumvent the rating while making porn available to the masses. But let's waste some money making sure.

-Al

Edited July 26, 2005 by Sundown

[Gunbuster]

WOW! I like seeing our Tax money at work here I would think there are more serious issue than this for our goverment to spend time on

HEHEHE!!!!!!

Just when we thought that RockStar and Take-two had gotten away with this whole controversy..............BAM!!!!!!

LINK!!!!!

314140[/snapback]

[JB0]

And my point was that there's a difference in hacking a game and adding pornographic content created by a third, unauthorized, party-- and prodding a simple bit to access porn created by the developers themselves.

*shrugs*

I just don't see it as being all that diffrent.

If you can download the hot coffee mod(either the censor flag tool that leaves you with clothed sex or the full mod that adds code to load the nude models and features a "trainer" feature that leaves you dating all the girls at once), then you could just as easily have pulled down the naked Sims 2 hack(TWO of which are in the top 5 downloads at FilePlanet right now), the naked Quake 3 models(a pack of which is currently the 2nd most popular Q3 download according to FilePlanet), or a # of other hacks and mods.

So IMO, the only argument that really holds water is the cheat device code to flip the bit in the PS2 version.

Honestly, if it weren't for the political fallout, it'd be nothing more than an interesting look into the development process IMO.

Yeah, I'd agree that target audience matters. I'd say that it probably matters more than whether a user has to perform an incantation to get at the content or not.

*shrugs*

There's just something wrong with even considering Care Bears sex games.

Cheat codes and development aids are a different animal from actual content that could affect a game's rating... especially content that lets you control every pelvic thrust. So in retrospect, I think GTA's guilty of more than sloppy development. They're at least guilty of sloppy development involving objectionable material.

I'm just saying...

The industry is riddled with discarded gameplay concepts, half-finished areas, and incomplete minigames. This one just happens to be racier than most.

Well, I'm guessing that many of those who are finding the sex minigame unacceptable are those who were uncomfortable with the game's premise in the first place. And many of those who are perfectly fine with the minigame's inclusion were already endeared to the game. I don't think anyone out there has drastically changed their tune to the game over the sex minigame.

*raises hand*

I don't particulalry care for GTA, despite my defense of the game.

And another game under development by Rockstar has earned them my hatred, as opposed to just apathy. But I'd rather not go into that here.

And of course we know the thing that actually offends some isn't the monogamy. The offense is in the portrayal of explicit sex acts as entertainment (and made available to those who might be minors).

Like I said, it's actually fully-clothed sex. Somewhat racier than prime-time TV, but not more so than an R-rated movie.

But the fact that people are more offended by depictions of sex(and yes, I DO feel the fact that it's monogamous is relevant) than by killing cops, running over injured people with stolen ambulances, and flying airplanes into towers is... odd, to say the least.

And I assume people ARE more offended, since none of the other events in the game set off NEAR this much fuss.

For what it's worth, many of those who value monogamy also value sex as something so intimate and personal that it shouldn't be experienced except by two people in the actual act with each other. Here, ultimate monogamy means having the one same partner for life, and not just having one partner in any single period of time. In this view, sex shared with a third party is not truly monogamous, and sex experienced vicariously in a video game or movie is a cheapening of real and actual monogamous sex, even when it pretends to portray such a thing.

Bah. I still say it's the most moral event in the game.

Does the sex mini-game do even that? I assume you can continue to access prostitutes throughout the game if you wish to.

Damn you. Damn you to Wisconsin.

At any rate, it's not like society actually shuns depictions of monogamy and embraces gangland violence... our attitudes regarding sex rise from the original belief that in its very depiction and vicarious participation, we actually undermine the core of its monogamous nature. Society's desire for freedom from sexual mores has brought us to where we are today-- where whatever's left of these attitudes manifest themselves as knee-jerk reactions, and we're offended at the sight of sex without knowing why. We've never had such strong sentiments about the depiction of violence, however-- where we feel watching violence and criminality actually undermines peace, or that it inherently causes lawlessness and harm to others.

It's still interesting that society gets more bent out of shape over a little sexuality(or even just implied sexuality in many cases) than it does senseless violence, even when it's absurdly overdone and gory.

Edited to fix quotes. =P

Been there, done that, cursed the board.

Aww, gundammit. I'm doing it now, too.

Attention Invision! I HATE YOUR QUOTE PARSER!

--^-. .-^--

Tell me about it. Seems like one broken quote command mucks all of them up in this new version of Invision.

-Al

But as near as I can tell, I didn't break a tag. I ran through multiple times and counted the pairs. I think it just has a limit to how many it can parse.

I've had this problem on another Invision board. And I've been running out metric buttloads of quote tags for ages.

[azrael]

Edited to fix quotes. =P

Been there, done that, cursed the board.

Aww, gundammit. I'm doing it now, too.

Attention Invision! I HATE YOUR QUOTE PARSER!

--^-. .-^--

Tell me about it. Seems like one broken quote command mucks all of them up in this new version of Invision.

-Al

But as near as I can tell, I didn't break a tag. I ran through multiple times and counted the pairs. I think it just has a limit to how many it can parse.

I've had this problem on another Invision board. And I've been running out metric buttloads of quote tags for ages.

314176[/snapback]

If you can boldface your way through a post, then you can use quotes.

[Skull Leader]

It's the man trying to keep you down, JBO.

[JB0]

Edited to fix quotes. =P

Been there, done that, cursed the board.

Aww, gundammit. I'm doing it now, too.

Attention Invision! I HATE YOUR QUOTE PARSER!

--^-. .-^--

Tell me about it. Seems like one broken quote command mucks all of them up in this new version of Invision.

-Al

But as near as I can tell, I didn't break a tag. I ran through multiple times and counted the pairs. I think it just has a limit to how many it can parse.

I've had this problem on another Invision board. And I've been running out metric buttloads of quote tags for ages.

314176[/snapback]

If you can boldface your way through a post, then you can use quotes.

314179[/snapback]

All I did was replace the word quote with the letter b. A replacement I did because it exploded.

It's the man trying to keep you down, JBO. 

314180[/snapback]

Damn right. The man hates people that use lots of quote tags.

And people that use zeros in their names.

[mikeszekely]

And my point was that there's a difference in hacking a game and adding pornographic content created by a third, unauthorized, party-- and prodding a simple bit to access porn created by the developers themselves.

In practice, what is the actual difference? The ammount of work the hacker creating the mod has to do. The end result is the same... PC user buys game, installs game, downloads mod, installs mod, and gets to play at sex.

The ESRB is supposed to rate the content in the retail version of a game. The ESRB shouldn't rate a game based on content deliberately disabled (because actually going through all the code, removing it, and then going back and making sure everything else still works takes a lot longer and is much more work) that requires a hack or mod to access. That's a step away from rating games based on hacks and mods that add content instead of merely enable disabled content... something that some people are already calling for. From there, games would have to be rated based on potential content from aftermarket modders, which as JB0 already said, would have every game carrying an AO-rating. And that, more than anything Rockstar did, underminds the ESRB's ratings.

Regardless, I don't think whereever else kids might get access to objectionable material is even remotely relevant to deciding what the appropriate action should be.

But do you honestly think that the appropriate action was taken? The ESRB took a game that was already rated M for a number of valid reasons, and re-rated it AO for content deliberately disabled that, in depicting sex acts with clothes on, would probably only get a PG-13 rating in a movie. Sorry, all I see is the ESRB caving to political pressure, and Rockstar suffering as the victim of an anti-gaming lobby.

"Undermines the effectiveness of the rating" is probably the most cogent argument I've seen supporting GTA being re-rated.

As I already stated, I think re-rating the game based on disabled content undermines the ESRB's effectiveness more than Rockstar having disabled content on the disc and not submitting it for rating because it wouldn't show up normally in the retail version.

*raises hand*

I don't particulalry care for GTA, despite my defense of the game.

Oddly enough, I'm in the same boat, JB0. If this was about taking a totally amoral game to task, there is plenty of other legitimate content in the game to work with. I'll be the first one to say that sometimes, with the stuff in GTA and Manhunt, Rockstar shows less artistic integrity and more violence and controversy simply because violence and controversy sell.

But focusing on deliberately disabled content as cause for having a game re-rated is a whole other can of worms that has ramifications that go beyond GTA, Rockstar, Take-Two, or the money retailers will lose from selling GTA. I don't agree at all with where the anti-game lobby and the government are going with this, and I'm dissapointed that the ESA lacked the courage and integrity to stand behind what was a proper M-rating.

[Skull Leader]

Damn right. The man hates people that use lots of quote tags.

And people that use zeros in their names.

314186[/snapback]

LOL F*$K the man! You use all the quotes you want! And I'd add an extra Zero to your name just to spite him!

[Blaine23]

GTA: San Andreas is probably my favorite video game ever.

That being said, I probably wouldn't let my kid play it... unless I thought my kid was old enough and mature enough to understand the difference between gameplay and reality (ie - not retarded or under a certain age).

That being said, I can handle those decisions myself and I don't really need the U.S. Government to help me out there. I'm not really sure who does. I'd rather the U.S. Government work a little harder to take care of more important issues... like that uh... war in Iraq, uh... the deficit, uh... world politics, etc.

No offense, elected officials... but deal with governmental issues and let me deal with parenting, etc.

[JB0]

The ESRB is supposed to rate the content in the retail version of a game.  The ESRB shouldn't rate a game based on content deliberately disabled (because actually going through all the code, removing it, and then going back and making sure everything else still works takes a lot longer and is much more work) that requires a hack or mod to access.  That's a step away from rating games based on hacks and mods that add content instead of merely enable disabled content...

Maybe the "content changes in online play" label on MMORPGs will be adapted for every PC game.

"Content changes with unauthorized patches."

[azrael]

The ESRB is supposed to rate the content in the retail version of a game. The ESRB shouldn't rate a game based on content deliberately disabled (because actually going through all the code, removing it, and then going back and making sure everything else still works takes a lot longer and is much more work) that requires a hack or mod to access. ...And that, more than anything Rockstar did, underminds the ESRB's ratings.

I think we start getting legal at this point. It can be argued that because the content was disabled in the retail version, it was not part of the game and therefore, should not be taken into account of the ESRB's rating (it should go back to a M-rating. This only way to access this stuff was through a mod/hack/3rd party. It's not playable content and should not be taken into account.

The otherside is, the content is on the freakin disc making it part of the game, per se. This does undermind the ESRB's system and does make Rockstar liable. Rockstar was suppose to say what was on the disc (I'm sure there is something in writing for this) and by omitting some things, you are underminding the ESRB's system. I'm sure this will be the argument and that it will get quite specific.

Sorry, all I see is the ESRB caving to political pressure, and Rockstar suffering as the victim of an anti-gaming lobby.

Rockstar has been target of lots of stuff lately. This is just adding fuel to the fire. I'm more concerned with the hardware issues GTA:SA is having than a little pr0n.

But focusing on deliberately disabled content as cause for having a game re-rated is a whole other can of worms that has ramifications that go beyond GTA, Rockstar, Take-Two, or the money retailers will lose from selling GTA. I don't agree at all with where the anti-game lobby and the government are going with this, and I'm dissapointed that the ESA lacked the courage and integrity to stand behind what was a proper M-rating.

Politics.